Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.

[fusangite]

What about DMs who feel that their NPCs are AS important to the game as the PCs are?

Those would be the DMs I don't play with.

 

[haakon1]

But I do resent when an NPC comes into a party and they are a high level and they are just so much better than the PCs that they take on a major role not leaving room for anyone else. At that point I wonder why am I even at the table why doesn't the DM rollup some more characters and play my himself.

I don't understand. I've never been in an RPG I "resented". I can only very vaguely remember a game of GURPS that was lame, so I only played once . . . maybe the difference is that most of the people I've played D&D with I either taught the game or reminded them it existed, so we think alike? I dunno.

Anyhow . . . the only time I've introduced more powerful characters who actually adventured with the party, as opposed to a walk on conversational/Basil Exposition role, they were old PC's of other players. Actually, in both cases, these were PC's of players who are DM's, but of their own campaigns, not mine. I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing in a more powerful character developed in another campaign, but I have some pretty strict rules on incoming characters:
1) The character must have been homegrown, from 1st level. Every single level must always be earned -- if you want a new character, you start at 1st again, not the average of the party.
2) I check the stats and the gear thoroughly to make sure it looks "right". No test on GP value, just nothing completely broken.
3) The character has to have history in Greyhawk, where I run my games, or a plausible in game reason they got there from elsewhere.

One of the two more powerful characters was grown up from 1st level in a different campaign I run, and this was a way of exposing a newer party to the wider world. It fit the campaign arc, it suited the player (who was switching characters), and it didn't seem to disrupt anything.

The other was a player's first ever character -- with all the sentimental attachments that come with that -- who had retired near where the action was happening. The PC's actually needed a savior to prevent a TP+KoBK -- Total Party + Keep on the Borderlands Kill, resulting from me having much of the Caves of Chaos assault the Keep after one too many PC raids. Tossing an 8th level ranger in to help their 3rd level party and army of peasants didn't seem crazy, since they were sending out messangers, magically contacting birds, etc. for help. And the players didn't mind at all -- I've been told that insane, 180 round dozens of characters struggling across the Keep fight was the best fight EVAR.

I've never brought in a higher level PC that I, as DM, raised. But not because it's inherently "wrong", just because it's never seemed to fit the plot at hand. I do like to use my own -- and others -- retired characters as NPCs.

Another thought on NPCs versus "DMPCs" . . . often I let new players "guest star" by taking over an NPC or sometimes a DMPC party member . . . of the 8 characters in my email campaign, two were born as module NPCs . . . one is effectively a DMPC, the other is a real player character now. And a third character is a PC inherited by another player. And a fourth is a PC who's player was absent -- with me running the character -- for a while, and now back to being played as a PC again. In an email game, anyhow, it seems that characters are just characters, where voiced by Connery or Moore or the new guy.

 

[haakon1]

He & his cohort can place a drag on my attention span so that has to be managed, no two ways about that.

That's definitely an issue in a live game (doesn't matter over email). Actually, much more of an issue in 3e, especially at higher levels, that in 1st Edition. DMing is a LOT more tedious and tiring in terms of rule juggling now, if you attempt strictly adhere to the many rules.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Those would be the DMs I don't play with.

Interesting. Why's that?

 

[Dagger of Lath]

Imagicka. Your definition of DMPC appears to be somewhere between "any NPC that I dislike" and "Mary Sue". I don't really think that this definition is any more helpful or useful than words like "loser", which aside from a generally pejorative statement of feeling don't really define the target precisely. Wouldn't calling such a character a Mary Sue NPC be more precise to your definition while not destroying a potentially useful term with pejorative connotations?

In my opinion, the term DMPC is most useful when it carries this definition:

A DMPC is a specific designation of NPC, defined by the fact that it is a character of the same level as the PCs and participates in the adventures in a similar fashion to the PCs. Unlike a cohort, a DMPC is not attached to any specific character in the group and follows the same in-game rules as a PC.

If using that definition then we can more helpfully contribute that:

A DMPC can be a useful addition to a group of adventurers to fill a missing role in the group, or to allow a round-robin style of DMing in which players rotate between running and playing a character. Such a character type however sometimes has problems with a DM who employs such a character as a Mary Sue NPC, and applies favouritism to the DMPC over any of the PCs in the group. On the contrary it is essential that a DM keeps any DMPC in the background of the group and prevents them from overshadowing the characters.

I honestly feel that your definition is useless to any meaningful discussion of this particular form of NPC, which can be a feature in many games. Particularly those (as I've already pointed out) in which players rotate and take turns at being the DM.

The term NPC is broad, DMPC has a specific focus. It is essential to have a term that fills the definition I've provided above. DMPC works. It is not essential to add another pejorative to our vocabulary, especially when the Mary Sue term has already been invented to cover that same niche. Please stop trying to redefine this word in a negative context, you're not helping the discussion.

 

[Talmun]

Interesting. Why's that?

I can't speak for fusangite, but I always have thought that the PC's are the "stars" and the NPC's are background players. As Stalker0 said in this recent thread about what makes a good GM:

"The ability to make every player at the table at some point in the game feel cool and special."

I think that if the NPC's are just as important as the PC's it dims that feeling a bit.

 

[haakon1]

Well, evidently from your experience you had more experience with what I would consider to be an NPC than a DMPC. I think it goes without saying that any DM who plays a DMPC is a bad DM.

. . .

Personally, I’ve never seen a good DMPC. But that’s the distinction I make. If it’s a good DMPC, then it’s not a DMPC, it’s an NPC. . . . as I showed up, he slipped into his old bad habits.

So are you against bad DM's, or are you saying that by definition, any DM who uses party-member NPC and grows found of it must be bad? If the latter, that's seems a bit broad.

I think the party-member NPC/DM PC is just an option tool, kinda like using or not using mechanical pencils. I don't see the bearing on the goodness or badness of the DM usng the tool.

If I’m ever forced to have a party NPC more often than not they are nerfed, incompetent, bumbling and far inferior to the other PCs, and realized as being comic-relief with a handful of skills that the PCs are lacking, who’d ultimately get killed at the first chance.

I'm so sick of bumbling sidekick NPCs! Any DM who uses them is a bad DM, since they're all ripped off the move "Stagecoach".

Then there are the artists that understand that they are nothing without the audience.
. . .
The GM is nothing without the players. A GM without players is just another unpublished writer.

I think you're right that a GM without players is just another unpublished writer.

But I think you're wrong to implicitly denigrate that. The reason artists are traditionally "starving" artists? Because they don't make the stuff for the Holiday Inn sale of the month -- they make what satisfies them as an artist. Sometimes that sells; sometimes it doesn't.

If Lord of the Rings wasn't accepted for publication, Tolkien would still be a genius . . . we just wouldn't know it. It'd be really awesome if you found the manuscript, eh?

Being the DM doesn’t give you the right to do anything you want. It’s a tool to allow you to be creative as your imagination will allow. The trick is being imaginative, creative, entertaining enough to help create a story with players.

I disagree with the first part philosophically, but for all practical purposes, I do agree.

I'm a DM because I love creating this stuff, I enjoy the game more than the other folks so I don't get to play if I don't organize it, and to a much lesser extent it's an interesting challenge dealing with the three-ring circus of running a game. I enjoy giving it as a gift to my players, but if they don't want to play, no big deal. Somebody else will. I'll play it how I see it, because to compromise "my artistic integrity" by listening to the idea of "bad DM, you can't like your NPC's and treat them fully realized characters" just wouldn't suit me.

The funny thing is, I know Gygax would diss me for calling D&D art, and I see his point, but to me there does seem to be a similarity . . . not high art, or art with a large audience, but it fills the same needs to create and to express and to imagine, I think. I dunno, I'm just a singer, not a painter or whatever . . . who's sung to big audiences, small audiences, and myself . . . I just like it and the audience's opinion isn't the primary motivator.

 

[Illirion]

Hey,

I can't say that I'm really a super-experienced DM, but I currently do have an NPC tagging along with the party. In fact, the party's kinda tagging along with him.

The plot hook I thought of was that they would acompany a noble on a mission to deliver a package (they don't know whats in the package as well as what is going to be done with it). I've statted the noble as an expert focussed on diplomacy, gather information and other such personality skills (party doesn't have a charisma type-character). He also caries a blade, but has a lowsy attack roll and a bad strength score. The pc's are supposed to defend him throughout the journey and once the package has been delivered, he'll eventually leave and just become another friend to the party. He joins in fights only when he's sure he won't get hurt and even then, all he'll probably do is slash around a bit with his sword or fire a random crossbow bolt.

The players are a combat oriënted bunch, and although they often tell me they also like the non-combat bits, they truly light up everytime there is a combat and they get the chance to pull a cool move.

IMO the 'DMPC' in this situation does not steal the spotlight, hands out or posses information that makes him superior in the aspect of the game that the players want to succeed in the most.

Is this an example of a DMPC done right or am I still being unfair to the players?

I personally don't think it's wrong to have an NPC tag along with the party. You see it in books and movies all the time. The only thing that's important is that the DM doesn't see this as a means to be the hero in his own story, but merely a tool that the payers can use to become better heroes themselves.

I think the problem of the DMPC is that it's being seen as the incarnation of an inequality that exists in the game. The DM never gets to be the hero. He gets to create the world and steer the story, but he'll never actually get to be cool or feel like he's done a good job within the game (there are no in-game variables such as loot, damage or experience that give an indication of how well the DM is doing). The only thing that the DM can get satisfaction out of is the ammount of enjoyment the players had while playing the game (this is a kind of shady variable IMO for it is as difficult to achieve as it is to read).

IMO, people who create a DMPC to compensate for their lack of being able to win/feel cool/accomplish something, aren't supposed to be DMing. This doesn't mean that DMPC's are bad. It just says that they're the most simple (and powerful) tool to abuse and should be used responsably.

Cheers,
Illirion.

 

[Elf Witch]

I don't understand. I've never been in an RPG I "resented". I can only very vaguely remember a game of GURPS that was lame, so I only played once . . . maybe the difference is that most of the people I've played D&D with I either taught the game or reminded them it existed, so we think alike? I dunno.

Anyhow . . . the only time I've introduced more powerful characters who actually adventured with the party, as opposed to a walk on conversational/Basil Exposition role, they were old PC's of other players. Actually, in both cases, these were PC's of players who are DM's, but of their own campaigns, not mine. I don't think there's anything wrong with bringing in a more powerful character developed in another campaign, but I have some pretty strict rules on incoming characters:
1) The character must have been homegrown, from 1st level. Every single level must always be earned -- if you want a new character, you start at 1st again, not the average of the party.
2) I check the stats and the gear thoroughly to make sure it looks "right". No test on GP value, just nothing completely broken.
3) The character has to have history in Greyhawk, where I run my games, or a plausible in game reason they got there from elsewhere.

One of the two more powerful characters was grown up from 1st level in a different campaign I run, and this was a way of exposing a newer party to the wider world. It fit the campaign arc, it suited the player (who was switching characters), and it didn't seem to disrupt anything.

The other was a player's first ever character -- with all the sentimental attachments that come with that -- who had retired near where the action was happening. The PC's actually needed a savior to prevent a TP+KoBK -- Total Party + Keep on the Borderlands Kill, resulting from me having much of the Caves of Chaos assault the Keep after one too many PC raids. Tossing an 8th level ranger in to help their 3rd level party and army of peasants didn't seem crazy, since they were sending out messangers, magically contacting birds, etc. for help. And the players didn't mind at all -- I've been told that insane, 180 round dozens of characters struggling across the Keep fight was the best fight EVAR.

I've never brought in a higher level PC that I, as DM, raised. But not because it's inherently "wrong", just because it's never seemed to fit the plot at hand. I do like to use my own -- and others -- retired characters as NPCs.

Another thought on NPCs versus "DMPCs" . . . often I let new players "guest star" by taking over an NPC or sometimes a DMPC party member . . . of the 8 characters in my email campaign, two were born as module NPCs . . . one is effectively a DMPC, the other is a real player character now. And a third character is a PC inherited by another player. And a fourth is a PC who's player was absent -- with me running the character -- for a while, and now back to being played as a PC again. In an email game, anyhow, it seems that characters are just characters, where voiced by Connery or Moore or the new guy.

I have a very full life and I don't have a lot of time for gaming so when I game I am there to play not watch the NPCs play. I will give you an example of what I mean.

In a Shadowrun game we had searched for a lost team member and when we found him he was in somekind of weird statsis in his lodge we started reserching how to save him it was a big plot point and took several sessions so when the day came to final resuce him I was psyched.

But the DM brought in some powerful sun shamams who ended up doing everything as we sat there and just watched. We didn't roll dice we didn't do anything but listen to the DM tell us what these uber shamans did. I was not the only player setting there at the table really pissed. If I wanted to just listen to a plot unfold I could have gone to the movies. I play to be part of the action.

I don't expect to always be on "stage" every second I have spent sessions dead, knocked out, possessed and those I didn't mind. I don't mind listening to other characters doing things even NPCs but in that encounter I described it was blantly obivious that the DM never intend to have any of us actually do anything it was bad DMing and yeah I resented.


As for high level characters you have to be careful that they don't take away from the other players. I was in one game where the DM brought in a seventh level rogue to give us info help us get into a keep and basically help out in the fight. The problem was that our rogue was only second level so when it came time to try and open up the treasure chests the halfling just did so much better at everything that the player felt redunant and later told me that he flet like why was he even there.

There is a reason why The DMG suggest that there not be more than a two level difference in character levels.

 

[Dagger of Lath]

Is this an example of a DMPC done right or am I still being unfair to the players?

I can't answer this question neither can anyone else on this board. You need to ask your players. If your players like it, and (just as importantly) you like it, then it is good. Keep it. If people have a problem with it, then it should probably go.

The question of "good" and "bad" in roleplaying games is a tough one. If I play in a game, I want my character's death to be a definite possibility, I hate nothing more than my character being saved when the dice decree his death. My best friend on the other hand won't be happy in any game where his character can die, except at the end of his plot arc. I have my own personal preference in games, so does everyone. A good game is a game that everyone involved in enjoys. (once again, that includes the GM). This will almost always require someone to compromise somewhere.

A decent player is one who will say to the GM "I don't know about this character that you've got with us, he's ruining the game a bit". And a good GM is one who will listen. We had some minor troubles with one of our GMs and their DMPC, so we brought the problem up with him and he solved it. Since then DMPCs have gone over very smoothly in our games.