Explain why DMPCs are bad to me.

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Let's see. . . I've been playing for about 19 years now, and DMing for about 18 of those years. The last time I was a Player (not a player in the game, which we all are) was about 3 years ago. Before that, maybe 5-6 years. Let's just say that my time as DM is much greater than my time as Player.

Here's my thought on the matter.

Are you running the game? Yes? Then you're a part of the game. In most cases, I think it's probably safe to assume that no one held a gun to your head and said "Hey, you! Yeah, you! Run this game now or I'm gonna blow your stinking head off!"

I get tired of seeing players on message boards complaining about some things, like DMPCs*, but you know what? I get equally tired of seeing DMs cry in their cheerios about how the players aren't respecting their vision, their work, or following their whims, or are unhappy with the direction of the game.

Won't somebody please think of the Dungeon Masters?

Please.

If you don't like the work involved in running the game, if you don't feel like you're in on the fun,

DON'T RUN THE FREAKING GAME!

If you want to be on the Player side of the Wall of Fear and Ignorance, then what you need to do is go "Hey, so I was thinking, maybe one of you guys should run a game. I'm getting tired of DMing all the time, and I'd like some Player time. Cool?" If it's not cool, then you might need to find another group.

When you step up to the DM plate, you are a part of the game, but you've accepted that you are a different part of the game than the players are**. Don't cry about it later.

I've never made a movie, but I still know when one is crap. Just because someone hasn't DMd much or at all doesn't mean they can't criticize the game.


* I too distinguish between the concept of the DMPC that I see people complain about and an NPC that happens to hang with the party.


** It's my understanding that there are several games out there now that reduce the divide between player and GM responsibilities. perhaps something like these games would be more appropriate for GMs who feel they aren't part of the game in a player-like fashion enough.

Damn straight.

 

[The_Gneech]

I dispute that a Mary Sue NPC and a DM-PC are the same thing -- I've seen them both.

In both my regular game, and the regular game of the other DM in the group, there are NPC party members who share in the XP and treasure as if they were PCs, as well as get their occasional moments to shine. In his case, the NPC is a fighter who's dumb as a brick but we wouldn't want to adventure without him. In my case, the NPC is the party cleric, and his primary role is to pull the other players' fat out of the fire -- and they love him for it. (And he's been captured and rescued, taken below 0 hp and given emergency healing, etc., just like any PC.) I think of him as "my character" in the party, but he is just another member of the team.

By contrast, I played in a convention game where the first part of the session was the players (all playing 3rd-level characters) coming upon a scantily-clad barbarian chick who was under assault by bandits. Fair enough, we went rushing to the rescue only to end up standing around watching as she hacked them to pieces, getting a minimum of two attacks per round -- three if she got to use Cleave. The rest of the session was devoted to us following her around as she took on a mission from a sorcerer and recruited us all to go along, wiped out the monsters that attacked us on the way, and of course got to all the neat stuff first.

The DM in question was so clueless that I don't think he ever quite got why I started referring to her as "Mary Sue, the Barbarian," but she was a clear example of the kind of thing that people get so riled up about. However, she was a very different creature from the our big dumb fighter or rescue cleric, respectively.

-The Gneech

 

[kigmatzomat]

I'm against DMPCs but I'm coming from a different direction as someone who DMs 99.9999% of the time.

IMC I ended up with a DMPC due to player decisions. I had an NPC that was supposed to travel with the players for a while and then go off on his own. The PCs (and the players) bonded greatly to the NPC and used a combination of arguements (logical, social, economic, and religious) to keep the NPC around.

I don't know when it became a DMPC but I know when I knew it was. The party was traveling through a savannah at night (b/c it is horribly hot during the day) and spooked a herd of gazelle at a watering hole. The injured character was not going to be able to make it to cover before the stampede arrived and I was dreading rolling the dice. I felt significant relief when it turned out the character was only dropped to -1 hp and not killed.

And then, with dawning horror, I realized I had a DMPC. I've hated them as players for the way the DMs showed them favoritism and I realized I hated them as a DM for threatening the impartiality that lets me run the player-centric games my group enjoys. It felt like I was the umpire at a little league game where my kid was the pitcher. I kept doubting my calls and being concerned I was giving the DMPC too much leeway.

So I forced him off-screen where he belongs. The players still sometimes ask me to bring him back so I know it didn't impact their enjoyment of the game but it could have. Obviously this DMPC was fine by the players but the potential for favoritism is there and I don't think it is worth it if they can possibly be avoided.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Imagicka. Your definition of DMPC appears to be somewhere between "any NPC that I dislike" and "Mary Sue".

I wouldn't say that. I thought I was being quite clear (if not verbose) on my defination of a DMPC.

I clearly feel that a DMPC is a pejorative and negative term, and should have every such connotations attached to it. Why? Because in my experience, it's a DM who's trying to play a PC. If a DM were to play a character in the party, without any abuse, or any negative aspects to the use of that character; then there really is no need to define this character anything other than an NPC. Or if you want to go out on limb, and feel it's necessary to come up with a defination of a character that is successfully run by a DM, call it a party-NPC.

I have no problems when a DM plays a character (or NPC if you will) who is an active and participating member of the party that doesn't have all the negative connocations that I attach to a DMPC.

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.

If you want to use DMPC with your definition. That's fine. Up until a week ago, I never even heard of the term 'Mary-Sue'. You stick with your definitions... I'll stick with mine.

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.

No, what I'm saying is that any DM who plays a party NPC to the point that it detracts from the other players' PCs; either by being statistically superior and hogging the glory in combat situations, or more important (usually by way of plot - not just an important plot-point, but the one that guides the story with little or not input from the players), to the point where the DM is showing a certain amount of nepotism towards their own character. That they have grown so fond of their character that their character rarely loses. I find this tandamount to roleplaying-masturbation. Now, if someone considers that to be the defination of a 'Mary-Sue' character, then I might reconsider my definition of a DMPC.

If however, your a DM that is switching an NPC to a PC, for the purposes of turning over the DMing duties to another person so that the original DM can play a particular character; such as in a round-robin game, without any fear or problem of nepotism or abuse. I don't see a need to define it as being a DMPC, to me it is just a PC being turned into an NPC. But I also think that the DM who does this should be mindful of playing such an NPC without all the scene-stealing or limelight-basking that a regular player is afforded. That a DM should play their PC as an NPC avoiding situations where they can take away the glory of the PCs, and just take a backseat to the players.

Have I seen DMs successfully play what the felt was 'their personal character'? No. Not particuarily. Every time I've seen a DM play a character that they felt should be allowed the same amount of 'input' into solving the problems within the gamel; that their character should be just as much 'the hero' as any other character in the party. It's always felt cheap and hollow. Because the DM's PC solved our problem for us, stole the spotlight he lit in the first place. Giving us the lame excuse that he's a party member just like us. It is a PC? I don't think so. I don't think you can play a PC when you sit behind the DM's screen. Not when you control the game, know all the angles, and hold all the plot cards.

Have I seen a DM successfully play a character that doesn't solve problems, but at least give us a hint or a nudge to point us in the right direction when we are stumped on finding the right solution? Who help the party out, but wasn't the party leader, wasn't a problem-solving, wasn't dominating the game play? Yes. But I consider that successfully using/playing an NPC.

Just like Illiron said, "The DM never gets to be the hero." -- Or at least I would say, the DM should never play their NPCs, especially party NPCs, to be the hero. Unless there is a good reason to do so for the benefit of the players.

Oh, and for the record, I'm always against bad DMs. GABDMs! Gamers against bad DMs!

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".

Though I have not seen the show, I'd like to watch Entourage. I was thinking of running a D&D/Ars Magica game where everyone plays a sidekick character to a grand-magus character.

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?

Well, just because an artist makes something he likes doesn't mean that it can't be excellent, brilliant, enjoyable and artistic. But we are talking about apples and oranges here. Though most RPG material, especially when we are talking about a campaign that a DM plays out/runs for a number of players IS for public consumption. Artwork by an artist may not necessarily be for public consumption.

An artist is only as good as public acceptance will allow. It's rather a romantic view that an artist such as Vincent van Gogh isn't appreciated within their lifetime. But that still drove him to suicide didn't it? Alone and penniless. That didn't stop Eugène Henri Paul Gauguin from being popular.

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

Well, let me expand on it a little. Do you think that a DM should be able to do anything he wants? Railroading the characters into situations that the players don't want to play? Such as a party who would rather kick down doors and kill monsters and take their stuff be forced into a storyline after storyline where they are told they have to roleplay out situations of political intrigue, or their characters will just be arrested and killed? Or "Rock Falls, Party Dies!"? Or situations where Mary-Sue comes and rescues the party again and again? Or tell a player what his/her character thinks/feels, or tells a player how they should be playing their character?

Let us say that you are playing a thief, and while you are attending the court of a ruler that has summoned you and the rest of the party to perform some task. During this audience you decide that your character is bored and, 'is going to pick the pockets of the guards and perhaps the chamberlain and the king.' -- Do I as DM say 'No you don't. You character is to scared to do that here." or do I attempt to convince the player it would be in his best interest to not attempt to do something so foolish because of the attention that they are currently receiving, and lay out the possible ramifications of the character's actions, and still let the player decide?

I too love being a DM. I love being a player. But I specifically love it when a party of players/characters is working together, solving problems... and is in the zone. Where they are really into the game and they are enjoying themselves and having fun. I love the challenge of being the DM. It's a different kind of fun than playing a character, but rarely do I find games that suit my style of play. -- But to get back on topic. I play my NPCs as 'fully realized characters', with modivations, opinions, ideals and goals, just as anyone else would. But I also believe that I should not be playing a character who is going to steal any of the thunder or glory away from the true players. That my character (especially if they are a member of the adventuring party) shouldn't be upstaging the players. As a DM, I am there for them to build their story of adventure around my plot.

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.

Well, I do consider myself an artist. I paint and draw and take photos... I agree with you. Roleplaying... like storytelling... is an art. It's like drawing or painting. Sure, almost anyone can pick up a paintbrush and paint a picture. But not everyone is going to be good at it. But tell me this... doesn't it feel a whole lot better when someone listens to you sing and lets you know that they've enjoyed it?

Funny story... I was in México meeting my newly born daughter at the time, which I don't resent for one second...well, maybe the one second that I heard that back home, Gary Gygax was sitting around a table with a bunch of my fellow DMs and friends at a gaming/Comic-Con that didn't have any players. So it was something like 12 DMs all sitting around a table with Gary Gygax just chit-chatting and telling stories.

 

[Warbringer]

DMPC is like all things an extension of the DM - bad DM, bad DMPC.

Personally, I use them as my way of interacting with the PCs, at a PC (and not player) level.

 

[Teflon Billy]

THe main reasons is DMPCs can steal the players thunder. They are easier for the DM to plot around and easier for the DM to make better then the PCs.

I do agree that a DMPC can be done well and have seen it. But I know more often DM's screw it up.

That's my explanation right there.

Honestly, it's not always bad, but when it's bad it's bad enough to color the whole concept.

My current GM constantly has a DMPC with us, and it is a pain in the ass to constantly have him chime in during the planning sessions with what is clearly "The Plan" or ordering us around because (like all of his tag-alongs) he (or she) is a plain-talking, common sense straight-shooter who understand things better than the PC's.

 

[cildarith]

I frequently have NPC's accompany the party as full-time members, but... NPC party members really do need to stay out of the planning sessions and every major (and most minor) decisions about party actions. They should operate only in a support role and otherwise be as unobtrusive as possible. They should never be more powerful than the rest of party (equal is fine), nor should they be integral parts to any plot or story-arc in your camapaign. If these simple suggestions are adhered to, the concept works just fine. Step outside these boundaries and they can be real problems. IMHO, YMMV, yadda, yadda...

 

[Wolv0rine]

Through all my years of playing, two DMs spring to mind who fit this thread.

The first I gamed with nearly a decade ago, and I'm almost surprised the character's name wasn't actually Mary Sue, it was that bad. Oh neat, he's young, he's pretty, he's the most powerful wizard in the universe, and he's our boss. Did I say Neat? We canned him from the group after half a dozen sessions (would have been sooner, but we enjoyed tearing down his little excuse for a campaign first, because he'd just ticked us off that much). If this guy had been my only experience, I'd still be in the group that says DMPC=teh suxxors.

Then I gamed with Ralts. A lot can be said about playing in a game Ralts runs, but the most brief is "If you can, do it. If you can't, damn I'm sorry".
Ralts ran a DMPC through nearly the entire length of the YotZ playtest game on IRC. The character was originally a normal PC, but his player started missing games (Ralts typically NPC'ed PCs whose player was abscent). He group noted that the character (Greg) was pretty friggin' cool as Ralts played him more and more. Eventually the player just had to drop from the game, but the group en masse decided we wanted Greg to stick around, and that we liked the way Ralts RPed the character so much that we wanted him to become Ralts' PC (even though he was the GM).
Greg was a vital, loved, and involved fully-fledged member of the party. He was in no way an NPC, he was a PC as much as our characters were. We risked the entire party to save his life more than once, he had an ongoing romance with one PC, friendships and conflicts, a role in the group. If Ralts ever used Greg as a plot device, he did so well enough that it was never observable. Greg was completely indestinguishable from any of the other PCs. Ralts actually tried to give the character up once, and we wouldn't allow him to.
That was the experience that put me firmly in the position that DMPCs can be done right, and are thus a viable option. If your DM can multitask his brain well enough to treat his DMPC AS a PC and not an NPC, then you welcome that character with open arms.

The short version is that it depends on the skill and creativity of your DM. But really, without a good, concrete example (above) that's a cop out response. It's true, but doesn't mean anything unless you can show how it works.

 

[haakon1]

I dispute that a Mary Sue NPC and a DM-PC are the same thing -- I've seen them both.

In both my regular game, and the regular game of the other DM in the group, there are NPC party members who share in the XP and treasure as if they were PCs, as well as get their occasional moments to shine. In his case, the NPC is a fighter who's dumb as a brick but we wouldn't want to adventure without him. In my case, the NPC is the party cleric, and his primary role is to pull the other players' fat out of the fire -- and they love him for it. (And he's been captured and rescued, taken below 0 hp and given emergency healing, etc., just like any PC.) I think of him as "my character" in the party, but he is just another member of the team.

By contrast, I played in a convention game where the first part of the session was the players (all playing 3rd-level characters) coming upon a scantily-clad barbarian chick who was under assault by bandits. Fair enough, we went rushing to the rescue only to end up standing around watching as she hacked them to pieces, getting a minimum of two attacks per round -- three if she got to use Cleave. The rest of the session was devoted to us following her around as she took on a mission from a sorcerer and recruited us all to go along, wiped out the monsters that attacked us on the way, and of course got to all the neat stuff first.

The DM in question was so clueless that I don't think he ever quite got why I started referring to her as "Mary Sue, the Barbarian," but she was a clear example of the kind of thing that people get so riled up about. However, she was a very different creature from the our big dumb fighter or rescue cleric, respectively.

-The Gneech

This makes a lot of sense to me. The distinction, essentially, is bad DM's versus good DM's.

Focusing on the use -- or not -- of party member NPC's is a red herring.

 

[haakon1]

I have no problems when a DM plays a character (or NPC if you will) who is an active and participating member of the party that doesn't have all the negative connocations that I attach to a DMPC.
. . .
Have I seen a DM successfully play a character that doesn't solve problems, but at least give us a hint or a nudge to point us in the right direction when we are stumped on finding the right solution? Who help the party out, but wasn't the party leader, wasn't a problem-solving, wasn't dominating the game play? Yes. But I consider that successfully using/playing an NPC.

OK. I think we more or less agree, terminology aside.

Well, just because an artist makes something he likes doesn't mean that it can't be excellent, brilliant, enjoyable and artistic.

Of course. All I'm saying is popularity and genius are not the same thing, and creators don't generally create to fit someone else's taste. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum, Ars Artis Gratia, sell outs are no good, etc.

An artist is only as good as public acceptance will allow. It's rather a romantic view that an artist such as Vincent van Gogh isn't appreciated within their lifetime. But that still drove him to suicide didn't it? Alone and penniless. That didn't stop Eugène Henri Paul Gauguin from being popular.

We're way off topic, but I completely disagree that talent = public acceptance. That would imply Michael Jackson was one of the greatest musicians of the 20th Century . . . however, his work won't be studied seriously by musicians/academics centuries from now, whereas some other obscure folks, like Charles Ives, might well be.

Do you think that a DM should be able to do anything he wants? Railroading the characters into situations that the players don't want to play? Such as a party who would rather kick down doors and kill monsters and take their stuff be forced into a storyline after storyline where they are told they have to roleplay out situations of political intrigue, or their characters will just be arrested and killed? Or "Rock Falls, Party Dies!"? Or situations where Mary-Sue comes and rescues the party again and again? Or tell a player what his/her character thinks/feels, or tells a player how they should be playing their character?

The DM is always right is rule #1 of D&D, right at the top of the intro page to the 1st Edition PHB. WOTC's attempts to say things like character sheets should be audited for the proper WOTC approved amount of treasure put me in a fundamentalist frame of mind.

Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of bad DM's, learning DM's, DM's who make mistakes, etc.

Let us say that you are playing a thief, and while you are attending the court of a ruler that has summoned you and the rest of the party to perform some task. During this audience you decide that your character is bored and, 'is going to pick the pockets of the guards and perhaps the chamberlain and the king.' -- Do I as DM say 'No you don't. You character is to scared to do that here." or do I attempt to convince the player it would be in his best interest to not attempt to do something so foolish because of the attention that they are currently receiving, and lay out the possible ramifications of the character's actions, and still let the player decide?

Hmmm, I might give some advice, or I might just roll some dice and see if it worked, then roll a lot more dice to see if anyone noticed, as the other players snickered and said things like, "Chris, what the bleep are you doing?" Mostly, it would depend on whether I thought the player was serious/knew what he was doing, or not. It would also be influenced by whether I had a good idea of who the observers were/had time to create them for combat if things went south.

I too love being a DM. I love being a player. But I specifically love it when a party of players/characters is working together, solving problems... and is in the zone. Where they are really into the game and they are enjoying themselves and having fun. I love the challenge of being the DM. It's a different kind of fun than playing a character, but rarely do I find games that suit my style of play. -- But to get back on topic. I play my NPCs as 'fully realized characters', with modivations, opinions, ideals and goals, just as anyone else would. But I also believe that I should not be playing a character who is going to steal any of the thunder or glory away from the true players. That my character (especially if they are a member of the adventuring party) shouldn't be upstaging the players. As a DM, I am there for them to build their story of adventure around my plot.

I look at it more from an in-game point of view. Any NPC can potential join an adventure, and old PC's don't disappear, they become non-adventurer NPCs that I can pull in the story as it fits.

This probably comes from two things:
1) Playing with really small groups. Grouping up, most of the time we had two players and a DM (the other guy's brother). Restarting D&D after a long hiatus, it was me DMing, one experienced player, and a brand new player; that's how it was for 2 years or so. Not having NPCs in the party is simply not an option with that size group, so it just never struck me as a bizarre practice.

2) My campaign world has been in continuous use for a decade, with I think 4 different parties using it. I try to give it depth in the NPCs. My village descriptions tend to tell the name of quite a few people, plus levels and classes of most adults. I want it to feel more like a world than a game . . . so if PC's want NPC Harry to help them with the Temple of Whatzits, and NPC Harry has the inclination to join in, I'm not majorly worried about it.

Well, I do consider myself an artist. I paint and draw and take photos... I agree with you. Roleplaying... like storytelling... is an art. It's like drawing or painting. Sure, almost anyone can pick up a paintbrush and paint a picture. But not everyone is going to be good at it. But tell me this... doesn't it feel a whole lot better when someone listens to you sing and lets you know that they've enjoyed it?

Sure. That's actually more rewarding than doing big concerts (I haven't done those in decades), because it's more personal.

Funny story... I was in México meeting my newly born daughter at the time, which I don't resent for one second...well, maybe the one second that I heard that back home, Gary Gygax was sitting around a table with a bunch of my fellow DMs and friends at a gaming/Comic-Con that didn't have any players. So it was something like 12 DMs all sitting around a table with Gary Gygax just chit-chatting and telling stories.

Cool. Let's all wish him good health.

BTW, I don't think we're arguing, just chatting about stuff we all love in a slightly argumentative geeky way. Sorry if anybody is upset.