How do you feel about DMPCs?

[Raith5]

As a DM I not only hate DMPC's, I hate NPC's that travel with PC's. As a DM I have enough things to manage without remembering there is this NPC that is always there.

I think sometimes a DMPC may be necessary for a small group of players. But large numbers of NPcs can be pain. I remember playing Second ed campaign with 6 PCs with a variety of henchmen, hirelings, animals, rescued prisoners etc, so the number of combatants was over 12. A surprise encounter with a green dragon solved the problem quite quickly though.

 

[Manbearcat]

 

[Lord Mhoram]

As everyone rotates GMing in our group, DNPCs are not seen as a horrible thing, as all of us understand balance, and the primacy of the PCs.

When I ran a Star Trek game, I had a Security/Sensor DNPC. I was able to give all the details of what was happening via the character that way. Usually GMPCs are around as a minor character to shore up some hole that the party has.

 

[Tovec]

I've frequently (in I think literally EVERY game I've ever run as a DM) been asked by the players to run an NPC that journeys with the party. Happens every game, multiple times often. I can't seem to avoid it.

I guess my question is what is the description of a DMPC vs an NPC that journeys with the party? What does one do that the other does not. I'm sure that the NPCs have beaten up enemies with the party, given them quest info, background/general info. I've used such NPCs to guide and teach the party (the characters). But every time I've run a DMPC (if it is one) I've done so because the party as a group has asked me to run one. So, where is the line?

 

[Sound of Azure]

In some games, the party is small and needs rounding out- frequently a healer-type. It really depends on the circumstances though- in certain styles of campaign it would be better to let the players deal with their self-created limitation, or of the theme of the game (such as the all-rogue game or all wizard game). Companion characters like this can be helpful if the players don't mind it, and it fits the campaign.
The type of DMPC I dislike is where they are significantly better than the PCs themselves and get to act on meta-information the players cannot. Player knowledge will generally be less complete than the GM's knowledge. I also dislike when a DMPC is essentially the same "role" as one of the PCs, especially if they frequently upstage the PC(s). The PCs are the ones who are meant to shine, in my opinion.

 

[delericho]

Not a fan. I remain open to the possibility that they might work for some groups, but I've never personally seen it. And I now never will, since I won't play with a DM using a DMPC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I always go the route of changing game rules to give what a party is missing, rather than introduce a DNPC to fulfill the need.

If the group is light on healing for example... if it's only for a particular week's game, I'll just reduce the numbers and power of enemies that show up if/when they get into a fight. If it's a long-term problem... I'll do things like give the Healing Word power to one of the players for free, or grant players two Second Winds per encounter, or having Potions of Healing become more available.

There are always ways to get around issues involving the party being light on things. It's just a matter of not feeling beholden to playing the game "the right way". Cause at the end of the day, you don't get any award for playing your campaign "by the book"... your reward is a group of players who are having fun with what you are offering to them.

 

[Mercurius]

As a general rule, I don't like them - as either a player or DM. But like all such rules, they're more guidelines than absolute laws.

Think in terms of the "rules of writing." They mainly apply to inexperienced writers. But once you get pretty good at it, you can break any rule you want - if you do so intentionally and for a good reason.

I think its the same with DMPCs. A good DM, for the right reasons, can pull it off. The right reason is not because the DM sub-consciously wants to get in on the glory. A good reason is because the DMPC is a MacGuffin that, for whatever reason, is more worth having in the game than not.

But in all cases, a DMPC must be handled with great care. On first blush Gandalf seems like a great DMPC (if LotR were an RPG campaign), but he only works because A) He isn't all that powerful in D&D terms, at least not in a game-breaking way, and B) the "PCs" in the LotR never sit him down and force him to divulge every detail about Middle-earth that might aid them in their quest, which is exactly what annoyingly savvy players would do in a D&D game.

A more appropriate DMPC would be someone who isn't what he or she seems, or has a hidden agenda of some kind that will unfold later on.

As for the common "we need a healer" approach to DMPCs, I'd rather solve that with extra potions and such. Plus, 4E solved this nicely through healing surges.

 

[Li Shenron]

Self-explanatory. Does your gaming group reflexibly cringe when the DM pulls out their own character sheet? Do you have personal anecdotes of of how terrible/great it can go? Can a DM reliably act as a fellow adventurer in a party while still maintaining the role as impartial mediator and world-builder?

They are not needed. If the party is too small for the campaign, or is lacking in some capabilities (e.g. they think they need more front-line warriors or backup healing), then just use NPC, mercenaries or companions. Actually, as a I DM I prefer to control all of those myself. The only important thing is that such characters remain in the background, i.e. they don't take initiatives and don't affect the story with their decisions.

 

[Lanefan]

They are not needed. If the party is too small for the campaign, or is lacking in some capabilities (e.g. they think they need more front-line warriors or backup healing), then just use NPC, mercenaries or companions. Actually, as a I DM I prefer to control all of those myself. The only important thing is that such characters remain in the background, i.e. they don't take initiatives and don't affect the story with their decisions.

NPCs have character too - that's what the 'C' stands for. When you talk of "NPC mercenaries" do you mean lower-level hirelings? If so, wouldn't a practical party soon realize there's more use in recruiting one competent fighter as an equal (as in, equal to their level) than 6 sacks of meat who might not last past the first real battle? That, and in all systems it's easier to roll up one fighter than it is to roll up 6.

Party NPCs are just fine for a bunch of reasons:
- they give guests something to play, far more fun than just watching
- they give players something to play when their own character(s) are dead, asleep, missing, elsewhere, or whatever
- they can fill holes in the lineup (most often when there's an obvious hole e.g. no Thief the party in-character goes out and recruits someone to fill it)
- they can be plot points in and of themselves e.g. spies, observers, reason for adventure, etc.
- after they leave the party they remain known entities and can become information sources, safe havens, etc.

Adventuring NPCs are treated just like any other party member (henches excepted, they're a different matter) in terms of treasury division, keeping watch, etc. and have their own personalities, goals, desires, etc. Non-adventuring party NPCs e.g. a princess who the party is guarding while she travels from A to B are treated as more temporary things as they are unlikely to continue with the party long term.

As far as possible for play purposes the people who live in the game world don't go around with little 'PC' or 'NPC' stickers on their foreheads; and what's good (or bad) for one is good (or bad) for the other.

Lanefan