How do you feel about DMPCs?

[Li Shenron]

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], I just meant that there is no real need to have a DMPC i.e. a DM-played character that is on equal grounds with players-played PCs.

The line between a DMPC and an NPC (which is anyway controlled by the DM) is blurry. Is a "pet NPC" that the DM regularly makes show up, and save the PC's day, already a DMPC? I would say yes.

When I mention "NPC, mercenaries (hirelings) or companions", I have my own habits for using these words, they may mean something different to others, but generally what I had in mind is:

- characters bound by the story (generic NPC that the PCs befriend and ally with)
- characters bound by hiring or other in-game method of varying strength (e.g. summoning), not necessarily lower-level
- characters bound by an off-game method, which I call "companions" and include familiars or anything acquired with a class feature, feat etc.

That's my own typical classification, based on how I personally (as a DM) treat those bounds, which I see in increasing order of strength.

In all those cases tho, I still prefer to run those characters myself, although I am aware that other DMs let the players fully control their companions and maybe even their hirelings.

The key for me is then, not to make any of these on equal grounds with the PCs. Of course if you only let them be of lower level, this already helps, but it is not strictly necessary.

Instead, I prefer to focus on just not giving them spotlight, not fully featuring them in the story and the action. For instance, if the party doesn't have a Cleric and we agree on a Cleric NPC or hireling, I might make up a cowardly character that hides under the table when a battle erupts, then cast healing spells only when really needed and possibly after the fight. I have such character not suggest the others what to do, not participating in planning and tactics. If the NPC is a Fighter instead, he will fight but he'll be expecting the others to plan for him, and if they don't he would probably stick to basic tactics. These are just example, it doesn't have to be always like this, there can be sometimes a Fighter NPC with high Int that actually provides better tactics. But my general rule of thumb is that really all the non-PC characters should "blend with the background" and not steal the spotlight.

 

[fjw70]

The only time I have used or been in a group with DMPCs is when my friend and I first started playing BX over 30 years ago. There were only two of us and we rotated DMing.

Now I won't use them and won't be in a group that does.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One thing I think makes DMPCs more palatable is to make them transient. I'm sort of inspired by the TV show "Bones" where there's a set of regulars and a rotating "guest of the week" who works with them.

I think that having a DMPC who joins the party for one mission, one specific purpose, and then leaves, does not have the same spotlight-stealing indulgence of one who stays and grows with the party. And then if by chance the party actually likes such a character, you can bring him or her back later. It's more dynamic and less obtrusive this way. It also makes the world feel more real by breaking down the conceit of the PC party and the 'us vs them' mentality.

 

[Kinak]

I don't think my players would mind me having a character travel with them all the time (especially if it filled a role that they didn't want to), but I've found I have more than enough to do in combat without adding another factor to every one.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Halivar]

Hi, everyone. My name is Halivar, and I used DMPC's when I started GM'ing.

*Hi, Halivar*

Yeah, and they were frikkin AWESOME! Like, pew pew! The PC's never got a kill shot, because the DMPC's were there to steal it. Aren't I such an awesome min-maxer, everyone?

Yeah, I'm not proud of my early GM'ing. Through the years, though, I've outgrown this for the most part. If an NPC is travelling with the party, I hand the party their stat-sheet and have the players run them. I leave it to THEM to decide how much play that NPC gets. I only take control in RP situations where their involvement is warranted. Also, I no longer stat out NPC's like PC's (a mistake I made in 3.5). In 4th Ed, I made all NPC's with monster stat-blocks and limited abilities. I've carried this over into my Savage Worlds and SilCore games; ally NPC's are a pale comparison to the PC's.

The biggest thing was fighting my natural min-maxing. To help me out in my 1st Ed campaign, I made a henchmen generator (see my sig below) that intentionally does NOT always make the best stat choices. If I can't bring myself to make a sub-optimal character, I can make the computer do it for me.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I think this sums it up really well.

The problem with the first part (the cool NPC) is that the game isn’t about cool NPCs — it’s about cool PCs, and only secondarily about the world around them. It doesn’t matter if it’s D&D, Mage or Burning Wheel: The PCs should always be the center of attention, and the story revolves around them.

That doesn’t mean there can’t be cool NPCs in that world, though — just that they shouldn’t overshadow and outshine the PCs.

So an acceptable use of NPCs that the DM "run" would be if the PCs ran into a problem and needed help from an NPC. Like if in order to get into an ancient crypt they needed to decipher some ancient hieroglyphics that no one could read, but the sage back at the grand library can. The sage goes with the PCs, does his thing and fades into the background.

For an example of a BAD DMPC, I suggest you look here:
http://www.thingsihate.org/2000/09/14/the-worst-dungeon-master-ever-part-three/

 

[Jacob Marley]

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?

Player perception: does the NPC fulfill the role the players perceive the NPC to have, or exceed it? If he fulfills it, then he is an NPC. If he exceeds it, then he is a DMPC.

For example, the players may be looking for a guide who is also an accomplished archer. So long as the NPC fulfills the roles of guide and accomplished archer, then, in my experience, players view the NPC positively. On the other hand, if the NPC is also an accomplished trapsmith (thus overreaching on the PC rogue), or his archery skill is exceptional (thus becoming the party's primary tactic), then, again, in my experience, players view the NPC negatively and refer to him as a DMPC.

My example is combat and exploration-focused and can easily be extrapolated into the other areas of the game: interaction, logistics, problem-solving, and so on.

There are also DMs out there who are just obnoxious even when their NPCs do meet player expectations. These DMs I view as being problematic overall and not worth gaming with regardless of whether their NPCs meet or exceed my expectations.

 

[Lindeloef]

[...]

For an example of a BAD DMPC, I suggest you look here:
http://www.thingsihate.org/2000/09/14/the-worst-dungeon-master-ever-part-three/

O god, that was painful to read.
---


I personally avoid NPCs traveling with the players. Mostly because somehow all my players are extremely competent at bringing the enemies down to 1-4 Hitpoints left and then stop hitting them (though they try).
So NPCs would kinda end up killing the enemies instead.

 

[fjw70]

My current group has an NPC traveling with the group long term (he is a goblin that is in love with the halfling PC) but I let the players control him with the caveat that I can veto or can retake control at anytime.

 

[Mallus]

I don't always DM, but when I do, I prefer NPCs to be NPCs.