How do you feel about DMPCs?

[Libertad]

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?

 

[BigbyBear]

I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate DMPCs. And I say that as someone equally likely to DM as to play.
If I'm DM, I don't want a PC because I never want to be the one to deliver the killing blow. I want my players to be the stars not me.
If they want me to run a character because they need say a healer. I say he just delays until asked to heal. Anymore I don't even do that I'll just give them a bonus potion or reduce monster HP.

And while I'm sure there are DMs that can reliably act as a fellow adventurer, the few DMs that tend to like running a DMPC have not been them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As a DM I'm not a huge fan. They take more time and energy than I like, and they take me out of the broader perspective that I'd like to be in.

The upside is that they can be a very helpful in-game voice of reason, a way for the DM to help the players think without getting too meta or too pushy. They can also help round out a small group.

I use them sometimes but it's not a big focus for me.

 

[Jacob Marley]

DMPC, as a term, is a lot like railroad(ed/ing); it is, by definition, a term for a negative experience. Can an NPC adventure with a party long-term? Absolutely! But it is a fine line between NPC and DMPC. To keep an NPC reliably useful, interesting, and capable of contributing on a meaningful basis while not overshadowing the PCs is a skill. I have seen DMs who have mastered said skill, and DMs who have failed. Luckily, these days, I play with DMs who have mastered the skill.

 

[Warbringer]

Yes, it's cringe worthy and laziest form of DMing.... and so I've of course made the mistake as an early DM

While the motivation can feel like it's right, the players have a massive hole in the roles selected, if the DM "plays" that NPC and uses them for plot information, you might as well just jump on the 3.10 to Yuma.

To do the "good" part, role balance, information leak, I now use Contacts and Companions, basically background assets the characters can take at 1st level

 

[Celebrim]

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.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I see little point. DMs already have lots of characters in a setting.

I don't think the "classic" DMPC is ever acceptable, but if your group is small and/or is missing a critical hole, and fast, a "companion", henchman or cohort is appropriate. Generally said characters should fade into the background. They can provide hooks but not direct the adventuring party. It's a good idea to just hand over control of a henchman to the PCs during combat anyway.

In 4e, companions are explicitly weaker than PCs, so there's no real risk of them overshadowing the PCs. (I suppose it could happen, if the companion is a striker, and no PCs are strikers, but strikers are really popular PC choices.)

When running d20 Modern some years ago, the PCs wanted to recruit a military doctor to travel with them, on a day when only two players could show up. I made him an "Ordinary" (basically using an NPC class) and a level or two lower than the PCs. I also let the player design him. They made him an archer and went to great lengths to keep him alive. Despite that, they accidentally had him trigger a trap once. (They were controlling him, so there was no real possibility of me using my GM knowledge to keep him alive.)

 

[Grogg of the North]

DMPC tends to be a warning flag for me.

However ... there was one time I did run a DMPC. Sorta. I was DMing for a party of two, one of the characters took leadership, and the party asked me to run the cohort. I did my best though to make him defer to the party members as much as possible though. It turned out okay but it's not something I'd do again in the future.

 

[Umbran]

Not really a fan of DMPCs. I have used long-term NPCs on occasion (mostly long ago) when the players wanted to play a certain type of game, but nobody wanted to fill a role that was kind of required to make their preferred playstyle happen. But I wasn't using the NPC to be my personal PC in the game. They were still only there to serve needs of party and plot, not my own roleplay desires.

 

[Piston Honda]

I'm not a fan. The DM already gets so much of the spotlight, he shouldn't need any more by inserting himself into the party. I'm flexible on transient allies, as a player it can draw me into the game more when most of the other PCs know what I do, the ally can provide someone outside the party to bond with and provide some exposition without too much. But when you're several sessions into the game and every few combat encounters are determined by a DM controlled character, PC or not, you don't feel very heroic.

Sometimes there are involuntary exceptions, I've had a group that did need some healing power, so they kept the Cleric that was only meant to assist them for their first adventure (these players tried to recruit every NPC they came across really, and tried to get every one of them to aid in combat regardless of use, except for the guy who they found out later was a deity traveling with them for a brief time, they of course made sure he stayed out of the way of those vicious level 4 cultists, the young farmhand with no combat experience however...). The Cleric did give the advantage of being at his temple while the party planned, so when we got back together the next week it gave them a reason to go back over it when he didn't know what was going on as a nice refresher, but I did have to write real stats for him, bleh.