How do you feel about DMPCs?

[Minigiant]

DMPCs is a hard skill to master. I run them often but it took a while to master. I found the key is to make the DMPCs feel secondary due decision making. This is why my DMPCs are loons or have major quirks. Idiot brutes, squeamish clerics, cowardly thieves, and insane mages. This way no player or PC asks the DMPC to make decisions. Rotating contacts, mercs, and helpers work too. A ranger, healer, or caster from a guild works well.

That is what most DMs get wrong. DMPCs work when the DM and players don't see them as equals to the PCs. They are Shaggy Norvilles at best.

 

[Tovec]

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

And the definition of a NPC vs. a DMPC is.....? Or in your case, a NPC that is a NPC is....?

What qualifies as a DMPC?

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.

I don't even know what this means.

I've had NPCs with the group that have been; excellent duelists, supreme magicksters, excellent rage-barbarians, little crystal globes of light that heal people, regenerative kobold that can't die, not to mention others that are slipping my memory at the moment. Some have been over level, some same level, some below level.

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.

That last line right there, that is all I know of DMPCs.

NPCs = good
DMPCs = bad

Without any idea where the line is drawn.

You say "expectations" but that is a useless definition (I'm sad to say). It can't really be predicted or quantified. It is like my asking "what is the definition of a cheese casserole vs. mac and cheese" and you replied "you'll know when people tell you if it tastes good or bad."

I'm sorry to say that I need more.

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.

So, in your example, the NPC who is guiding and can shoot = good
The NPC who can trapsmith = bad?
And its bad because the NPC is treading on the rogue's toes? What?

One NPC I introduced was a kobold (part of the list above) that was trapped in a gelatinous cube. As I recall he had been given regenerative powers somehow (it has been a while and I forget) and was being fed to the cube in order to increase its size. The party eventually killed the cube, freed the kobold and then insisted he come with them.
Later they tried throwing him down hallways they thought were trapped, because the kobold was immortal and could not die from the traps effects. So, at this time he became "the party's primary tactic." Is that what qualifies him to be a DMPC? Not anything I would actually do, just physically being tossed down the hall? He could not talk (sit mute in a bag of holding until needed) and he's still an DMPC for that quality?

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.

Right, but being obnoxious isn't the defining quality of a DMPC. It is a defining quality of poor DMing skills, or of poor NPCs in general but it fails to describe why a DMPC might be suck. If that casserole is on fire, I don't blame the casserole (the cheese and mac) I blame the oven for setting it on fire - a different issue entirely.

OR is the qualification of DMPC = bad, ALWAYS. Meaning you cannot be a good DMPC, it goes contrary to the description of what it is. Like Good Murder. Killing can sometimes be justified but murder is always bad.
So only bad DMs can run DMPCs. If it is that is fine, but then I think we solved the thread. We could then start another called, "How do you feel about NPCs?"

 

[Mallus]

What qualifies as a DMPC?

A player character which is played by the DM, ie another one of the protagonists, not the supporting cast.

 

[Halivar]

I don't even know what this means.

I've had NPCs with the group that have been; excellent duelists, supreme magicksters, excellent rage-barbarians, little crystal globes of light that heal people, regenerative kobold that can't die, not to mention others that are slipping my memory at the moment. Some have been over level, some same level, some below level.

Those are DMPC's if they share co-equality in the formulation and execution of party actions with any of the players themselves. Like a PC, for the DM. A DMPC.

That said, your immortal kobold thing is obviously not a DMPC; it's a prop for the party.

 

[Manbearcat]

A player character which is played by the DM, ie another one of the protagonists, not the supporting cast.

Quite literally I was going to respond with the same thing word for word. Can't xp.

 

[Tovec]

A player character which is played by the DM, ie another one of the protagonists, not the supporting cast.

If that is the only requirement? I've SO done it. Repeatedly. And my players seem to love it, repeatedly asking for NPCs to become DMPCs. *shrugs* I thought there was something more or else, but then again I have no idea what that "other" thing would be.

So, OP: I feel well about DMPCs? I've never had an issue, I guess. Or I should say rarely - there have been one or two NPC/DMPCs that the PCs didn't seem to like but that happens. One or two villains the PCs didn't seem to enjoy either.

 

[Kinak]

Quite literally I was going to respond with the same thing word for word. Can't xp.

Covered that for you.

If that is the only requirement? I've SO done it. Repeatedly. And my players seem to love it, repeatedly asking for NPCs to become DMPCs. *shrugs* I thought there was something more or else, but then again I have no idea what that "other" thing would be.

As a pejorative, it tends to have a flavor of "DM's pet PC." So they're way more powerful, can do no wrong, have complete plot immunity, never die, and generally overshadow the PCs.

In fanfiction, they'd be considered "Mary Sues," if that helps. Except, unlike fanfiction, there are other actual people sitting around, waiting for their turn in the spotlight.

If your players want more, you're obviously not doing it wrong. Just trying to help with definitions.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Lwaxy]

We do that in games with changing GMs. Either each of us has a PC or if just 2 GMs they have one PC and switch to whoever is playing that round.

 

[Salamandyr]

Having ruined more than a few campaigns as a teenager with my own pet characters, I prefer to avoid using them if at all possible. On occasion I've been forced to run a support character for small groups, but I make a point of not making one that could outshine anyone in the party, or that I had any emotional investment in.

In the last game I ran, the players actually asked me to run a character as part of the group. They wanted a larger party and nobody wanted to double up on characters, so I rolled up a bard that could act as support for the group. It's sometimes useful to have a mouthpiece in the party to feed information to the group.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

In general, a DM PC has the following features that aren't generally found in NPCs that journey with the party:

a) The DM PC is as broadly competent as the PCs. Generally in D&D this means that the DMPC will be the at least as high of level as the PCs and be built with at least as high of a stat array.
b) The DM PC is one that the DM empathizes with and identifies the way he would a PC. This is necessary to distinguish the DMPC from a high level character that accompanies the PC's solely or largely to become a foil, rival, or enemy at a later point.

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?

You should resist this demand in most cases.

a) NPC guides and hirelings should be incapable of providing significant direct help in solving the big problems the PC's face. It's ok to have NPCs there to take care of the horses while you are in the dungeon, manage the party finances in town, tote and guard the luggage and so forth. They can be quite valuable assets. The should just be clearly sidekicks.
b) High level mentor/quest giver NPCs should not be able and willing to accompany the PC's except in missions of extremely short duration and only when you plan it. Make sure that high level NPCs are few in number and their duties large. If they have extreme weaknesses of some sort, that's good too - my favorite is old age.

What you want to avoid at all times is NPCs that steal spotlight from the PCs.

Currently my PC's are 6th level. They have one henchmen: a 15 year old apprentice shipping clerk (1st level expert) who they call 'Nobbin'. 'Nobbin' is useful and well liked because he's loyal and honest (LN, code of honor to employer), intelligent (int 15), and has more skill in certain subjects like Knowledge(Law) and Knowledge (Mathematics & Accounting) than anyone in the party has. He's basically the parties secretary. He's all but completely useless in a fight, and too valuable to risk in a fight. The advantage to this character is that he's seldom on stage when another NPC is on stage, and I generally don't have to track him from scene to scene, but only in those few scenes where he plays a role.

I have a strong feeling they are about to pick up another henchmen, a retired somewhat beaten down soldier (4th level fighter) who is no good at life off the battlefield. I'm hoping that he's far enough below the PC's in skill, that he's only an occasional figure in combat, but sufficiently skillful to serve as a useful guard.