D&D 5E If the DM plays his own PC is it ok for the party to kill him and take his stuff?

[Dausuul]

There are many ways to have bad form in D&D. Having a DMPC is one. Backstabbing your fellow party members is another. But the worst form of all is bad behavior in-game as retaliation for out-of-game issues.

 

[Slit518]

I am going to say, as a forever DM, most times in the games I have run the players appreciate the NPCs I introduce to join their party.

I only recall one instance where a player was upset with a character and that is because the planned NPC was a Paladin while the player was playing a Shadowknight; Black Guard; Anti-Paladin, whatever you want to call it. One of the player's goals was to kill the NPC Paladin, but, that never happened. They had a rivalry that spawned because of the player, and I kept it for craps & laughs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think DMPCs are a HUGE red flag. It can be done well, but too often it is not.

If the NPC is an abstract character, not built as a PC, that's usually a sign that he/she is there for good plot reasons, not because the DM secretly wishes to be on the other side of the screen.

 

[Lanefan]

I think there is a difference between an NPC and a DM PC.

An NPC is usually a hireling of some sort that the PCs sought out or an NPC that has a plot device.

Hirelings and henches are a different thing. I'm talking about full-ride party members, whether plot devices or not.

When I am talking about DM PC, I am talking about a PC the DM rolled up and is part of your party from day 1 and he is built according to the DM's character idea as opposed to someone to fill out the party. He takes part and takes a lead role in party decisions etc.

Yep, they're a very common thing in our games. Even right from day one, the DM might look at the party makeup and decide to throw in soemthing to fill a hole - or at the very least have it rolled up and ready for when (not if!) the PCs come to recruit someone to fill said hole.

A character who is a silent helper for combat because your party is a wizard a sorcerer and a Bard or a Rogue that joins because no one else thought to get theives tools proficiency is not the same thing as a DM PC IMO.

There's no such thing as a "silent helper"; in that we see everyone as equal in the game world, meaning that if someone's a full member of the party their input is just as valid as that of any other full member, with the PC-NPC labelling ignored.

Another reason to regularly have NPC adventurers in the party as a DM is that their presense helps conceal those who are in fact along as plot devices.

 

[Lanefan]

I think DMPCs are a HUGE red flag. It can be done well, but too often it is not.

If the NPC is an abstract character, not built as a PC, that's usually a sign that he/she is there for good plot reasons, not because the DM secretly wishes to be on the other side of the screen.

The bolded is IMO a bad thing; as there shouldn't be any way of knowing whether an NPC is there for plot reasons or not until-unless the NPC says or does something to reveal it.

Further, NPC adventurers and PC adventurers should, in the name of internal consistency, be built the same.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The bolded is IMO a bad thing; as there shouldn't be any way of knowing whether an NPC is there for plot reasons or not until-unless the NPC says or does something to reveal it.

Well it's not like I hand out stat blocs whenever they meet an NPC.

I was more referring to the case when the NPC is clearly an plot NPC (e.g. they've been tagging along for the last few sessions and playing an obvious role).

Further, NPC adventurers and PC adventurers should, in the name of internal consistency, be built the same.

Couldn't disagree more. And couldn't care less about internal consistency. If you run your NPCs by PC rules it means you basically can't have a very powerful NPC participate; the zero-to-hero power curve of D&D would trivialize all the encounters and hold the spotlight all the time. But if you abstract the NPC, then you can just say, "Yeah, she's holding off four orcs over by the pit. She seems to be doing fine."

You run into this same conundrum with rulers. Either every King and Queen needs to be super high level, or they would be far too easy to kill. So I abstract them away and "run" them narratively, not mechanically.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

We have always had a smallish group. We have always all wanted to play.

taking turns DMing the same party means we often had DM PCs that later were just PCs.

I did this once in 5e; I often forgot special abilities and spells due to focusing on the game and players—-opposite of hogging the spotlight and favoring self.

I think this notion that DM PCs are there for the DM to grandstand and hog things is a gross overgeneralization.

it really comes down to who is playing. As a DM I am cringing if players have poor luck. I am rooting for them and would not take choice items or make a power play for a pet npc.

that said if you ride with outlaws, you hang with outlaws. If the party is ok with killing one another, the dm PC should not be off limits.

 

[aco175]

I do not have a problem with a DMPC if part of the group. It depends on the DM and if the DMPC is more powerful or privileged than the others. In an online game it may be more of a problem. I have been playing with one mostly since I only have 3 players and kind of need one to round out things.

Now killing a DMPC if played like the way you are describing the DM having some sort of power trip reminds me to warn you about someone having unlimited dragons.

 

[jgsugden]

Greetings Professor Falken

Hello

A strange game.
The only winning move is
not to play.

D&D is an RPG - a role playing game. Characters play a role in a story. The story is written by the players and DM together, and they need to put their heads together before the game to discuss what is acceptable in that story, and what is not. Sometimes you give up some of that control to the DM to determine - but you should only do that to the extent you trust the DM to give you a good story to explore.

The answer to the question of what is acceptable will change from group to group, and campaign to campaign. One campaign might have rules of 'no evil, no conflict in the party' while the next might be a 'last man standing caper' storyline where the group has to use each other to achieve an end goal, but they can't share the eventual prize, so they're trying to eliminate each other as soon as they think they do not need each other.

If you work out what is acceptable in advance, or make sure you develop trust with the DM to make sure they do not do something that will bother you, then the questions about what is acceptable will already have been answered before you start playing, and people should not have an incentive to do something that is perhaps not acceptable (like objectionable interparty conflict) - whether that non-acceptable activity is against another PC, a DM PC, or an NPC.

 

[J.Quondam]

We have always had a smallish group. We have always all wanted to play.

taking turns DMing the same party means we often had DM PCs that later were just PCs.

I did this once in 5e; I often forgot special abilities and spells due to focusing on the game and players—-opposite of hogging the spotlight and favoring self.

I think this notion that DM PCs are there for the DM to grandstand and hog things is a gross overgeneralization.

it really comes down to who is playing. As a DM I am cringing if players have poor luck. I am rooting for them and would not take choice items or make a power play for a pet npc.

that said if you ride with outlaws, you hang with outlaws. If the party is ok with killing one another, the dm PC should not be off limits.

Yeah, I think that's fair.
To my mind, there's a difference between "the DM's PC" and a DMPC. The first is what you describe: the DM is also a player with a character. Some groups might have trouble juggling that, but I know it works fine for others.

A DMPC, on the other hand, is something like "the DMs favoritest PC 4evar!" The character is often overpowered, and might be a recurring PC in that same setting or even in others. Adventures often end up revolving around the DMPC, too, consistently and in ways that go beyond the NPC as plot device (who does their important thing, but then leaves the spotlight).

Back in the 2e era, I played for a while in a long-running campaign with a DMPC in this sense of the term. (There were 6 players, so it wasn't necessary to fill a spot in the party or anything.) In this game, the DMPC was the object of every quest, the key figure in every storyline, a buddy of godlings and kings, and powerful beyond their stated level. While there were a couple longterm PCs who had prominent roles in the story, most of the PCs were effectively supporting cast in a grand multicosmos-spanning story about the DMPC. I mean, the story was vaguely interesting, but I mainly played just to hang out with friends; and when I left the game, I didn't miss it. Or even remember much of it.

So that's my DMPC story, and why I tend to avoid them. I imagine it largely comes down to one's personal experience dealing with them.