Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GrimshofHighSorcery 04-23-07, 02:01 AM	Hey sorry, I know this is a lame question, but what is a DMPC? And what/how can it affect your game?
graddlin 04-23-07, 02:09 AM	Oh boy. If anyone sees this post it will start a 900-page argument! To answer your question, as best I can, a DMPC is PC that the DM runs in the game as his character. It's the DM's way of playing in his own game. DMPCs can sometimes cause problems due to metagaming and favoritism, but that is not always the case. Take care, friend.
GrimshofHighSorcery 04-23-07, 02:12 AM	Awesome thanks! I couldnt find the older threads, and it was bugging me. Thanks alot, and take care Bruce
Someone 04-23-07, 02:12 AM	What graddlin said (all of what graddlin said, actually). There was a big thread on the subject a month or so back, and the basic was "a character that the DM, for various reasons, views as their character". The big arguments were over what the various reasons were, and the good/bad sides of them. For example, the group might have rotating DM duties, so the player who is DMing at the time would have a DMPC of their PC. On the other hand, there is the "blowup doll", a pet project of the DM that only exists to show off how great they are, at the expense of everyone else.
Yaeri 04-23-07, 04:27 AM	There's a lot of argument surrounding the meaning of the term and also if the term should at all be used. There seems to be an equal amount of people who say DMPC's can work, as people who say it can't work and shouldn't ever be used. Most of the possible problems with DMPC's stem from maturity of the DM, and to a minor degree of the players. If the players and DM trust each other and they're all competent, then there probably won't be any real problem. I rotate with another DM and we keep our characters. We choose to keep our "DMPC" a bit low profile (but not entirely) to not risk any of the players getting the problem the DM is solving his own adventure. So we're not so active in decision making, or problem solving. But you really have to find out what's good for your group.
pres_man 04-23-07, 09:20 AM	Read my sig.
KJW 04-23-07, 09:22 AM	There is also a thread in Redgar's that is in the DMPC definition spoiler in my signature that really highlights the entire debate for whatever the debate is worth. ;)
DyloniusFunk 04-23-07, 09:58 AM	Oh boy. If anyone sees this post it will start a 900-page argument! Actually this may be the ebst time to ask thatv quiestion, everyones to busy with Dragon/Dungeon threads. :D Others have said it better but essentially a DMPC is nothing more than an NPC that the DM treats as his own personal character. A sign of a DM PC is when it is forced upon the party, will do the party's work for them, suich as opening traps or other tasks that the PC should be doing. Basically if the NPC is doing most of the work and the PCs are standing around reading books while the npc kills the orcs solo, good sign you might have DMPC on your hands.
pres_man 04-23-07, 01:39 PM	A sign of a DM PC crappy DM is when it an overpowered character is forced upon the party, will do the party's work for them, such as opening traps or other tasks that the PC should be doing. Basically if the NPC is doing most of the work and the PCs are standing around reading books while the npc kills the orcs solo, good sign you might have DMPC a crappy DM on your hands. Fixed it for you.
Manic Man 04-23-07, 01:55 PM	Read my sig.If i say that often enough, people will buy it Fixed it for you.
KJW 04-23-07, 02:28 PM	Now, now, the OP got his answer(s) and there is the thread in Redgar's to continue the DMPC debate. So let's all just drop it here as there is no reason to continue this thread or this debate.
pres_man 04-23-07, 02:32 PM	Fixed it for you. Cute. Though, the definition in my sig already covered the one in yours. Mine just demonstats an open mind.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-23-07, 02:38 PM	DMPC = Disruptive, Maybe. Proceed Cautiously. ;)
Kadasbrass 04-23-07, 02:53 PM	DMPCs are one of those things that people either have a great experience with or an awful experience with. Doesn't seem like people ever have an "okay" experience with. Just some DMs get carried away with their DMPCs...
Sim_antix 04-23-07, 03:50 PM	How is it that I say a DMPC is an NPC that the DM treats/thinks of as his PC and I get flamed yet when someone asks what a DMPC is that exact answer is the overwhelming response?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-23-07, 03:52 PM	How is it that I say a DMPC is an NPC that the DM treats/thinks of as his PC and I get flamed yet when someone asks what a DMPC is that exact answer is the overwhelming response? I don't know, but doesn't it just pi** you off?
Romtos 04-23-07, 03:54 PM	Every DMPC is a bad DMPC. :)
Sim_antix 04-23-07, 04:10 PM	I don't know, but doesn't it just pi** you off? More than words could ever express considering that this consensus is what I have been trying to get for how long now?
Yaeri 04-23-07, 05:17 PM	How is it that I say a DMPC is an NPC that the DM treats/thinks of as his PC and I get flamed yet when someone asks what a DMPC is that exact answer is the overwhelming response? I remember that there was a lot of dispute in the DMPC threads around that DMPC's didn't exist, or the word shouldn't/couldn't be used. A lot of people disagreed with that. Several people argued that one should say NPC instead of DMPC, because it's an NPC. Others disagreed because they stated it was a special type of NPC (just like people said in the posts up here) that could use its own term. I don't recall others disagreeing with the DMPC being a special type of NPC (ally) though. I'm not saying you're lying or wrong. There were a lot of threads about it and they were big to say the least. So I've not even read half of all the posts. Could you find some links to specific posts in which people disagreed with DMPC being yada yada , and not with that the term DMPC shouldn't exist? I'm curious about it.
Sim_antix 04-23-07, 05:31 PM	http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11498920&postcount=15 And there are many more just in that latest thread
Aliquid 04-23-07, 07:34 PM	How is it that I say a DMPC is an NPC that the DM treats/thinks of as his PC and I get flamed yet when someone asks what a DMPC is that exact answer is the overwhelming response?Because when you say "thinks of as his PC", it means something different than when someone else says "thinks of as his PC". If someone says "Hey buddy, nice car!" :cool: and someone else says "Hey buddy, nice car!" :rolleyes: They are both using the same words, but they are saying something quite different. So.... to put it simply, your exact answer is not the overwhelming response. You use the same words, but your meaning is quite different.
Sim_antix 04-23-07, 07:48 PM	wait what?
KurenaiYami 04-23-07, 08:41 PM	I love these boards. Though I agree with the above post. It seems that Aliquid's trying to say that Sim's arguments are using a different tone...but...this isn't a verbal discussion...so...uh... Yeah...
Aliquid 04-23-07, 09:16 PM	I love these boards. Though I agree with the above post. It seems that Aliquid's trying to say that Sim's arguments are using a different tone...but...this isn't a verbal discussion...so...uh... Yeah...Well no, it isn't a different tone. I was just providing another example of how you can use the same words and mean different things. When I say "PC", I mean a character who is usually part of a group of characters (the adventuring party). These PCs go through the game as the protagonists of the story. The plot revolves around them, they interact with the NPCs fight the bad guys and typically save the day. That's what a "PC" is to me. So for me a "DMPC" would be a character that has the same role as the rest of the PCs in the game, yet is run by the DM. Sim has a completely different interpretation. His concept of what a "PC" is is mostly based on what the player does, thinks or more importantly feels. Sim believes that if a DM has too much of a personal attachment to one of the bad guys in the game, (such as the big bad guy that the PCs are hunting down) then that bad guy is a DMPC. I disagree because if the bad guy is not part of the adventuring party, he isn't acting anything like a "PC". If he isn't acting like a "PC", then he can't be a "DMPC" When Sim says "A NPC that a DM treats like a PC", he is talking about how the DM feels about the character When I say "A NPC that a DM treats like a PC", I am talking about how the character acts within the game. Same words different meaning.
Sim_antix 04-23-07, 09:22 PM	Wrong. I said that if a DM were to think of the BBEG as his PC then it would qualify as a DMPC. Not if he was attached to it or not but how he thought of it and or treated it. PC does not indicate how a character is played but rather who is playing the character as backed up by both the DMG and PHB entries for PC and NPC
Aliquid 04-23-07, 09:28 PM	PC does not indicate how a character is played but rather who is playing the character as backed up by both the DMG and PHB entries for PC and NPCAnd both the DMG and PHB specifically explain what the role of a "PC" is. Based on the rules, a BBEG most certainly doesn't fit the role of a PC. That's not the point though. The point is, you are claiming that everyone agrees with your definition just because they are using the same words. This is a false conclusion for you to make.
Sim_antix 04-23-07, 09:30 PM	And both the DMG and PHB specifically explain what the role of a "PC" is. Based on the rules, a BBEG most certainly doesn't fit the role of a PC. That's not the point though. The point is, you are claiming that everyone agrees with your definition just because they are using the same words. This is a false conclusion for you to make. DMPC is an NPC that the DM views/treats as his PC Everyone has said the same thing but we still disagree?
KurenaiYami 04-23-07, 09:38 PM	Everyone has said the same thing but we still disagree? Hey! Don't muss up our beautiful forums with your resounding logic! :P
pres_man 04-23-07, 10:13 PM	DMPC is an NPC that the DM views/treats as his PC Everyone has said the same thing but we still disagree? When you say a BBEG is a PC, then yeah people are going to disagree.
Aliquid 04-23-07, 10:20 PM	Everyone has said the same thing but we still disagree?If we both say "Football is the best sport out there". We would be saying the same thing. If you mean American Football, and I mean British Football... then we are talking about two completely different sports. Therefore we could be saying the same thing, but not actually agreeing.
graddlin 04-23-07, 10:20 PM	OKAY. This post was not an invitation to begin another long argument. It's quite obvious that we all have different views on DMPCs. Noone is going to sway anyone else to his or her view. Let us simply leave it at that and move on. There are better ways to occupy ourselves. Take care, friends.
Someone 04-24-07, 01:38 AM	"And then it exploded." Which is generally what happens to DMPC threads. Which is why there was a WizO "freeze" on the subject not too long ago.
graddlin 04-24-07, 08:13 AM	"And then it exploded." Which is generally what happens to DMPC threads. Which is why there was a WizO "freeze" on the subject not too long ago. Ya got that bloody right, friend. Take it easy.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 10:51 AM	Hey! Don't muss up our beautiful forums with your resounding logic! :P Yeah sorry about that... When you say a BBEG is a PC, then yeah people are going to disagree. I didnt say it was a PC, I said it could be a DMPC if the DM viewed it as his PC especially in the case of an old PC of the DMs that is now the BBEG If we both say "Football is the best sport out there". We would be saying the same thing. If you mean American Football, and I mean British Football... then we are talking about two completely different sports. Therefore we could be saying the same thing, but not actually agreeing. We arent talking about things that have the same word but are two different things, we are talking about the difference in an interpretation of one word and I have THE RULES to back up my interpretation, what do you guys have?
Aliquid 04-24-07, 11:07 AM	We arent talking about things that have the same word but are two different things, we are talking about the difference in an interpretation of one word and I have THE RULES to back up my interpretation, what do you guys have?I've already pointed out that the rules clearly explain what the role of a PC is. There are whole chapters on the subject. That's all irrelevant though, because you are sidestepping the issue. The point is you claim people are agreeing with you because they appear to be saying the same thing. When they might not actually be saying the same thing at all, even though they are using the same terminology.
pres_man 04-24-07, 11:20 AM	I didnt say it was a PC, I said it could be a DMPC if the DM viewed it as his PC especially in the case of an old PC of the DMs that is now the BBEG Sorry, you appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. I said that if a DM were to think of the BBEG as his PC then it would qualify as a DMPC. Not if he was attached to it or not but how he thought of it and or treated it. PC does not indicate how a character is played but rather who is playing the character as backed up by both the DMG and PHB entries for PC and NPC Which is it, how you think about the character or who plays it? Pick a side and stick to it. The only way I can remotely attempt to combine these two is in the rare cases of a DM who is delusional, "The character is PC because I am not the DM, but I am the King of England!"
kelvinaw273 04-24-07, 12:21 PM	The accepted definition of DMPC is: A character that is treated in all ways as a player character member of the party, that is run by the DM. The facts as I gathered them are: Approximately 50% of the time DMPC can make a positive contribution to the game, in these instances players and DMs both agree that the DMPC was not detrimental to their enjoyment of the said game. However, these tended to be more experienced players and DMs. The remainder of the time the DMPC didn't just spoil the game, it wrecked it, and there seemed to be some tendency for this to be among poorer and/or inexperienced groups. In summarization, most agreed that the DMPC is an advanced tool for the DM to use that is not suited to everyone's style, and probably should not be attempted initially by beginners. If a DM uses one for the first time they should carefully monitor their player's reactions' to ensure that they are not among those where the game foundered with a complaint to the boards: "My DM's DMPC totally sidelined us/wrecked the game/is an ass/etc.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 12:27 PM	A DM should view all NPCs the same: tools to be used and discarded as needed to foster a better overall gaming experience. Calling one NPC a DMPC indicates a fundamentally different attitude towards said NPC and that impairs the DMs ability to be impartial in his handling of it. A DM should never be so attached to an NPC that he would not kill it off in a heartbeat in service to the game, but calling one of them his PC indicates quite strongly that this is not the case as few players will voluntarily kill off their own PC in order to enhance everyone elses' enjoyment of the game. Note: Yes, I am well aware that the career hyperbolists will now accuse me of saying that all NPCs should be generic and lacking in personality and verisimilitude. I neither said nor suggested anything of the sort, but the hyperbolists have an agenda they wish to foster so there is little I can do to forestall this. I just hope they do not knock the htread to far off-topic.
Aliquid 04-24-07, 12:49 PM	.... but calling one of them his PC indicates quite strongly that this is not the case as few players will voluntarily kill off their own PC in order to enhance everyone elses' enjoyment of the game.And this indicates that you have a different definition of DMPC, and a different interpretation of "calling a NPC his PC", for a DM. We are talking about two different things, which makes it impossible to come to any sort of agreement. In my interpretation of DMPC, the DMPC is a character that regularly travels along with the adventuring party, and shares the same role in the game as the PCs run by the players. In the DMG, this is described as a NPC ally. An emotionally secure DM would not have a personal attachment to said DMPC. A DM who isn't a powertripper would have no problem killing off the character in a heartbeat when appropriate. A DM who doesn't understand his role in the game might be personally attached to the DMPC and think "I must protect my player". That's a problem with the DM, not a problem with DMPCs in general.
theotherdraxen 04-24-07, 12:54 PM	Now, now, the OP got his answer(s) and there is the thread in Redgar's to continue the DMPC debate. So let's all just drop it here as there is no reason to continue this thread or this debate. I'm sorry, KJW. The DMPC debate reference thread isn't my location of choice for DMPC comments, since it forbids the actual discussion of DMPCs in many ways. I do like your other works (especially your guide to Solo campaigns; thank you so much for those), but please understand that not all of us want to use your DMPC debate reference thread. How is it that I say a DMPC is an NPC that the DM treats/thinks of as his PC and I get flamed yet when someone asks what a DMPC is that exact answer is the overwhelming response? "thinks of" is the only thing I protest to, since that's too subjective and doesn't necessarily accurately define the term. However, most people would agree with you, I think, if you would just leave the "thinks of" out of the equation. Come on, Sim. Let's compromise a little here and make some headway. It's still the basic definition, and it would be quite popular if you and I were to work to promote it. The accepted definition of DMPC is: A character that is treated in all ways as a player character member of the party, that is run by the DM. The facts as I gathered them are: Approximately 50% of the time DMPC can make a positive contribution to the game, in these instances players and DMs both agree that the DMPC was not detrimental to their enjoyment of the said game. However, these tended to be more experienced players and DMs. The remainder of the time the DMPC didn't just spoil the game, it wrecked it, and there seemed to be some tendency for this to be among poorer and/or inexperienced groups. In summarization, most agreed that the DMPC is an advanced tool for the DM to use that is not suited to everyone's style, and probably should not be attempted initially by beginners. If a DM uses one for the first time they should carefully monitor their player's reactions' to ensure that they are not among those where the game foundered with a complaint to the boards: "My DM's DMPC totally sidelined us/wrecked the game/is an ass/etc. :clap: Finally, the polls are in. There is no real "majority" in terms of DMPCs except that most people see them as an advanced tool. No longer can people claim that "Good DMPCs are rare exceptions to the rule!", since that's clearly not the case. Thank you, Kelvinaw. A DM should view all NPCs the same: tools to be used and discarded as needed to foster a better overall gaming experience. Calling one NPC a DMPC indicates a fundamentally different attitude towards said NPC and that impairs the DMs ability to be impartial in his handling of it. A DM should never be so attached to an NPC that he would not kill it off in a heartbeat in service to the game, but calling one of them his PC indicates quite strongly that this is not the case as few players will voluntarily kill off their own PC in order to enhance everyone elses' enjoyment of the game. That's a mighty fine opinion you have there; one my players would loathe if I adopted. They prefer well-developed NPCs, and there's no way in hell I can well develop every NPC they come across. Needless to say, I regard it, in my opinion, to be a terrible philosophy to regard all NPCs the same: Lord Greenbottle, the crippled gnomish antagonist is *always* going to be more important and expendable than Generic Bodyguard 27. Hell, that's the whole point of a bodyguard: they're more expendable, and usually less important. I'm not saying your opinion is a bad one; just that it might not work or apply to everyone. On a final note, I, as a player, would be more than willing to sacrifice my character if it would enhance the enjoyment of the game for everyone else. In fact, most good players I know are willing to. Therefore, I think we can agree that it is a poor DM that isn't willing to sacrifice his DMPC, while a good DM can have a DMPC and sacrifice it in a heartbeat in order to enhance the game.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 01:01 PM	In my interpretation of DMPC, the DMPC is a character that regularly travels along with the adventuring party, and shares the same role in the game as the PCs run by the players. In the DMG, this is described as a NPC ally. And in my interpretation that is just an NPC and I see no value at all in calling it anything else?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 01:05 PM	That's a mighty fine opinion you have there Yes it is. Thank you for noticing. They prefer well-developed NPCs Told you so. ;) Therefore, I think we can agree that it is a poor DM that isn't willing to sacrifice his DMPC Yes, and thus it is not a DMPC but an NPC and should be called such because, as I said, the use of the term DMPC implies a fundamentally different attitude towards the character. This will, I realize, inevitably lead to accusations of "semantics" cos some readers don't understand that different words actually have different meanings. Again, there is nothing I can do about that other than hoping they do not derail the thread too much.
Aliquid 04-24-07, 01:13 PM	And in my interpretation that is just an NPC and I see no value at all in calling it anything else?That's fine. I don't want you to agree with me, I just want to point out that it is silly to debate the merits of a DMPC if everyone is defining the term differently. Debates on the use of DMPCs is fine, but it is important for us to make sure we understand which definition someone is using before we start disagreeing with them. For example, I think a DMPC can be a good addition to the game if run properly (based on my interpretation of the term). I also think that a DMPC is a very dangerous thing for a DM to run (if I use your definition of the term).
Aliquid 04-24-07, 01:24 PM	as I said, the use of the term DMPC implies a fundamentally different attitude towards the character. It implies that to you, but it does not imply that to me. This will, I realize, inevitably lead to accusations of "semantics" cos some readers don't understand that different words actually have different meanings. Again, there is nothing I can do about that other than hoping they do not derail the thread too much.The problem as I see it is that you seem to think that if a word has a certain connotation to you then it must have the same connotation for everyone. That simply isn't the case. Every human mind interprets things differently. Simply put a DM can't tecnhically run a PC because he is the DM, not a player. Therefore a DMPC is a situation where a character is run as if it was the DM's PC. When you look at that, you immediately look at the "P" part of "PC", and say "ok, it is a situation where the DM treats the character the same way a player treats his character. The DM acts as if he were a player" When I look at that, I look at the "C" part of "PC", and say "OK, this is a situation where the DM runs a character that acts the same as the other player's characters". You are looking at "out of game" behaviour. I am looking at "in game" behaviour.
Dog_As_A_Devil_Deified 04-24-07, 01:30 PM	Forgive my being a n00b to these boards, but what is the big controversy over "DMPCs"? I've never known a DM to play what I'd call a "PC", but I have known them to play long term NPCs that might as well be PCs. Some NPCs just stick around. I'd think that would be especially true in games with a limited number of players. I guess so long as my DMs don't favor their own PCs over mine, what's the big deal?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 01:37 PM	It implies that to you, but it does not imply that to me. I wasn't speaking for you. The problem as I see it is that you seem to think that if a word has a certain connotation to you then it must have the same connotation for everyone. That simply isn't the case. Every human mind interprets things differently. Which is why we collectively reach a consensus on things in order to create a common shared baseline defintion from which meaningful discussion can stem. The problem in this instance is that everyone defines DMPC as is most appropriate to fostering their own personal agenda. The word (or rather acronym) DMPC indicates as different a meaning from NPC as the word "ni**er" does from "African American." And no, I am not in any way equating the importance of the two or saying anything D&D related even beings to approach the seriousness of racism, I am simply using that as an example of the fact that the two terms mark a decidedly different attitude towards the subject. Argue semantics all you wish, but the term DMPC does indiacte a fundamentaly different attitude towards a certain NPC or there would be no reason to call it anything but NPC.
Aliquid 04-24-07, 01:54 PM	Argue semantics all you wish, but the term DMPC does indiacte a fundamentaly different attitude towards a certain NPCGood god man, no it doesn't. Just because you see it as a fundimentally different attitude doesn't make this a fact. This is your opinion, and it is not the concensus of the group. If it was the concensus there wouldn't be threads that are hundreds of posts long arguing the point. This isn't a matter of arguing semantics. This is basic logic. or there would be no reason to call it anything but NPCSo the only valid reason to create a new term is for derogatory use? When I say "Fruit", it can mean a lot of things. When I say "Apple", it clarifies the situation by indicating what type of fruit When I say "Granny Smith Apple", it clarifies the situation even further. When I say "NPC", it can mean a lot of characters run by the DM When I say "NPC Ally", it clarifies the situation by indicating that this is a NPC that is friendly and helpful to the PCs When I say "DMPC", it clarifies it even further by letting us know I am talking about an NPC ally that regularly adventures with the PCs.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 02:45 PM	Good god man, no it doesn't. Just because you see it as a fundimentally different attitude doesn't make this a fact. This is your opinion, and it is not the concensus of the group. If it was the concensus there wouldn't be threads that are hundreds of posts long arguing the point. This isn't a matter of arguing semantics. This is basic logic. And logic dictates that if it is not different then it does not require a different name. So the only valid reason to create a new term is for derogatory use? No. What ever would give you that idea? When I say "Fruit", it can mean a lot of things. When I say "Apple", it clarifies the situation by indicating what type of fruit When I say "Granny Smith Apple", it clarifies the situation even further. When I say "NPC", it can mean a lot of characters run by the DM When I say "NPC Ally", it clarifies the situation by indicating that this is a NPC that is friendly and helpful to the PCs When I say "DMPC", it clarifies it even further by letting us know I am talking about an NPC ally that regularly adventures with the PCs. Yes, it clarifies that a DMPC is different than a normal NPC else it would not require a different name. By specifying it is a DMPC you are indicating that it is, by defeintiion, specifically different than other NPCs. To stick with the apple analogy, it is far more like teh following exchange (paraphrased from Firefly): Kaylee: She stole my apple. Wash: But there's a whole basket of them Kaylee: Yeah, but this one is mine. DMPC does not indicate a different type of NPC, it indicates teh DM's fundametnally different relationship with and attitude towards a specific NPC. Personally, I find it much easier to give NPC names and then refer to them by name rather than pigeonholing them into arbitrary sub-categories. And if it will forestall any silly "Ah ha! That is just your opinion!" rubbish; yes, everything I type is my opinion. Who else's opinion am I qualified to give?
pres_man 04-24-07, 02:53 PM	Yes, it clarifies that a DMPC is different than a normal NPC else it would not require a different name. By specifying it is a DMPC you are indicating that it is, by defeintiion, specifically different than other NPCs. Yes, squares are different than normal quadralaterals (though by definition a square is a "regular" quadralateral). Yet so are trapazoids, rectangles, rhombuses (rhombi?), parallelograms, etc. Reminds me of that old saying, "You are unique, just like everyone else."
Aliquid 04-24-07, 03:00 PM	Personally, I find it much easier to give NPC names and then refer to them by name rather than pigeonholing them into arbitrary sub-categories.Sure we do that in game, but it isn't very useful for discussion on these boards. If someone on the boards says "I'm thinking of adding Lord Percy to my game, any ideas for how to do this?"... we wouldn't know what he was talking about would we? If that person clarified by saying "Lord Percy will be an NPC Ally". It would help others understand what he is talking about. If that person clarified even further by saying "Lord Percy will be a DMPC", it would theoretically help even further. Unfortunately this will never really work, because different people will have different interpretations of what he means by DMPC... and if their definition is different than his, the advice wouldn't be pertinent.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 03:01 PM	Sorry, you appear to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. Well I am not so maybe go reread all of my posts on the subject Which is it, how you think about the character or who plays it? Pick a side and stick to it. The only way I can remotely attempt to combine these two is in the rare cases of a DM who is delusional, "The character is PC because I am not the DM, but I am the King of England!" I dont know how to make this any clearer. PC and NPC indicate who is playing the character not how the character is played. DMPC is not = to PC in fact many of the pro-DMPC people insist on the fact that it is just a subset of NPC. Therefor a DMPC is an NPC that the DM views/treats as his PC Is it really that hard people?
pres_man 04-24-07, 03:04 PM	PC and NPC indicate who is playing the character not how the character is played. Therefor a DMPC is an NPC that the DM views/treats as his PC So the DM has to be delusional, got it. Since that is the only way he can consider the character he is running to be a PC using the book definitons of what a PC is.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 03:10 PM	If that person clarified by saying "Lord Percy will be an NPC Ally". It would help others understand what he is talking about. No more so than "Lord Percy will be an NPC." NPC ally is not a name, it is a description.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 03:13 PM	So the DM has to be delusional, got it. Since that is the only way he can consider the character he is running to be a PC using the book definitons of what a PC is. Ive been saying for years that a DM has to be insane to think that an NPC he is running is his PC
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 03:18 PM	Yes, squares are different than normal quadralaterals (though by definition a square is a "regular" quadralateral). Yet so are trapazoids, rectangles, rhombuses (rhombi?), parallelograms, etc. Which has precisely nothing to do with NPCs. They do not need to be categorized and sub-categorized. It serves no purpose. If you need to discuss their role then simply describe it based on thise role in the game/story: hero, villain, ally, enemy, civilian, etc. serve just as well; better, in fact, as they do not suggest in any way a particular DM bias.
Zousha_Omenohu 04-24-07, 03:21 PM	I know this is going to sound odd, but my DM does not have a DMNPC...he's got two! One is a dwarven fighter (surprise, surprise :rolleyes: ), who has a bad habit of driving the wagon drunk (I'm part of a rather large party, and shortly after they met up with me we got a wagon to travel in), and the other is a human barbarian with an Ahnold Shvartzanegger accent. To be honest, I don't think that they detract from our game at all. They'll interject into various conversation points (usually the barbarian, much to the delight of the players). They'll speak when spoken to, but they're mostly there to provide our main fighters (one of the players has an elven monk, but at the moment she seems to have a problem with getting knocked out in fights). Our most recent fight was against a group of eight ogres. I just cast Enlarge Person on those two and they went ogre-bashing. Meanwhile, the monk and I were both knocked unconcious. Eventually I came to and tried to use Ghost Sound to scare the ogres off, which worked when there were about 2 left, and we were all only level 2 as well! To be honest, we need those guys, otherwise we wouldn't be very combat ready. The rest of the group comprises of myself (a diviner), the elven monk, a gnome cleric (dedicated to Pelor and never lets anyone forget it), an elven bard (who doesn't really do much, she spent most of that afformentioned ogre fight stabbing instead of singing), a human Druid (whose player wasn't even at the table most of the time), and a kender rogue(well-roleplayed, almost too good the annoying little...but I digress). Some of this is merely due to a lack of experience with the game, but that will be fixed in time. For now, I'm glad my DM's got the party's back. EDIT: He's pretty new to this, but he's doing a better job than I ever could.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 03:22 PM	Ive been saying for years that a DM has to be insane to think that an NPC he is running is his PC I don't think he needs to be insane or delusional, rather I believe it indicates that he simply does not really grasp, and is dissatisfied with, the role of DM.
pres_man 04-24-07, 03:29 PM	Which has precisely nothing to do with NPCs. They do not need to be categorized and sub-categorized. It serves no purpose. If you need to discuss their role then simply describe it based on thise role in the game/story: hero, villain, ally, enemy, civilian, etc. serve just as well; better, in fact, as they do not suggest in any way a particular DM bias. Right. Now do the rest of you mangy scum hear that. No more using the term BBEG either, what is the point. Jayne said not to, so don't.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 03:30 PM	I don't think he needs to be insane or delusional, rather I believe it indicates that he simply does not really grasp, and is dissatisfied with, the role of DM. Thats pretty much what I meant, but thank you for making it clear as to what is meant by "insane"
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 03:33 PM	Right. Now do the rest of you mangy scum hear that. No more using the term BBEG either, what is the point. Jayne said not to, so don't. I love how sooner or later one of the pro-DMPC posters always throws this in the mix "Well if DMPC isnt usable then neither is BBEG" Wrong. BBEG is a clearly understood term that describes the main antagonist. DMPC is NOT a clearly understood term that describes a situation that in many gamers opinions should never come up to begin with. Thats the difference.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 03:41 PM	Right. Now do the rest of you mangy scum hear that. No more using the term BBEG either, what is the point. Jayne said not to, so don't. I had no idea you took my opinon as gospel, Pres. If that is indeed the case forward me all you money immediately. Unless you were being sarcastic, of course, but what possible purpose could that serve? ;)
pres_man 04-24-07, 03:45 PM	BBEG is a clearly understood term that describes the main antagonist. Exactly. The "main" antagonist. Doesn't that denote some kind of favortism. It is not just an antagonist, but it is the "main" antagonist. It is not surprising that just as often as an NPC ally is used in a fashion that totally destroys the game, so is a BBEG. The DM breaks all of the/his rules in order to keep this "main" antagonist going, instead of realizing that this is just an antagonist and should be played as any other one. The DM should just let the dice fall as they may, but too often a DM will fudge the dice, and metagame the heck out to keep the "main" antagonist alive and free. Sounds like the pretty much the same exact problem. So why do we need this special name when it just implies to the DM that this character is more important than others, causing many DMs to do a poor job.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 03:54 PM	Exactly. The "main" antagonist. Doesn't that denote some kind of favortism. It is not just an antagonist, but it is the "main" antagonist. It is not surprising that just as often as an NPC ally is used in a fashion that totally destroys the game, so is a BBEG. The DM breaks all of the/his rules in order to keep this "main" antagonist going, instead of realizing that this is just an antagonist and should be played as any other one. The DM should just let the dice fall as they may, but too often a DM will fudge the dice, and metagame the heck out to keep the "main" antagonist alive and free. Sounds like the pretty much the same exact problem. So why do we need this special name when it just implies to the DM that this character is more important than others, causing many DMs to do a poor job. Yeah except there is a clear difference between NPC Ally and DMPC just like there is a clear difference between Powergamer and Munchkin in fact I kind of like that analogy. NPC Ally is to DMPC what Powergamer is to Munchkin
Aliquid 04-24-07, 04:17 PM	And if it will forestall any silly "Ah ha! That is just your opinion!" rubbish; yes, everything I type is my opinion. Who else's opinion am I qualified to give?Well.... the "opinion" issue is rather important for my point. You are interpreting what DMPC means based on your opinion, I am interpreting it based on my opinion. The fact that we have two different definitions makes it irrational for us to discuss the merits of a DMPC. If we were to argue: "Footballs are spherical", "no they aren't they are oblong" That would be a rather silly debate, since we would be clearly using a different definition for the word "football" If we argue: "DMPCs are a bad idea", "no they aren't they can work just fine" It is just as silly of a debate if we are using different definitions of "DMPC". No more so than "Lord Percy will be an NPC." NPC ally is not a name, it is a description.Yes, and descriptions are rather important when having a discussion or asking for help. "can you help me add a NPC to my game" "can you help me add a NPC ally to my game" The clarity in the second statement would help in getting more relevant advice.
Morits 04-24-07, 04:17 PM	"And then it exploded." Which is generally what happens to DMPC threads. Which is why there was a WizO "freeze" on the subject not too long ago. There is no point saying the real definition of DPMC is yatter yatter, no-one will agree. What might be done is describe each particular batch and assign a random number to each definition. DMPC 1 = always a bad thing by definition. DMPC 2 = NPC Ally who adventures with the PCs. DMPC 3 = DM's pet. DM has taken time and effort defining the Character and is fond of them. This category includes Allies, recurring Characters and of course BBEG. DMPC 4 = DM's favourite. DM fudges dice rolls and arbitrarily assigns them extra powers. Also a bad thing. DMPC 5 = All NPCs. DMPC 6 = An Ally of higher level than the PCs. Usually a bad thing. DMPC 7 = Any NPC who has in-game reasons to thwart the PCs' evil plans. Example: Orcs raid a village and kidnap the Priest, PCs go on a mission to rescue him. At this point, Father Alaricq is DMPC 5 and only the most rabid anti-DMPCers would say he breaks the game. Then the PCs recruit the Priest to join the Party. Ouch! Naked vicar dragged out of bed with neither spells nor equipment needs to be rescued. 3rd lvl Cleric with full buff in a Party of 1st lvl is certainly DMPC 6 and in danger of being DMPC 1. So I built a 1st lvl Rogue DMPC 2, whose Back-story included a row with Father Alaricq. 3rd lvl Cleric goes off in a huff when Party lets 1st lvl Rogue join, disaster averted. Sunless Citadel: Party raid Goblin Territory. Goblins have imprisoned a Gnome and some Kobolds. The Prisoners join the Party, DMPC 2. So far the Game is ticking over OK. Then the PCs recruit Goblins. Aarrgh! I have to play all these people who don't want to be there, DMPC 7. Worse than that, near the end of the Session, the Goblins escape and I think it is all over. Between Sessions, I get bombarded with e-mails "Give us back our Goblins!" I then have to spend so much time, devising the Goblin plan and giving them a reason to come back that I start caring about MY Goblins, DMPC 3.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-24-07, 05:08 PM	Yes, and descriptions are rather important when having a discussion or asking for help. "can you help me add a NPC to my game" "can you help me add a NPC ally to my game" The clarity in the second statement would help in getting more relevant advice. Not nearly so much as explaingin in what way Lord Percy will be an ally, at which point categorizing him as an "NPC Ally" or "DMPC" is pointless. To illicit any meaningful responses you need more than just filing him in some vague, ill-defined and contentious category. Telling us who he is an what role he fill fill helps, giving him and arbitrary role title does not. You keep saying that "The fact that we have two different definitions makes it irrational for us to discuss the merits of a DMPC" when all it really does is indicate how useless the term DMPC really is.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 05:24 PM	Not nearly so much as explaingin in what way Lord Percy will be an ally, at which point categorizing him as an "NPC Ally" or "DMPC" is pointless. To illicit any meaningful responses you need more than just filing him in some vague, ill-defined and contentious category. Telling us who he is an what role he fill fill helps, giving him and arbitrary role title does not. You keep saying that "The fact that we have two different definitions makes it irrational for us to discuss the merits of a DMPC" when all it really does is indicate how useless the term DMPC really is. Yeah I have said this so many times... :banghead:
Aliquid 04-24-07, 05:33 PM	You keep saying that "The fact that we have two different definitions makes it irrational for us to discuss the merits of a DMPC" when all it really does is indicate how useless the term DMPC really is.Yes the term is useless. If people can't even agree on its definition, then the term has no value at all. The problem is that not enough people realize that there are important differences in the interpretation of the term. People walk into these DMPC debates and start shouting their opinions. Opinions that are guaranteed to clash because they are talking about different concepts. The point I want to drill into people's heads is: "When someone uses the term 'DMPC' in a thread, don't assume that their definition of 'DMPC' matches yours. The whole debate is a waste of time if you are talking about two different things" Yeah I have said this so many times... You have said many times that DMPC is a useless term and shouldn't be used. Then you go and argue that your definition of the term is the only valid one.... If you made up your mind and picked one side, people wouldn't be so confused.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 05:48 PM	Ok for the absolute last time. DMPC is an acronym of Dungeon Masters Player Character which itself is a made up word that describes a character in the game that falls outside of all accepted parameters of the game itself. Some people argue that DMPC means this or that but in its most basic sense all it really means is the DMs PC or a character that the DM is playing and thinks of as his PC analogous to the other players and their PCs. Since we cant even agree on that most basic definition and the term is an oxy moron that seems to describe a situation that goes against the accepted roles of the DM and Player, I have proposed several times that we not even use the term. Since some people refuse to let the term die, I dont harp about eliminating the term as much as I try and come to an agreement that it means DMs PC which in turn can lead to the discussion of whether this is a good idea or not.
Aliquid 04-24-07, 06:08 PM	Since some people refuse to let the term die, I dont harp about eliminating the term as much as I try and come to an agreement that it means DMs PC which in turn can lead to the discussion of whether this is a good idea or not.aah, but we all agree that it means DMs PC. The difference is in how we interpret that concept, and you clearly interpret it differently than some others on the board. The problem is you interpret the definition differently than others, and you are unwilling to accept that other interpretations may be valid. Basically you are suggesting two options 1) Everyone should use your interpretation of the term. 2) If everyone isn't willing to agree with you, then the term shouldn't be used at all. You aren't looking for a concensus, you are looking for people to agree with you. You aren't even willing to accept that a different interpretation is logically possible.
graddlin 04-24-07, 08:12 PM	A DM should view all NPCs the same: tools to be used and discarded as needed to foster a better overall gaming experience. Calling one NPC a DMPC indicates a fundamentally different attitude towards said NPC and that impairs the DMs ability to be impartial in his handling of it. A DM should never be so attached to an NPC that he would not kill it off in a heartbeat in service to the game, but calling one of them his PC indicates quite strongly that this is not the case as few players will voluntarily kill off their own PC in order to enhance everyone elses' enjoyment of the game. Note: Yes, I am well aware that the career hyperbolists will now accuse me of saying that all NPCs should be generic and lacking in personality and verisimilitude. I neither said nor suggested anything of the sort, but the hyperbolists have an agenda they wish to foster so there is little I can do to forestall this. I just hope they do not knock the htread to far off-topic. You make a very good point here. Maybe some of the other people on this board should listen to the logic in your statement. Take care, friend.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 08:17 PM	aah, but we all agree that it means DMs PC. The difference is in how we interpret that concept, and you clearly interpret it differently than some others on the board. The problem is you interpret the definition differently than others, and you are unwilling to accept that other interpretations may be valid. Basically you are suggesting two options 1) Everyone should use your interpretation of the term. 2) If everyone isn't willing to agree with you, then the term shouldn't be used at all. You aren't looking for a concensus, you are looking for people to agree with you. You aren't even willing to accept that a different interpretation is logically possible. Dungeon Master (DM): The player who portrays nonplayer characters, makes up the story setting for the other players, and serves as a referee. nonplayer character (NPC): A character controlled by the Dungeon Master rather than by one of the other players in a game session, as opposed to a player character. player character (PC): A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a nonplayer character. So what interpretation of DM, NPC and PC are we not agreeing on?
Aliquid 04-24-07, 10:31 PM	Originally Posted by Players Handbook V3.5 Pg 308, 311 Dungeon Master (DM): The player who portrays nonplayer characters, makes up the story setting for the other players, and serves as a referee. nonplayer character (NPC): A character controlled by the Dungeon Master rather than by one of the other players in a game session, as opposed to a player character. player character (PC): A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a nonplayer character.So what interpretation of DM, NPC and PC are we not agreeing on?Cute... but missing the point again. We aren't disagreeing with any of those definitions. We are disagreeing on how they would apply to a "DMPC". Since a PC is defined as a character that is not run by the DM... a DMPC is technically an impossibility. We both agree on that. So the only logical way to interpret a DMPC, is to say it is a character run by the DM as if it were a PC. This is where our interpretations differ.
Sim_antix 04-24-07, 11:00 PM	Cute... but missing the point again. We aren't disagreeing with any of those definitions. We are disagreeing on how they would apply to a "DMPC". Since a PC is defined as a character that is not run by the DM... a DMPC is technically an impossibility. We both agree on that. So the only logical way to interpret a DMPC, is to say it is a character run by the DM as if it were a PC. This is where our interpretations differ. Except NPC Allies are characters run by the DM [i]as if[/] it were a PC but the DM still recognizes that he is the DM and not a Player so the character remains an NPC and does not become the DMs PC.
Aliquid 04-24-07, 11:56 PM	Except NPC Allies are characters run by the DM [i]as if[/] it were a PC but the DM still recognizes that he is the DM and not a Player so the character remains an NPC and does not become the DMs PC.And that is where we disagree. We don't disagree with the definition of a PC, an NPC or a DM. We don't disagree that a DMPC is a Dungeon Master's PC. We don't disagree that a DM can't technically run a PC based on the definition of said terms. Our interpretations differ here: I say a DMPC is where a DM runs a character as if that character was a PC You say a DMPC is where a DM runs a character as if the DM was a player in the game. I don't care if you disagree with my definition or not, but the debate on this subject can't go anywhere if you close your eyes and refuse to accept that it is a possible interpretation.
Sim_antix 04-25-07, 12:11 AM	And that is where we disagree. We don't disagree with the definition of a PC, an NPC or a DM. We don't disagree that a DMPC is a Dungeon Master's PC. We don't disagree that a DM can't technically run a PC based on the definition of said terms. Our interpretations differ here: I say a DMPC is where a DM runs a character as if that character was a PC You say a DMPC is where a DM runs a character as if the DM was a player in the game. I don't care if you disagree with my definition or not, but the debate on this subject can't go anywhere if you close your eyes and refuse to accept that it is a possible interpretation. The problem is that NPC Ally is the proper term for a character that the DM runs as if that character was a PC so we dont need a term thats definition is under debate to describe it because we already have one from the DMG that is not under debate
pres_man 04-25-07, 12:19 AM	The problem is that NPC Ally is the proper term for a character that the DM runs as if that character was a PC so we dont need a term thats definition is under debate to describe it because we already have one from the DMG that is not under debate What you mean is you don't need the term. Why not stop trying to be the DMPC-nazi and just let people use what terms they wish and respect their opinion? Use the context of the post to understand what they are discussing, you know how people understand language when it has more than one possible meaning. You don't think the term DMPC should be used, then model that behaviour by not using it.
Aliquid 04-25-07, 12:22 AM	The problem is that NPC Ally is the proper term for a character that the DM runs as if that character was a PC so we dont need a term thats definition is under debate to describe it because we already have one from the DMG that is not under debateDozens of rebuttals have been made against that point already, so I won't waste my breath repeating them. It doesn't matter if you agree with my definition. You just have to comprehend that other interpretations exist, and that yours isn't the only valid one. There is really nothing more to say. We could go on, but we would just go in circles like all the other threads.... so I'm just going to unsubscribe to this thread and move on.
Sim_antix 04-25-07, 12:32 AM	Dozens of rebuttals have been made against that point already, so I won't waste my breath repeating them. It doesn't matter if you agree with my definition. You just have to comprehend that other interpretations exist, and that yours isn't the only valid one. There is really nothing more to say. We could go on, but we would just go in circles like all the other threads.... so I'm just going to unsubscribe to this thread and move on. Dozens of rebuttals? The only reason ever given was that "NPC Ally is too 'vague'" which is utter crap because DMPC is no less vague if not even more vague in the number of possible interpretations
theotherdraxen 04-25-07, 01:37 AM	I don't think he needs to be insane or delusional, rather I believe it indicates that he simply does not really grasp, and is dissatisfied with, the role of DM. This is both absurd and insulting. Do you mean to tell me that my DM began playing his DMPC becuse he was dissatisfied with and didn't grasp the role of DM? How about me, who has had a DMPC thrust upon him by his own players? Since we cant even agree on that most basic definition and the term is an oxy moron that seems to describe a situation that goes against the accepted roles of the DM and Player, I have proposed several times that we not even use the term. Loki's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager). Dozens of rebuttals? The only reason ever given was that "NPC Ally is too 'vague'" which is utter crap because DMPC is no less vague if not even more vague in the number of possible interpretations And the ever classic rebuttal: "Rectancle is exactly what a square is; there's no need to define it further. Having a definition for square will just confuse things further." In any case, my group uses the term DMPC, half of the members here (please see Kelvinaw's post) have found DMPCs to be beneficial to a group, and I'm willing to bet that half (if not, more) of the members of this community would prefer to use the term DMPC to NPC-ally when they want to talk about it. So, yeah, a good number of us find it a valid term, and want you to refrain from denouncing our opinions and at the minimum recognize that we have both a valid point and a valid place here using the term as we do. You don't have to agree with us; you just have to agree to disagree. BTW, Sim, what happened to our compromise?
KurenaiYami 04-25-07, 01:42 AM	Dozens of rebuttals? The only reason ever given was that "NPC Ally is too 'vague'" which is utter crap because DMPC is no less vague if not even more vague in the number of possible interpretations Actually, if you go by Aliquid's definition, it is slightly more specific, with the whole being two types of NPC allies and all that jazz. As to saying that there's already a word to describe what DMPC is thought to describe (by some), so another word is not necessary...that's true. But this is the English language. We have many, many ways of referring to the same concept. Going off of that precedent, "a term already exists" isn't a valid reason to nix this one. Edit: Not that I agree with the idea of DMPCs, just adding to the conversation.
Sim_antix 04-25-07, 09:02 AM	This is both absurd and insulting. Do you mean to tell me that my DM began playing his DMPC becuse he was dissatisfied with and didn't grasp the role of DM? How about me, who has had a DMPC thrust upon him by his own players? I would have to reasonably assume that yes indeed both you and your DM began playing DMPCs because you either didnt fully understand the role of the DM (and perhaps still dont) or were not fully satisfied with the role of the DM (and perhaps still arent) Loki's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki%27s_Wager). Except I am not saying that it cant be defined and thats the reason we shouldnt use it, instead I am saying that everyone has different definitions thus making it a very poor word to use as it causes much debate as to its meaning as well as the fact that many who refer to a DMPC are describing NPC Allies as defined by the DMG. Its like if half of the board thought that BBEG meant that the DM was some rampant sadist thrusting a monsterously difficult villian upon the PCs often resulting in the total ruination of their game, then perhaps it would be time to find a new way of saying "Main Antagonist" And the ever classic rebuttal: "Rectancle is exactly what a square is; there's no need to define it further. Having a definition for square will just confuse things further." In any case, my group uses the term DMPC, half of the members here (please see Kelvinaw's post) have found DMPCs to be beneficial to a group, and I'm willing to bet that half (if not, more) of the members of this community would prefer to use the term DMPC to NPC-ally when they want to talk about it. So, yeah, a good number of us find it a valid term, and want you to refrain from denouncing our opinions and at the minimum recognize that we have both a valid point and a valid place here using the term as we do. You don't have to agree with us; you just have to agree to disagree. BTW, Sim, what happened to our compromise? I would gladly take that bet because we have both been down this road before and we know that there is no clear numbers advantage for either side so lets leave mob rule logic out of this and simply argue our points. There is no way that calling an NPC Ally a DMPC is helping to define it further. Even with the definition of DMPC being almost completely agreed upon by most of the prominent posters here there is still debate as to what exactly "treats as his PC" means. Some say that it means he thinks he can be a player in his own game while others claim that it just means that the character follows the same rules as the PCs (of course this once again is simply an NPC Ally as defined in the DMG) If NPC Ally is too vague then try following lears_fools advice and letting context define what kind (adventuring or non) We still have an agreement and I have not said anything that goes against spreading a logical definition of DMPC other than say one time that I dont even think the word should be used. Actually, if you go by Aliquid's definition, it is slightly more specific, with the whole being two types of NPC allies and all that jazz. As to saying that there's already a word to describe what DMPC is thought to describe (by some), so another word is not necessary...that's true. But this is the English language. We have many, many ways of referring to the same concept. Going off of that precedent, "a term already exists" isn't a valid reason to nix this one. Edit: Not that I agree with the idea of DMPCs, just adding to the conversation. Its not that "a term already exists" its that DMPC causes more debate and confusion than any other term out there AND its not even necessary because a term already exists
_Jayne_Cobb_ 04-25-07, 12:40 PM	Cute... but missing the point again. We aren't disagreeing with any of those definitions. We are disagreeing on how they would apply to a "DMPC". Since a PC is defined as a character that is not run by the DM... a DMPC is technically an impossibility. We both agree on that. So the only logical way to interpret a DMPC, is to say it is a character run by the DM as if it were a PC. This is where our interpretations differ. And running it as if it were a PC is fundamentally different than the manner in which the DM relates to every single other NPC - which is what I have said many, many times and which the the intrinsic problem with DMPCs.