Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ForgottenDruid 08-29-06, 12:26 PM	My brother would gladly be DM only wants to know if he can play the game with us?
Timeout 08-29-06, 12:30 PM	can? yes. should he? NO! it will ruin the game. trust me.
KJW 08-29-06, 12:32 PM	Look at all of the threads on DMPCs for a detailed discussion. Technically, a DM runs NPCs and players run PCs. A DM can run a NPC with the party, but he really shouldn't treat the NPC as a PC or he is opening a can of worms. The truth is the DM controls the world and the players control the party, thus it should be up to the players if they want any NPCs with the party. When the DM starts interferring with the party dynamic problems occur, but if the DM keeps his NPCs as NPCs then there shouldn't be a problem. This is a very controversial issue and you will gets lots of diverse responses to this idea, for better or worse.
ForgottenDruid 08-29-06, 12:32 PM	You think he'll be biased or it'll just complicate the game?
Atirakis 08-29-06, 12:34 PM	Let the flame war begin anew! Im going to suprise everyone by not saying absolutely not. Im going to give you some real advice. Your brother cannot be a PC because he is a DM and never the two shall meet. However he can play an NPC Ally that acts in all ways like a PC, but be forewarned that this is a dangerous road to travel and he needs to constantly watch out for the pitfall of thinking of this NPC as his PC because thats when DMs stop being DMs and start being "players with power" a quote from another thread that will live forever in infamy as exactly why a DM should never play a DMPC.
Erloas 08-29-06, 12:35 PM	can of worms opened... Many threads on this, the most recent of which is around 26 pages long. The gist of it is that if he is a good DM and a good player, there is a chance he can control a character with the party and have it work out fine. Some people might say that it will work only if you give the idea a specific name and not another name. But the practical answer is that if the players will accept a DM run character with the party and not metagame the fact that the player of that character knows everything (not that the character knows everything) and the DM doesn't try to control everything with the character then it will work. There is potential for problems, there is potential for it to work well. It comes down mostly to the specific players in the specific game. I say give it a try and if it works for you then great. If it causes problems then fix those problems or remove the character.
ForgottenDruid 08-29-06, 12:36 PM	This is the main issue why our group hasn't got a DM yet. I'd gladly do it but for the love of RPing my own charrie I'm holding back. It's the same for my brother and another person who is within our group...
MarkB 08-29-06, 12:37 PM	You think he'll be biased or it'll just complicate the game? It's nigh-impossible to play a character in an unbiased fashion whilst also having full control over the world that character inhabits. At the very least, it takes care and concentration - concentration which he should be focusing upon making the game fun for the other players. It's not totally impossible, but it's not something anyone new to DMing should be attempting.
Erloas 08-29-06, 12:44 PM	Some groups also take up a rotating DM system. Where for a couple weeks one person DMs and his character stays with the group, and then later one of the other players takes turns DMing, the first DM goes back to being in control of just his character and the new DM keeps his character with the group.
natural_selection 08-29-06, 12:46 PM	Did you ever play chess alone against yourself? If you did, did you enjoy to win? The feeling is the same as to run a PC and be a DM at the same time.
Erloas 08-29-06, 12:53 PM	Did you ever play chess alone against yourself? If you did, did you enjoy to win? The feeling is the same as to run a PC and be a DM at the same time. Well only if you are also playing D&D by yourself. There is also no real way to "win" D&D no matter how you play. The true answer is that this is D&D. You can and are infact encouraged to do whatever you want. If it works for your group then its ok, no one else can tell you otherwise.
ForgottenDruid 08-29-06, 01:03 PM	The rota sounds good I'll sound it out with the rest of the group and if the don't like it, looks like i'll have to be DM :( Not that I don't mind it's just I'd have preffered to be a PC...
Harrowdroth 08-29-06, 01:15 PM	Quote: Originally Posted by natural_selection Did you ever play chess alone against yourself? If you did, did you enjoy to win? The feeling is the same as to run a PC and be a DM at the same time. 1: Well only if you are also playing D&D by yourself. There is also no real way to "win" D&D no matter how you play. 2: The true answer is that this is D&D. You can and are infact encouraged to do whatever you want. If it works for your group then its ok, no one else can tell you otherwise. _____________________________________ Harrowdroth's take>: Npc's in the party is acceptable, even good at times, but a dm playing an PC is very defficult. not to mention that your attention would be less on the REAL PC's, Thus why there are two types of dnd'ers: DMs AND PLAYERS i'm sure there are exceptions, but if a dm wants to be a player, then roleplay some npc's in the party. then your attention is on the (real) players. get a second group to play with, and dont DM for them. 1:Erloas, the point Natural_selection was clearly making was: your playing both sides of the table, which is imossible to do without some bias. 2:I disagree, yes you are encouraged to do as you wish, but a DM's job is to ensure that the player (and yourself to a lesser extent) enjoy the game, playing a PC (in my mind) jeopardizes that. Is this thread intended to start a flame war? because it seems to be doing so.....
WingedFairyWolf 08-29-06, 01:23 PM	Harrow makes some really good points and is right. When you have puzzles and traps you as a DM knows what's going on, so how can you make it fair by having your DMPC figure it out before the other PCs? To make things simple I'm coping and pasted what I wrote in the topic DMPC vs. NPCs & PCs Hope it helps ;) Here is what I see is the difference between an NPC and a DMPC. DMPC - The DM's personal character, that the DM tends to be overly protective of, and grandstands as the main hero/leader and the main focus. NPC - either random people to talk to or solid people that your PC's can interact with. NPC's can also go along on the adventure with your PC's but as a general rule is a background support character and the DM is not biased towards the NPC in anyway especially in life or death scenerio's. To often I've seen DM's use DMPC's instead of NPC's, which I usually think is a HUGE mistake. The gamers usually get bored with the game and annoyed with the DM because the DM is always spotlighting the DMPC, which usually turns out to be unkillable. Or the DM punishes the PC, because the PC dislikes the DMPC and starts a fight/disagree's etc. I have personally for one of my games has a DMPC, but I only have 1 player for that specific game (my husband) and yet he is still the main focus of the game. Something I always tell my players is that it is Their game to go where they want with it. When they want to adventure, I just set up scenerios in which they can adventure. If they want to stay in a town or a city and be involved in the polictics or the guard force I again set up the scenerio and let THEM run the show. I always have at least 3-4 directions in which I might be able to take the game if they don't like 1 or 2 of the directions I might be trying to point to them. You just always have to be neutral when DMing and not take things that the players do in game as PCs.
Illithid_Tentacles 08-29-06, 01:24 PM	If there's a gap in the party that NEEDS to be filled (e.g. there's no ranger, paladin, cleric, bard, or druid, and thus the party has virtually no way of healing themselves in a timely manner, unless one is playing a rogue with ranks in UMD or something), then I could see a DM running a DMPC to fill it, but by and large, there are few parties that are SO severly lacking in one area, that a DMPC becomes all but neccesary. I could also see a DMPC in a game with only two players. Unless the DM is very experienced, it's almost always a bad idea.
KnaveofClubs 08-29-06, 01:45 PM	It is impossible for a DM to play as a PC. It is possible for a DM to have a character, and, if you rotate DMs, be able to play his character as a pc. But, any character played under a DM is either an npc or a messed up, omniscient npc but nonetheless an npc.
RogerWilco 08-29-06, 01:47 PM	We take turns being DMs, and our characters take extended holidays while we do, either training or studying or practicing their craft or some such thing. At first this would not have them gain any gold/XP, but this became a problem because some people would have longer quests as others. Now just have the DM PC gain XP and gold at the same rate as the party, with adustments for the PCs level, so the PC will fit right back in when another player starts DMing, and the side effect is that the DMs now are a lot less stingy with XP and gold, as it doesn't disadvantage their own character. A side effect of this continually changing configuration of the party is that we continually face new chalenges and appreciate everyone's role in the party much more. It's fun!
Sulaco 08-29-06, 01:51 PM	My brother would gladly be DM only wants to know if he can play the game with us? No. He can run NPCs but not a PC (or a so-called DMPC). If having complete control of every single character, creature, entity, and god in the universe apart from the few PCs is not enough for him then I would suggest that your brother is not yet fully prepared to be a DM.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 01:59 PM	Okay, this thread is clearly flamebait after reading the other one. No, a DM can't be a PC because a person is not thier character. The DM can, however play a member of the party that is in all ways like a PC, but he better not call it that because some people are violently opposed to calling a spade a spade.
LCD2YOU 08-29-06, 02:05 PM	No. He can run NPCs but not a PC (or a so-called DMPC). If having complete control of every single character, creature, entity, and god in the universe apart from the few PCs is not enough for him then I would suggest that your brother is not yet fully prepared to be a DM.Drat again to those words of wisdom that I must agree with. I am starting to get worried. What Sulaco said. I've been playing DnD for almost 30 years now. I've played a few years but I've been the DM in most of the campaigns I've been in. Making good NPCs and BBEGs for the party is tough enough. Making a really well made BBEG and knowing all their weaknesses as a character is bad. True, any NPCs that are with the party would also "know" but as they aren't "your character" there is far less tendency to metagame if your the DM, but in my experience it'll only be worse. Lest anyone forgets, remember some time ago when there were all these players foaming at the mouth saying just how unfair their DM is because they kept on "cheating" for some NPC or BBEG? That is almost always what you end up with when a DM is also "true player". Being a DM means though that you can create a character fully formed, armed and armored without having to wait :)
LCD2YOU 08-29-06, 02:09 PM	Okay, this thread is clearly flamebait after reading the other one. No, a DM can't be a PC because a person is not thier character. The DM can, however play a member of the party that is in all ways like a PC, but he better not call it that because some people are violently opposed to calling a spade a spade.Maybe it's just semantics here Vaal but it is that subtle difference between being the "voice of all NPCs" and the only voice for "my PC" that is the difference between a DMPC and the NPCs.
Sulaco 08-29-06, 02:13 PM	...some people are violently opposed to calling a spade a spade. No, they're not. Some people are, however, opposed to the idea of calling a banana a "small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden". A character run by the DM is an NPC. Why not just call it what it is?
Sulaco 08-29-06, 02:18 PM	Drat again to those words of wisdom that I must agree with. I am starting to get worried. Don't be worried, you're just starting to come around to the light-side. ;)
SilverFoxKnows 08-29-06, 02:18 PM	If you rotate DMs you might face that. Our group is doing that, now. The DMPC is an ave. INT Fighter so we don't look to Jack for all the answers anyway. When I'm DMing my players don't look to Kovax (my PC) for answers because he's a Barbarian that tends toward the uncouth. If you have a small group, like us, it could work. One rotating DM, two player that are always there, another who is almost always there (if a little late) and a new guy who just made a character at the end of game on Sunday (we'll see how that goes). When we run two games the second game is only two players. A third PC rounds out the group. If your group has all its bases covered I wouldn't run a permanent one. Maybe short term NPC that travels with the party from point A to B if it fits the storyline but that's about it.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 02:26 PM	No, they're not. Some people are, however, opposed to the idea of calling a banana a "small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden". Good thing this is nothing like that then. A character run by the DM is an NPC. Why not just call it what it is? The same reason you don't call the BBEG an NPC. They have a sufficiently specialized role that they require a new term. Much like you wouldn't call a scapel a knife.
Arganis 08-29-06, 02:28 PM	The same reason you don't call the BBEG an NPC. They have a sufficiently specialized role that they require a new term. Much like you wouldn't call a scapel a knife. Good point, that. I'd just like to point out that I'd never heard the terms BBEG or DMPC until I came to these boards. Frickin' colloquialisms. I'd also like to point out that arguing the same thing in two threads is annoying. I think in this thread I will argue one viewpoint and in the other thread I will argue another.
MarkB 08-29-06, 02:39 PM	Good thing this is nothing like that then. The same reason you don't call the BBEG an NPC. They have a sufficiently specialized role that they require a new term. Much like you wouldn't call a scapel a knife. All characters played by the DM fall under the umbrella term "NPC". BBEGs and DMPCs are two specific types of NPC. There are other sub-categories within that category, and not all NPCs are so specialised as to have their own sub-category, but a BBEG or a DMPC is never "not an NPC".
Sulaco 08-29-06, 02:44 PM	The same reason you don't call the BBEG an NPC. They have a sufficiently specialized role that they require a new term. Much like you wouldn't call a scapel a knife. Good analogy, but still not applicable. BBEG is just a net shorthand like LOL or ROFL used to save time when discussing these things online. It is still just an NPC. BBEG menas "big bad evil guy" or "major campaign villain." In that you are correct, it is a specialized role. So-called DMPCs, however, have no such specialized role. The terms DMPC only says that it is a DM's pet NPC, it says nothing about that NPCs role in the game.
Arganis 08-29-06, 02:50 PM	Good analogy, but still not applicable. BBEG is just a net shorthand like LOL or ROFL used to save time when discussing these things online. It is still just an NPC. BBEG menas "big bad evil guy" or "major campaign villain." In that you are correct, it is a specialized role. So-called DMPCs, however, have no such specialized role. The terms DMPC only says that it is a DM's pet NPC, it says nothing about that NPCs role in the game. PNPC then, or Peon for short. :cool:
Atirakis 08-29-06, 02:53 PM	Don't be worried, you're just starting to come around to the light-side. ;) I thought we were the darkside... :raincloud
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 03:32 PM	The terms DMPC only says that it is a DM's pet NPC, it says nothing about that NPCs role in the game. This isn't true. DMPC says that the character shares the same purpose and design as a PC, that is, a full member of the party. There is no implication of 'pet' at all.
Shrindi 08-29-06, 05:06 PM	This isn't true. DMPC says that the character shares the same purpose and design as a PC, that is, a full member of the party. There is no implication of 'pet' at all. Think about this for just one second. Please. No- keep thinking... Ok. Now that you hopefully have comprehended what you just said I hope you realize you have just defined the term "conflict of interest". You have also justified a metagaming pc. If the dm has a full member of the party then that member WILL be a little metagaming freak. It has no other choice because it shares a brain with the dm and therefore knows every aspect of the game world and npc characters and main villian/villians. By its very nature it is unfair. Any dm who wishes to run a "dmpc" should really deal with their power hungry ways. They already run EVERY character besides the players. If that isn't enough then what is!? This entire topic is stupid. I wish for once people actually read the DMG.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 05:26 PM	Now that you hopefully have comprehended what you just said I hope you realize you have just defined the term "conflict of interest". There is not conflict of interest. You have also justified a metagaming pc. If the dm has a full member of the party then that member WILL be a little metagaming freak. It has no other choice because it shares a brain with the dm and therefore knows every aspect of the game world and npc characters and main villian/villians. By its very nature it is unfair. This assumes any player who has any amoung of knowledge of gaming wil metagame. Unless yoiu always use fire and acid whenerver you come upon a troll in game, regardless of wheither your character knows what one is, you cannot say the DM *has* to metagame. Keeping IC and OOC information seperate is not as hard as you seem to believe. And simply stating it suggests thet you personally metagame like crazy at any oppurtunity as a normal player, not just as DM.
Atirakis 08-29-06, 05:37 PM	You know I actually agree with Vaal about the whole if you metagame then you metagame and if you dont then you dont point of view. I have players with world knowledge that dont metagame and groups with Rotating DMs have to be expected to not metagame as well. That being said there is no reason that a DM should ever view himself as a player (in the Player Character meaning) because that is what leads to Bad Game Structure and everyone on this thread knows that, including you Vaal. The apocalypse must be near, thats twice on the same thread that Ive agreed with Vaalingrade Ashland...
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 05:49 PM	The apocalypse must be near, thats twice on the same thread that Ive agreed with Vaalingrade Ashland... Then hooray, the world is saved: That being said there is no reason that a DM should ever view himself as a player (in the Player Character meaning) because that is what leads to Bad Game Structure and everyone on this thread knows that, including you Vaal. This is not true. Two things lead to Bad Game Structure and one of these is the exact opposite of what you state: 1) The DM doesn't understand narrative. As the main source of plot in the game, a DM that doesn't understand basic narrative cannot be expected to provide competant flow in the game. Things move along at his whim instead of as they develop. This leads to things happening for no apperant reason, railroading and choke chaining. The DM doesn't understand cooperative storytelling Stemming from a DM that views themself as outside or above the game (as a simple referee and not a players, for example), this means that the DM either gives no direction (fearing interaction with the players), or takes away all choice from the players, viewing the plot as 'thier own'. While the DMPC can be used to facilitate the implementation of bad structure (particularly railroading and choke chaining), it is not inherently linked to it.
Atirakis 08-29-06, 06:15 PM	1) The DM doesn't understand narrative. As the main source of plot in the game, a DM that doesn't understand basic narrative cannot be expected to provide competant flow in the game. Things move along at his whim instead of as they develop. This leads to things happening for no apperant reason, railroading and choke chaining. 2) The DM doesn't understand cooperative storytelling Stemming from a DM that views themself as outside or above the game (as a simple referee and not a players, for example), this means that the DM either gives no direction (fearing interaction with the players), or takes away all choice from the players, viewing the plot as 'thier own'. While the DMPC can be used to facilitate the implementation of bad structure (particularly railroading and choke chaining), it is not inherently linked to it. True & True but I still dont think that a DM is or should be just another player. Seperate but equal I always say...
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 06:25 PM	Seperate but equal I always say... This is never truly the case, however, as the history of mankind has taught us.
Atirakis 08-29-06, 08:41 PM	yeah but we dont know if it would have worked or not...
kelvinaw273 08-29-06, 09:03 PM	Time out guys!!! Before we get into the DMPC vs NPC flame war I shall point out two things: 1) That is not helping us with the situation as described by the OP 2) To the OP: If all of you are sufficiently attached to your characters that you cannot DM without them being in the game THEN YOU ARE NOT DETATCHED ENOUGH TO DEAL WITH THEM IN AN UNBIASED MANOR AS DM. Even Vaal has agreed that the DM with DMPC will fail if he is too attached to his character (Yes, you have Vaal). Vaal and his gaming group can do it and think it is OK, but they are the uber-gods of role-playing and do not have to worry about the conflicts of interest that so bedog us mere mortals. Now as to what you must do ... well one of you must make the supreme sacrifice. I suggest that you all take turns at DMing WITHOUT a DMPC. Create a different set of characters ofr each game. Then you can decide who likes it best and who is most willing to DM, import your favourite characters and play. Change to a different DM every few months, if you have to. It's how I started and it lead to great things.
Zendu 08-29-06, 09:05 PM	Frankly I wont do it, even if its just a one man party. There's no sense in traps or puzzles with one player who knows where they are. Metagaming is a serious issue even for people activly trying to avoid it. Like it or not you know something the PC doesn't and are going to act around it. Even if you play a diseased suicidal barbarian, that sense of 'that ****er!' when you fall into the pit trap isn't there. Also, your unnissisarly dividing your attention. I've never played with a dm who tried this, and untill then, i stand by my statment that at best, its a distraction.
kelvinaw273 08-29-06, 09:40 PM	Frankly I wont do it, even if its just a one man party. There's no sense in traps or puzzles with one player who knows where they are. Metagaming is a serious issue even for people activly trying to avoid it. Like it or not you know something the PC doesn't and are going to act around it. Even if you play a diseased suicidal barbarian, that sense of 'that ****er!' when you fall into the pit trap isn't there. Also, your unnissisarly dividing your attention. I've never played with a dm who tried this, and untill then, i stand by my statment that at best, its a distraction. Summed up as "Conflict of Interest."
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 10:23 PM	Even Vaal has agreed that the DM with DMPC will fail if he is too attached to his character (Yes, you have Vaal). ANY PLAYER as attached to his character as people mention when discussing DMPC fears will fail. Will fail. Deserves to fail. Vaal and his gaming group can do it and think it is OK, but they are the uber-gods of role-playing and do not have to worry about the conflicts of interest that so bedog us mere mortals. You're cute when you're needlessly smarmy.
Atirakis 08-29-06, 10:28 PM	Hey Im pretty sure Ive been needlessly smarmy and never got compliments for it... ;)
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-29-06, 10:34 PM	I already told you, you need to get a cool car.
kelvinaw273 08-29-06, 10:35 PM	You're cute when you're needlessly smarmy. The word you are looking for is tongue-in-cheek sarcastic. Also known as "Extracting the Urine." But I think you guessed that :D But I'm glad you agreed with mny first point, as it is how most people play their PCs and, by extension, the way many will try to play DMPCs, which is why I am against the idea (and the use of an oxymoron to describe it). I do acknowledge that this is not true in all cases - just (in my experience) most of them.
Atirakis 08-29-06, 10:38 PM	Yes oxymorons are right out!
WhiteRaven810 08-29-06, 10:48 PM	I'm not going to say weither or not your DM should multiclass to DMPC, but I will say he should follow a few self restraining rules. 1. DMPC pick treasure last. 2. When looting bodies, the DMPC should roll a die to indicate which body to loot. 3. DMPC's should not activately participate in creating plans. 4. DMPC's recieve no role playing XP. 5. DMPC's should not make changes to Races, Classes, or Mechanics to fit their wants. 6. The DMPC should fill the role the party lacks. If you don't have a healer, play a Cleric of Pelor. If the party lacks a Rogue, the DMPC should play a Rogue (however have player's tell you out of character where and when to search). 7. If you play a Wizard, play a blaster. No trap solving problem solver for you. 8. The DMPC should not provoke fights within the party, or NPC's, but also should not take sides when such fights do occur. 9. Fuding rolls for the PC is one thing. Fuding rolls for the DMPC is quit another. I saddly must admit I'm guilt of number five myself. I wanted my Warlock to have Arcane Resistance and Mettle (see Hexblade) and was going to trade my Fiendish Resilence (and it's later improvements) for it. While I consider the two a fair trade, it was wrong of myself to alter a game mechanic for myself. Luckily I realized the error of my ways before I ever got to the table and promptly asked the high cleric of Pelor of an Atonement spell. I've been in DMPC rehab for three weeks now.
brog 08-30-06, 06:16 AM	My brother would gladly be DM only wants to know if he can play the game with us? he can play the game with you, in the role of dungeon master.
someonelse812 08-30-06, 08:13 AM	This is the main issue why our group hasn't got a DM yet. I'd gladly do it but for the love of RPing my own charrie I'm holding back. It's the same for my brother and another person who is within our group... if you live near detroit I'll DM for you,
someonelse812 08-30-06, 08:21 AM	past I played as PC the DM played an archer because our group was a little underpowered. it worked out well, he didnt talk much, just hung around in the back and shot arrows at eveerything that moved.
Issabella 08-30-06, 08:25 AM	can? yes. should he? NO! it will ruin the game. trust me. QFT
Atirakis 08-30-06, 12:01 PM	He can run a character that travels with the party, levels up, collects treasure, defeats enemies and everything else that is cool about d&d, but bear in mind that the sense of accomplishment wont be there when you are the one who sets the challenges. If you already know every plot twist and location of every secret door. If you already know that the ally you just met is really the BBEG, then the sense of accomplishment for uncovering him is already gone. Its not the same as being a player. That is why I say that the DM cannot be a PC. He can be an NPC that gets to play with you guys but it is not even close to being the same thing.
coldfire_x 08-30-06, 02:29 PM	can? yes. should he? NO! it will ruin the game. trust me. timeout is right! belive me it's from experians. thare are times when i DM, i really want to take part of it, but it will ruin the fun. :(
bubba boi 08-30-06, 09:29 PM	Yes if he is mature,roleplays and knows what he is doing. No if he is'nt mature and metagames and will use DM knowledge to benifit him in-game.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-06, 09:40 PM	Yes if he is mature,roleplays and knows what he is doing. No if he is'nt mature and metagames and will use DM knowledge to benifit him in-game. This is the correct answer.
LCD2YOU 08-30-06, 09:42 PM	The DM can "play" a host of other characters, all known collectively as NPCs. Except for a few rare individuals, many I would say are on this very topic, could IMHO pull off being a "player/DM". A NPC does the same thing but all true NPCs are NOT a PC that the DM feels is theirs to run anywhere else. So to answer, yes a DM can be a player and run a character, in another game run by somebody else.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-30-06, 11:07 PM	A NPC does the same thing but all true NPCs are NOT a PC that the DM feels is theirs to run anywhere else. Okay, you've said this on every thread and then NEVER clarify. Does your group really port PCs between games instead of generating new characters? Unless you're talking name and background only, (in which case, there's not problem with the practice at all), I'm going to blame the practice of porting PCs for this one.
LCD2YOU 08-31-06, 08:57 AM	Okay, you've said this on every thread and then NEVER clarify. Does your group really port PCs between games instead of generating new characters?If I haven't made myself as clear as I need to be then let me clarify it now. When a player (not the DM) rolls up a PC in a game, that is their PC. If a person were to come to me and say, I played this Elven 11th level Wizard with these magic items (reasonable to me), these stats (again reasonable) and this background, if my campaign was at level 9th to 13th, I'd let them play in my game. If a person comes to me and says, this was "my character" in a game that I ran (aka was the DM and this is his DMPC), unless i knew the person and their game, I'd say "No". Fair? I don't care if people think it's fair or not. I won't let them in. However, if this character is 1st level and the stats (pre-rolled as they were an NPC in their world) are reasonable and have a decent background story (or what they think it is ;) ) they can start at 1st level in my game. Then they can be a "true player" in my campaign with their favorite NPC and "grow them". I have done that to other DMs before and it is actually a great way for them to have a more "detailed life" for that and other NPCs in their game. Unless you're talking name and background only, (in which case, there's not problem with the practice at all), I'm going to blame the practice of porting PCs for this one.No. I have certain "ideals" if you want to call them that make me not like the idea of a "DMPC" being ported around as one would any PC. It may not be fair but that's the way I'm going to do it. All of the questions about "Well what about if the player just made up their 11th level Wizard, is not that the same thing?" Yup, but unless the person is a really good role-player, bringing up a PC from 1st level to a higher level means they have a lot of time and generally a strong personality for said character. I don't invite such a person back to my game as if they lie about that, what else do they lie about?
KurenaiYami 08-31-06, 09:56 AM	Good analogy, but still not applicable. BBEG is just a net shorthand like LOL or ROFL used to save time when discussing these things online. It is still just an NPC. BBEG menas "big bad evil guy" or "major campaign villain." In that you are correct, it is a specialized role. So-called DMPCs, however, have no such specialized role. The terms DMPC only says that it is a DM's pet NPC, it says nothing about that NPCs role in the game. I fail to see how a person who has the job of constantly screwing with the party designates a specific role yet the person who travels with and helps the party does not.
Sergikins 08-31-06, 10:07 AM	I haven't fully read this thread, sorry, but i have an anecdote to share. I'm playing in two campaigns and DMing one at this moment in time. one of the campaigns I've played in has been quite memorable. the other one.... gah. the party consists of a druid, ranger, fighter, and a wizard. the DM has a DMPC... oh wait, did i say DMPC? i meant DMPCS!!! six of them!!! thats not all, alot of them overlap. the only thing we are missing is a rogue in our base party. well guess what, one is a level 10+ paladin, another is a level 7+ druid, two fighters and a sorceress and a wizard. we are level 5. or 6. i dunno, he keeps the sheets. when we expressed an intrest on leaving this "group" (IG not OOG) he fights back OOG saying "you're stupid, why are you leaving them?" oh it helps that they all have the same personality, and always have the "perfect" spell prepared. makes me mad to no end. and it looks like we are going to be stuck with them for eternity since the DM has a large plot (no complaints there though) that looks like its going to last an entire campaign and then some. I'm almost tempted to just coup de grace them in their sleep and say, "yes, it was me. now kill me." the thing is, IG, staying with them is logical. OOG, its no fun. Btw, I'd say a DMPC isn't a bad thing... jsut make sure its obvious he is inferior to the rest of the group, such as being a level or two lower, and switch them up often for variety. for example, say you are missing a healer. have a cleric of i dunno, Pelor follow them around for a level or maybe two trying to convert them to Pelor. then when he succeeds or fails, give them a bard to heal them (not as effective, but still can). then maybe the bard gets fed up with the pelor stuff that they are spewing out of their mouths and a druid joins the group. then maybe he leaves an the orginal cleric comes back. just make sure its varied and do not, for the love of god, give the any crafting feats.
Kaligrad 08-31-06, 10:29 AM	Ah, DMPC season once more. I wonder when Paladin Code will swing in again?
starfire311 08-31-06, 10:30 AM	The apocalypse must be near, thats twice on the same thread that Ive agreed with Vaalingrade Ashland... Don't be surprised, I too agree with Vaal on a number of issues, and we are close to agreement on this one, heck if vaal were to watch the current game I am running, he may even say that I have 2 DMPCs in it, I would not agree, since I think of them as NPC allies, and all my players think of them as NPCs, I would be surprised if more than 1 of my 6 players has even heard the term DMPC before.
LCD2YOU 08-31-06, 10:30 AM	Sergikins: As a DM I "run" all other NPCs that the characters interact with. Sometimes they are more powerful, sometimes they are weaker than the party. If they are members of the party, they get their share of Exp., treasure, fame, noteriety and all of that. I've even had a NPC in the party who told the PCs what to do, how to do it, when to do it, he got the best of the treasure, hogged the spotlight, everything. Now before you go and say "Bad DM", in actuality he was the party's BBEG. This dip-**** of an NPC ran the party into the ground by putting them in positions that were too dangerous for them to get into. What it was is he was a bully and although he was only one level higher than the entire party he, or I role-played him as such, led by force of personality. They could have snuck away from him several times but as one player stated, "My character is afriad of this guy". Eventually he did something wrong and almost killed 2 members of the party. In his ego, he tried to kill another party member and that's when they turned on him and killed him. He was never their friend. Now that guy was a NPC. He did everything that people here say a DM should never do with a party. Still you know, it was rather an enjoyable few sessions with this moron telling people who were much more intelligent what to do. I decided he'd do what would gain him gold, glory and girls and then do it and that's how I played him - but he was clueless and took the "obvious way out". The players actually thought this was one of my "better bad guys" I had ever thrown at him. So even having a NPC who outshines the party because they let them is acceptable.
Keg of Ale 08-31-06, 10:36 AM	The rota sounds good I'll sound it out with the rest of the group and if the don't like it, looks like i'll have to be DM :( Not that I don't mind it's just I'd have preffered to be a PC... This is a common feeling for new DMs when they first take on that role. But trust me: pretty soon you discover Dungeon Mastering can be loads of fun as well. You're in control, you design dungeons, monster encounters, fun plot twists and stay two steps ahead of the players. The funnest part of it is watching the players react to the universe you describe to them. Its much, much more than just a chore, believe me. :D
Wopple 08-31-06, 10:38 AM	timeout is right! belive me it's from experians. thare are times when i DM, i really want to take part of it, but it will ruin the fun. :( Well I think there is a way to do it without a problem. I just pick a character whoose personality is that of a meek follower. He dosen't go out on limbs, make bold suggestions, roll knowledge checks, perform unusual tasks (without being asked) or anything like that. For example, we are in a room with a hidden button to make a bridge appear. I know that anyone taking 20 on a search check, or just rolling good, will find it, but no one has decided to search the room for some odd reason. Even though I know full well I, as a normal PC, would make the check (I am a search freak) I say and do nothing. I think it is usually best to be a cleric because you can help them all, have some fun of doing stuff, but you rarely take the limelight away from a PC, and also there is alot less bold strategy, it's just hey he's hurt! heal. Hey she's hurt! heal. (You can, of course, do much more with a Cleric, but it's easier to be a background PC with cleric) That way I think it goes fine. They still have to solve every challenge themselves, even if they use me as a tool, I never do any real work for them, and it adds fun as well as support to the game.
Sergikins 08-31-06, 10:48 AM	Sergikins: As a DM I "run" all other NPCs that the characters interact with. Sometimes they are more powerful, sometimes they are weaker than the party. If they are members of the party, they get their share of Exp., treasure, fame, noteriety and all of that. I've even had a NPC in the party who told the PCs what to do, how to do it, when to do it, he got the best of the treasure, hogged the spotlight, everything. Now before you go and say "Bad DM", in actuality he was the party's BBEG. This dip-**** of an NPC ran the party into the ground by putting them in positions that were too dangerous for them to get into. What it was is he was a bully and although he was only one level higher than the entire party he, or I role-played him as such, led by force of personality. They could have snuck away from him several times but as one player stated, "My character is afriad of this guy". Eventually he did something wrong and almost killed 2 members of the party. In his ego, he tried to kill another party member and that's when they turned on him and killed him. He was never their friend. Now that guy was a NPC. He did everything that people here say a DM should never do with a party. Still you know, it was rather an enjoyable few sessions with this moron telling people who were much more intelligent what to do. I decided he'd do what would gain him gold, glory and girls and then do it and that's how I played him - but he was clueless and took the "obvious way out". The players actually thought this was one of my "better bad guys" I had ever thrown at him. So even having a NPC who outshines the party because they let them is acceptable. I wish i could say the same for our group >:[ but nontheless. the example you provided is an effectivly played NPC. not a DMPC. i think what we, as a board need to determine is the following - wether a DMPC detracts or adds to the enjoyment of a game, precisely how much knowledge a DMPC should be given. (I'm against a mute DMPC that doesn't open his mouth to offer input, but I'm also against a know it all), certain mechanical options that should be limited (example, leadership and crafting feats) In my personal opinion, a DMPC should be run as such - mechanically, at least- recieves 3/4 XP than the group. receives 3/4 material treasure (things such as pearls of powers, magic weapons, ect. i.e, engineer treasure) recieves full share of Gold (since there is no logical IG explination why he wouldn't want it). however, hes not against loaning or sharing gold why the 3/4 XP? well, once they reach level 6, if a character takes leadership, they could take him as a cohort. roleplaying wise, a DMPC should be played anyway a normal character would be. in the case of puzzles, he draws a blank, but maybe offers a little clue that could be helpful. he should attempt to keep them on track, but not all the way. for example, play Tales of Symphonia. remember Kratos keeps the party on track of the orginal goal (or at least trys to) but does allow for the occasional venture to the side. then his kickass betrayal. :D eitther way, i think the MOST important part of playing a DMPC is listening to the players. if they don't like him OOG, make the DMPC leave. if they like him OOG, keep him in, that easy. just make sure the only reason they like them is not because they can sit back and let him swath through combat.
Atirakis 08-31-06, 02:09 PM	DMs run NPCs. There are many kinds of NPCs that can be run including the Main Villian, Sub Villians, Side Villians, Townsfolk, Nobles, Adventurers, Allies, Cohorts, Followers, Hirelings, Animal Companions, Wandering Monsters and anything else that isnt a PC. Players (not the DM) run PCs. Some DMs let their players have control over NPCs such as Cohorts, Followers, Hirelings and Animal Companions. This is a matter of personal choice and while being neither right nor wrong does not change their status as NPCs. Any DM that tries to be the best DM he can be and the best PC he can be will fail because they both require 100% of your time, attention and commitment. Any DM that tries to do both without trying to be the best DM or PC he can be is degrading his game.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-06, 02:19 PM	DMs run NPCs. There are many kinds of NPCs that can be run including the Main Villian, Sub Villians, Side Villians, Townsfolk, Nobles, Adventurers, Allies, Cohorts, Followers, Hirelings, Animal Companions, Wandering Monsters and anything else that isnt a PC. The Player whose character they're attached to plays cohorts and animal companions. Players (not the DM) run PCs. Some DMs let their players have control over NPCs such as Cohorts, Followers, Hirelings and Animal Companions. This is a matter of personal choice and while being neither right nor wrong does not change their status as NPCs. Now who's muddying the line? Any DM that tries to be the best DM he can be and the best PC he can be will fail because they both require 100% of your time, attention and commitment. Any DM that tries to do both without trying to be the best DM or PC he can be is degrading his game. Untrue. The problem here is that you assume that the mere term 'PC' changes things. An ally who travels with the party -- in fact all characters that interact with the party over the course of multiple sessions, should be just as developed and well played as any PC. If you're not playing every character as if they really were people, then you're not being the best DM you can be. Therefore, if at any time an equal partner in the adventuring party is not being played exactly as a PC would be, you are not being the best possible DM. Effectively, if you use Allies and they aren't 'worthy' of being what is effectively a PC played by the DM, then you screwed up. All this crap about favoring PCs and metagaming is just extraneous fluff, as no player should be pulling that kind of crap in the first place.
Atirakis 08-31-06, 02:37 PM	The Player whose character they're attached to plays cohorts and animal companions. Untrue. DMs have full control over any Cohort or Animal Companion. Some groups just choose to let the player they are attached to control them. Now who's muddying the line? Muddying or attempting to clarify? Untrue. The problem here is that you assume that the mere term 'PC' changes things. An ally who travels with the party -- in fact all characters that interact with the party over the course of multiple sessions, should be just as developed and well played as any PC. The term PC does change things. It requires 100% of your time and commitment to play a PC to the best of your ability. Should your NPCs be just as developed? Yes. Should you be spending as much time IC and OOC thinking about them? No. If you're not playing every character as if they really were people, then you're not being the best DM you can be. You know I agree with you on this Vaal. I think we both know we are two hardcore DMs here. Therefore, if at any time an equal partner in the adventuring party is not being played exactly as a PC would be, you are not being the best possible DM. Effectively, if you use Allies and they aren't 'worthy' of being what is effectively a PC played by the DM, then you screwed up. When you are playing that character then yes it should be indistinguishable from any other PC. The problem lies in the fact that you dont have unlimited time to play that one NPC like the players do for playing their PCs. All this crap about favoring PCs and metagaming is just extraneous fluff, as no player should be pulling that kind of crap in the first place. Absolutely. I stopped the DM favortism aspect right away because you made me realize this.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-06, 02:51 PM	Muddying or attempting to clarify? Muddying. The term PC does change things. It requires 100% of your time and commitment to play a PC to the best of your ability. Should your NPCs be just as developed? Yes. Should you be spending as much time IC and OOC thinking about them? No. The fact is that it doesn't. Look, consider how much time you devote to a single game -- characters, plot, events, treasure, the whole nine yards -- (presumabley) each week. Now think about how much time you spend on a singular character for a game you aren't running. Nowhere near the same amount of time. Further, lets throw in the possiblity of multiple games happening in a week. Would the fact that you're playing a singular character in another game change the quality of your game? I think not. The fact is that PCs don't take a whole lot of time to make and develope unless you're powergaming the hell out of them and have like ten books to dig through. It generally takes me longer designing custom treasure than it does rolling up and conceptualizing a PC. When you are playing that character then yes it should be indistinguishable from any other PC. The problem lies in the fact that you dont have unlimited time to play that one NPC like the players do for playing their PCs. And I'm saying that no one takes that 'unlimited' time to play a PC. Even the people who agonize over how not to eat an AoO don't take that much time. At a typical game, I see people drawing, reading, working on thier own game, and many other things when thier character isn't involved. Plus, people are fully capable of multitasking. I don't see the difference between what happens when I'm plotting the BBEG's current movements while playing the shopkeep and what happens when I'm plotting the consequnces of the PCs' actions while playing a party member.
Atirakis 08-31-06, 02:55 PM	When you arent running a session its true that thinking about one more character is nothing. When you are running a session you need to be 100% devoted to being a DM or 100% devoted to being a Player with a PC. And I'm saying that no one takes that 'unlimited' time to play a PC. Even the people who agonize over how not to eat an AoO don't take that much time. At a typical game, I see people drawing, reading, working on thier own game, and many other things when thier character isn't involved. Unacceptable! You need to pay attention and remain focused! I thought you said you had a good group...
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-31-06, 03:07 PM	When you arent running a session its true that thinking about one more character is nothing. When you are running a session you need to be 100% devoted to being a DM or 100% devoted to being a Player with a PC. No, you totally don't have to be 100% devoted to being a PC. PC running isn't a full time job. And when your the DM, running the DMPC just becomes part of the job. Unacceptable! You need to pay attention and remain focused! I thought you said you had a good group... PArt of that entails that none of us DMs get irrational as long as side tasks don't hurt the game.
Yaeri 08-31-06, 03:27 PM	etc... I think secretly, you are both the same person. It's all one big hoax of a certain Vaalingrade Ashtirakisland to pump up his post count! :D
Atirakis 08-31-06, 04:50 PM	etc... I think secretly, you are both the same person. It's all one big hoax of a certain Vaalingrade Ashtirakisland to pump up his post count! :D This isnt far from the truth. Vaal and I are very very similar in our views and just as ferocious in defending them. The problem is that when we do differ we must argue every little point untill we have kicked the dead horse into glue... :D
Sergikins 08-31-06, 05:01 PM	kicked the dead horse into glue... :D you mean like this? http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y288/tipomastr/Beatingadeadhorse.gif oh btw, for the little cult following me, sorry this isn't new content. I'll get something new soon.
Atirakis 08-31-06, 06:43 PM	Anyone who wishes to continue this discussion with me is invited to do so on the DMPC Problems? thread as I refuse to carry on 1 debate on 3 threads...
Gold Medal Jedi 08-31-06, 10:18 PM	can of worms opened... Many threads on this, the most recent of which is around 26 pages long. The gist of it is that if he is a good DM and a good player, there is a chance he can control a character with the party and have it work out fine. Some people might say that it will work only if you give the idea a specific name and not another name. But the practical answer is that if the players will accept a DM run character with the party and not metagame the fact that the player of that character knows everything (not that the character knows everything) and the DM doesn't try to control everything with the character then it will work. There is potential for problems, there is potential for it to work well. It comes down mostly to the specific players in the specific game. I say give it a try and if it works for you then great. If it causes problems then fix those problems or remove the character. Thats bar none the best advice i have ever seen on this topic ever. I have in the past (so recent as last week) ran my own PC's with mt parties. I only use them to augment a lacking of the party and for the most part the PC remains a silent partner in the back only acting when absolutely necessary. I find that having him/her in the party helps to give me the DM a voice for gentle prodding of the storyline/adventure. There is an absolute fine line between what people call DMPC and NPC and the definition is as unique as the players involved. For me and mine we define a DMPC as an ongoing character that joins the party dynamic, and an NPC as a casual aquaintence or adversary that the party meets that never joins the party dynamic. I know there will be differing views on this definition but as i stated its "OUR" (meaning my groups) definition and is subject to change with those involved. However with that being said I recently killed off my PC due the increasing number of players at my table and the apparent redundancy of that character. When i had but only 4 players it made sense to have my PC fill a role that was lacking. But now with 9 players all bases are pretty much covered. As for the ones that arent it will be up to the party to fill the niche missing. Should it be done? I will parrot what some other wise players have said and agree that it doesnt always work out. For example, i once played a GURPs verision of Star Wars with a group. And the DM there, had a pet NPC (as some of us older players used to refer to this as) that would inevitably pop up everytime we tried to accomplish anything and basically do everything for us. It got so bad that we the players would accept any mission, even the suicide missions that had no apparent way out, knowing that the DMPC would be along any moment and defeat all with but one deft stroke of blazing blue light, as we made off scott free without a scratch. See the problem wasnt so much that his PC was there all the time, so much as it was that his PC out classed everyone in the game by about 1000 pts. Also he was able to do beyond superhuman feats that the rest of us could only dream of attaining one day in the game say in 10 years time with the rate that XP was being handed out. The lesson I learned from this was NEVER, EVER have your DMPC outclass the whole party. Sure they can be good at one thing the party is lacking, but never have him show up the entire group in all abilities. Otherwise its just the DM playing the game by himself with a supporting cast of yawning on lookers. So for the most part as has been said, try it and if it doesnt work scrap it. Simple.