Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Atirakis 08-12-06, 01:12 AM	How do players feel about a DM who wants to have a character that travels with the party and is referred to as his character?
Moon-Lancer 08-12-06, 01:18 AM	i think its ok if they get less gold, is 1 level lower then the lowest level party member, and let all other party members get dibs on magic iteams. also they must never be a duplicate or fill the roll of another party member. and while im beeing greedy, they are effective enuff NOT to mess up your cr and get you killed.
Nived 08-12-06, 01:21 AM	Terrible idea. In all my years I have never seen it work out. It starts as an innocent idea, someone to help the PCs. Point them in the right direction if need be, keep things 'even' for encounter calculation... But no mater the intent, your players will end up feeling like they're playing sidekicks in your story rather than the heroes. If you need guides or helpful ally NPCs make sure they don't outshine your PCs, never use them to duex ex machina the party to safty. They should preferably be weaker than the PCs so even if they get involved in combat along side the party the heroes are still THE HEROES. And they should come and go.
Order 66(6) 08-12-06, 01:27 AM	This is tough for me to answer because I'm a DM who does just that, but I'll try to answer as a player because I also have a DM who does this. It CAN be okay provided your mature enough. Speaking from my experience with a DM (and friend) who runs his own character, its got good and bad points. Good point is that I enjoy roleplaying with the DMPC character, and as the campaign has gone on my character has even kind of bonded with the DMPC character because he was friends with the character's wife, who has since died. So, I'd say make them an interesting character and make them a vessel for encouraing inter-party roleplaying. The bad point is that the character is obscenely powergamed, and when his character does like 2 bajillion damage UNARMED in a combat, I always get the sense that my DM is showboating, which grinds my gears inwardly. So, my advice is to par back the character's power so they aren't an unstoppable tank in combat....and if your character does well in combat....don't do annoying things like smirk and make it a point to tell the rest of the group that your character just did 150 damage in a round WITH HIS FISTS.
Aeromus 08-12-06, 01:31 AM	How do players feel about a DM who wants to have a character that travels with the party and is referred to as his character? In 2nd we used to all have characters and took turns DMing. Usually we used ours as plot hooks, or we toned them down. We never didn't anything creative when we played. My suggestion find a friend that can DM you.
PiedmonSama 08-12-06, 02:08 AM	The DM should ask his players first and see if they're alright with it. If so, then have a ball. If not, wait until someone else gets the urge to DM. If you're the only one in your group able to DM and you want to know what life is like on the other side of the screen, tell your players about it and they'll probably be understanding.
Xarien 08-12-06, 02:27 AM	we have been playing in a campaign that has this, mostly for playability. There are two of us, plus a DM, so we're a 3 man party, and overpowered .. ALL of us. The DMPC (usually a walking tank, but sometimes my character) is ALWAYS played with 10 intelligence. They are smart enough to pick up on things, but can't figure things out. This doesn't affect spellcasting, or skills or anything, JUST interaction. Overall it works well. Occasionally things get hairy. See, the DMPC is the brother of one character, and officer on the city guard. The sister is a PC always. The other character is (sometimes DMPC) wanted by the guard for his tendency to crucify rapists .. and the thives guild finds him useful. so you see where this could get hairy. Oh, and the sister has a crush on the criminal lol
Encard 08-12-06, 03:03 AM	It can be ok, if it's done well... However, it's definitely a huge wonkin' red flag unless I trust the DM implicitly. I've yet to have a DM I trust that much, and I've played in a fair number of games. DMPCs have a very unpleasant chance of going bad in one way or another.
DM Zoc 08-12-06, 03:16 AM	As the previous poster stated, this is reason enough to leave the game if I do not have other reasons to believe it might turn out okay.
KurenaiYami 08-12-06, 03:23 AM	Going from my experience as a player, it was cool. One of the greatest experiences in my D&Ding carreer. This may been because my DM was by all means an artist. I respected this man as a God, and he was able to come up with the most wondrous things that I couldn't begin to comprehend. He was also one of my best friends at the time, and still is. Maybe this case was exceptional, but it was awesome. As far as letting some of my OTHER DMs put a character of theirs in their campaign...probably wouldn't work, but that's because none of my other DMs know the RULES OF THE GAME. Maybe I'm biased, since I've had two DMs, an Artist and a Moron.
Encard 08-12-06, 03:25 AM	To make a slight addition to my post... One of the problems with DMPCs is that playing one is like walking a tightrope. Most importantly, you need to keep the DMPC from eclipsing the party, becoming too power, having too much gear, knowing too much, etc - even for a skilled DM, that can be hard to manage in between everything else going on and the DM's own (perfectly understandable) with for his character to be visibly awesome. On the other hand, however, you don't want to make someone useless to the party. The players don't want to be overshadowed, but they also shouldn't need to worry about dragging around Ansek the Cripple, and Expert 3/Fighter 1 with Str 4, Dex 5 and Con 8. Protecting an important NPC for a while is fine, but consistently dealing with a party member who sucks up XP and GP without contributing meaningfully to the party's effectiveness is just not fun. It's difficult to balance this side of things against the other. My suggestion, if you or someone else wants to run a DMPC, is to make a character whose role in the party is almost purely supportive. A healer/party buffer (NOT Divine Metamagic self buffer) cleric is one example of this; another might involve some of the aura-based classes (for example, Marshal and Dragon Shaman), or a War Weaver, or something else that contributes meaningfully to the party's effectiveness without being too flashy itself.
Karma 08-12-06, 03:47 AM	The only way that I will put a DMPC into play or play a game that has a DMPC is if he is mute and/or two levels below the party adverage... preferably just mute but that depends on the build. I just don't like having The Freebie Gnome (or in my case, pixie) in the game unless the party is grossly incomplete, consists mostly of new players or both.
John05 08-12-06, 04:08 AM	I have a DM who has a character he sometimes uses to help the rest of us players. It's completely justified because we often have guest DMs, so he would be playing as a PC in those times (and perfectly susceptible to death, just like the rest of us). Also, he only uses the character when the team is missing a player and we definitely need the help to survive an adventure (it takes time to modify an adventure impromptu when a player drops from the session at the last minute). So there are at least two really good reasons our DM has his own PCs: 1. Practicality (Subtitute/helper for dangerous adventures that can't be changed at the last minute) 2. Guest DMs (The main DM is often just a player) His character is really powerful, but I have no doubt that: 1. It's because his character is a Psion. Psions are very strong in short 3 hour sessions where you can expect to have 1 encounter at the most. (Our encounters need a +2 adjustment to them to match our party level.) 2. He knows what he's doing with his character, unlike me, who chooses wrong feats and ends up buying too many spells because I can't decide on which ones I really need. A lot of other people on this thread are saying it can't work, but I really think it's about trust and maturity. Is your DM mature? (Mature enough not to hog spotlight or give away too many solutions to the party's problems?) Do the players trust the DM? IMO, my DM is twice as mature as me (I sometimes can't help but blurt out suggestions in the middle of a combat... "No, run about 10 feet further!"), and I trust him, so there's really no problem.
Shaggy_Shaggs 08-12-06, 04:39 AM	My suggestion, if you or someone else wants to run a DMPC, is to make a character whose role in the party is almost purely supportive. A healer/party buffer (NOT Divine Metamagic self buffer) cleric is one example of this; another might involve some of the aura-based classes (for example, Marshal and Dragon Shaman), or a War Weaver, or something else that contributes meaningfully to the party's effectiveness without being too flashy itself. Agreed. Party support role is the way to go. The heal/party buff cleric is good, as is a druid with the same schtick, a healer (miniatures handbook) might also work out well for this, but I haven't seen one in play to really judge it yet. Walking library bards are nice to have around, though it can become irritating when the NPC bard is the face, as it can seem like the DM is making all the group's decisions for it without being direct about it. An NPC tank can go either way - on the plus side, it's a great help to parties that lack one otherwise, and usually isn't too keen on leadership and decision-making; the downside is tanks tend to be pretty gear-hungry (reducing PC treasure pick options), and a lot of DMs seem to cave to the temptation of making their tank effective while restricting players that would like to do the same with a PC tank. ("What do you mean, I have to be a freakin' paladin 20 and your DMPC is a leaping shock trooping warforged juggerzerker with the keen wrathful healing falchion you explicitly excluded from every shop in the world when I tried to buy one?!") You really have to be careful with adding a character of your own to the group. You can't be surprised by anything but die roll outcomes, you already control the entire rest of the world and the house rules it runs by, all the players have is their party. Taking over completely, showboating and railroading are likely, and even if they don't happen, players might get suspicious if a situation comes up that could be interpreted multiple ways. The best bet might be just to not have a DMPC at all, and instead find another DM to run a game for you to play a PC in. If that's not possible, try to tone your character down to be significantly less powerful than any given PC - make him strong enough to pull his own weight so the party doesn't feel like it's dragging around deadwood, but give him a bit of a handicap to compensate for his significant advantages of being played by the all-knowing, rules-arbitrating DM.
Seeking_Knight_of_Graves 08-12-06, 12:41 PM	AS my own two cents. When I was playing with my friend and we just did one on one. He had a whole lot of DMPC and they outshined my characters 100 fold. Half to about 3/4 of my time was spent on recruiting them to my side to gain their help. ANd when I did have their help I was just side kick. So I would not recommend it UNLESS the party is ok with And they do not outshine anyone. Nothing sucks more then just feeling like a dog on a leash following Ms. Big and powerful.
danielinthewolvesden 08-12-06, 12:48 PM	Very dangerous, constant source of complaints her in "What's a Player to do?". IF you have a small group and rotate DM/Player duties then it's OK. If the party *really* needs a Healer, then give them a follower/cohort/hireling that they run. The old "the party really needs a xxxxx, so I, am running one as a DMPC" is disengenous- the DM can just supply one to the players to run for themselves. (of course, following the rules for hirelings and such, in that the DM can take control if the Players start making the hireling go all Nodwick)
gamertall 08-12-06, 02:08 PM	I have tried this and in my experience, I find it to be more of a hassle than a help. I find that I need to give my full attention to the adventure and campaign. If it is a matter of wanting a specific personality in the game, make that PC into an NPC and include it in every once in a while.
Dei 08-12-06, 02:55 PM	It can have a lot of good points as has been mentioned, a campaign with a DMPC often runs a lot smoother since the DM can use it as a means of poking the party in the right direction or can even weave them into the plot, something which I've seen done very well indeed. As for the bad points most of them can be solved thusly: Make the DMPC a straight bard with buff spells. That way he'll never outshine the characters and will enable them to be even more "Heroic". I don't want to start up the bards are underpowered debate, I'm just saying that they can be played in the background a lot more easily than most other classes, if they're used to provide bardic music, buffing, small healing, etc. They won't interfere with the PCs themselves but they provide a very useful resource.
kelvinaw273 08-12-06, 05:47 PM	The answer is to offer to DM instead so he can play as a player. DMPCs are never a good idea, the times they work are rarer than rare.
Hakar Maloye 08-13-06, 01:42 AM	In 2nd we used to all have characters and took turns DMing. Usually we used ours as plot hooks, or we toned them down. We never didn't anything creative when we played. My suggestion find a friend that can DM you. That's exactly how my group works. When I dm, my character is still with the party, but does little else but swing his axe. I roleplay along with the others, but he hardly ever gives his opinion, and never comes up with a solution for problems. Anything more is only by virtue of the adventure I wrote. For example: "After a few minutes, Tungsten will mention that all the stones in the circle are of a different type, none of which are native to the area around us."
Mitchell 08-14-06, 05:37 AM	How do players feel about a DM who wants to have a character that travels with the party and is referred to as his character? In it's "normal" sense, I hate it. It's not that the DM will cheat, it's that they could be cheating, and you can't properly call them on it. If the DM wants to have a character, they should consider training up one of the players so that they can DM as well, and then they can switch out. If the party has a glaring hole that needs to be filled, then use an NPC in the traditional sense, and let them be a series of short-term commitments. No front line character? Let the party find someone in town to fill the need for an adventure or two, and then let them go their own way(or die) and the party can interview some more people. 1/2 orc barbarian, dwarven fighter, human paladin, etc. I am firmly convinced that one too any "random" attacks that don't hit the DMPC, one too any miraculous attack/damage rolls,one to many saves made, one too many times that "luck" worked in favor of the DMPC or against the players excluding the DMPC, and you have a problem. A problem that can be avoided if the DM simply doesn't have any attachment to a character.
Gneral Kass 08-14-06, 07:33 PM	This can work out. My DM does this by adding a Paladin-in-Training (14 years old) to our party. There's only me (Elven Psionic Warrior) and my other friend (Human Druid). The DM added the Paladin to our group for some support and balanced it by making him young and inexperienced. The Pally doesn't catch on to things as the PCs do, doesn't fight as good, doesn't even interact with others as well. The buffs and healing doesn't hurt either, though. lol.
Drodain 08-14-06, 07:46 PM	id say go ahead as long as everyone is fine with it, you dont really act like a member, dont vote in things often, take the last pic on magic items, stuff like that also be as specific as possible, stick to one class or one prc and use the main part that everyone needs, this is not a PC its a DMPC and you shouldnt treat it as if it is your real character, unless everyone knows you are doing this and is willing to accept this, and if it ever becomes a problem have the roof cave in on him seriously kill him off
Encard 08-15-06, 01:16 AM	Here's another issue with this... What do you do if your character is lagging behind? To a degree, it's possible to compensate for problems characters are having by giving out specific, hand-crafted magic items - stuff that really fits the character well. However, if you're playing a class that depends on items - say, any melee class, for example - and your character finds just the sort of sword/full plate/etc he needs... what do you do when the other melee guy gets irritated because he feels that the stuff he gets isn't on par? Unless you've worked out what the actual PC got with the PC, letting him pick what he wanted rather than what you thought would be best for him, this is pretty likely to happen, and then things become unhappy. The same goes for a DMPC wizard finding just the right spell scroll, a DMPC druid finding the perfect Amulet of Natural Weapons, a DMPC Truenamer finding that great Truespeak bonus item and item familiar, etc. Just because you think what the DMPC is getting is appropriate and even with what the PCs are getting, doesn't mean you;re right or they agree. In short: it's rather difficult to keep a DMPC on par with the PCs in terms of items you give out.
Jackmojo 08-15-06, 01:40 AM	How do players feel about a DM who wants to have a character that travels with the party and is referred to as his character? The Key Question is: Why does the DM desire this? Does the DM really want to be a Player? If so they probably should rethink DM-ing Does the DM "want someone to help guide the PCs"? If so, why not just provide better information to the players? Most Players want to enjoy the plot, if they "aren't following it" then the DM probably isn't giving them enough information, either during the game or in background information of the campaign. (note: if you want to try the old Gandalf schtick, make sure to recall how early in the books he died, and that until he did he dominated the party) In many cases long term adventuring NPCs are a bad idea, not all, but certainly most. The key is the goal behind the Character's inclusion. Jack
Ut-Napishtim 08-15-06, 08:11 AM	If the party *really* needs a Healer, then give them a follower/cohort/hireling that they run. The old "the party really needs a xxxxx, so I, am running one as a DMPC" is disengenous- the DM can just supply one to the players to run for themselves. (of course, following the rules for hirelings and such, in that the DM can take control if the Players start making the hireling go all Nodwick) That's a good point. I think that can really be said of all the alleged benefits of having a DMPC in a game. That is, that they could all be accomplished better through other methods. If the party's small, buff up the characters or adjust the encounters. An NPC doesn't have to come along on the dungeon crawl with the party to be a memorable part of the story. The DMPC has always rubbed me the wrong way and has at best been a 'break even' for the games I've seen them in over nearly 20 years. As others have mentioned it automatically sends up a red flag for me too that the DM is inexperienced and would rather be playing in than running a game. Although some have been control freaks too that play in their own games because they don't like the way anyone else runs D&D (without them in control of everything). :twocents:
Cifer 08-15-06, 08:45 AM	A DMPC does not need to be a bad thing - but usually, he is.
LCD2YOU 08-15-06, 08:50 AM	What is this? Are DM controlled PCs the new alignment or "Oh guess what my player playing the stupid Paladin said/did/acted upon"? What Ut-Naphishtim and Danielinthewolvesden said. There is no reason for a DM to have a PC that get EXP and one they may play in someone else's game in their own game. It is a huge red flag and one that will cause me to leave the table. Also, if I ever find that the PC this person wants to bring in is a PC from their own game, they won't in my game, period.
babysamurai 08-15-06, 09:21 AM	NPC's = Fine DMPC's = Bad
red_scare87 08-15-06, 09:22 AM	I'm torn, because I've seen a DMPC be very bad, and I've seen it cause no problems, and actually helps the party. In a 2nd Edition game I play in the DM has a serious problem with running fair DMPCs. He always has one, and he always gets special treatment. On the other hand, I'm currently in a 3.5 game where the DM runs a Duskblade PC. Basically, nobody in the party wanted to play a character who was able to pump out damage in melee (We have an Ebon Saint, Drunken Master, Beguiler, and...some class called Possessed from Fiend Folio or something...I dunno...) The point is, the latter DM does an excellent job keeping his character in check, he has a "strong silent type" personality, and only helps us actually put out some reliable damage in melee. I guess it just depends on the DM. Besides, you shouldn't automatically say that DMPCs are bad. All DMs are different.
Mogofeiden 08-15-06, 09:39 AM	Just my two cents I've never played a proper DMPC (if there's such a thing) but, I've at times run the PC of an absent player. I found out that it sucks to run both sides of a battle (feels too much like you're *playing* with yourself) so, any PC that I have to temporarly run has the minimum (if any) amount of interaction with either NPCs or PCs, the story and combat. On those occasions, I've never handed treasure that was of any use to those PCs
curan69 08-15-06, 10:02 AM	Our DM manages to run a character along side our party and it has worked out really well. I think that the use of ANY character with a party is tough to do well. It takes more work to run a character with the party than not to. It really doesnt matter what said character is called. I think some people automatically think If its an Ally it must be OK because its by the rules. If you bother to read the section on Allies you see they are the NPC version of a PC. If allies are played correctly they are equal members of the party, collect equal treasure and Xp...yada yada yada... If you have issues with your DM's maturity or ability to play fairly than prohibiting Allies and restricting NPC's to cohorts, hirleings, followers...etc may be one way to keep the DM in check. Of course if I had those concerns with my DM I wouldnt be playing with him, but it seems some on these boards play with people they cant trust to be fair and therefore should impose some restrictions. ( not to judge, maybe its the only game in town)
Yaeri 08-15-06, 10:15 AM	I have no problem with a DM having his/her own player character (or whatever you want to call it.) It requires a mature DM, whose goal is not to outshine the party (either by build or by knowing everything the DM knows). I'm playing right now in a campaign where the DM has his own character. He is Dm'ing "the second campaign". His character is from the first campaign, where my own character was also playing along while I was DM'ing. Never have we outshined the rest of the party. Sometimes we have used our character to give hints when the party was at a dead end. (Other NPC's do this as well) Sometimes our characters weren't present (so they lag behind in experience) And my character kept a background role in the party. Although I believe that if the players and DM are mature enough, the character can have an outspoken opinion as normal, without the players knowing if that opinion is correct or not. I can speak for our other players as well when I say that none have had any problems with this. I have shown one of the recent threads about the subject (yes that very big thread) and she was stupefied by the whole discussion. (As was I) So.... Yes it's ok, if the DM isn't one of those types who lets NPC's be the stars, is out to kill the players or other such imature things. No it's not ok, if the DM IS one of the above type people. No it's not ok, if the DM is a mature person, yet lacks the skill to keep his/her own knowledge and that of his/her character apart.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-15-06, 11:34 AM	A lot of people have some serious trust issues. To assume that the DM will, or 'may' cheat, that the characters will be inherently overpowered or the subject of favorism, or metagamed, implies simply that you assume the DM is bad anyway. If that's the case, all of those problems will manafest int he game without the presence of the character. The bad guys will by munched out, his best friend will get all the best items, and the BBEG will pull tricks totally out of his arse to excape. If your DM actually follows his own rules for PCs and doesn't metagame; essentially being a good player as is generally expected of everyone, there is no problem. And if you want a mute, crippled heal stick, I don't think its the DM who has issues. Some people just think DMs are incapable of being fair and just people, it seems.
kelvinaw273 08-15-06, 12:19 PM	A lot of people have some serious trust issues. If we didn't have any trust issues, we would be able to play the game with no rules, no stats, no character sheets and no dice. The fact that there are rules demonstrates a need for rules, because some people - in fact most people - do not play perfectly fair all the time. To assume that the DM will, or 'may' cheat, that the characters will be inherently overpowered or the subject of favorism, or metagamed, implies simply that you assume the DM is bad anyway. No, it implies we think that the DM is human and hence less than perfect. If that's the case, all of those problems will manafest int he game without the presence of the character. The bad guys will by munched out, his best friend will get all the best items, and the BBEG will pull tricks totally out of his arse to excape. On the contrary, the DM may instead concentrate on providing a decent game for everyone else with fewer distractions. If your DM actually follows his own rules for PCs and doesn't metagame; essentially being a good player as is generally expected of everyone, there is no problem. Only that he has to play everyone else, knows what is about to happen, controlls the world and is only human after all. Plus, the players are also only human. If a Player makes a suspect decision or argues an interpretation of the rules that the other players feel may unfairly favour them, they can appeal to the DM. If the player is the DM, how can they rely on them to be impartial? And if you want a mute, crippled heal stick, I don't think its the DM who has issues. No, but running an NPC with the party that he has no great attachment to is perfectly OK. It's running one as a player character rather than as an NPC that causes the problems. Some people just think DMs are incapable of being fair and just people, it seems. No, we think DMs are only human. I AM a DM, and I have tried playing a DMPC, so I speak from experience: It was hard work, not much fun and I felt like I was cheating whenever I succeded at something even when I knew I was being scrupulously fair and my players never complained. I constantly felt tempted to have my DMPC make the break that I knew the players had missed, or prepare for the blindspot in their plan that ignored some fundamental aspect of their opposition. In the end, I simply stopped and the game improved. If a DMPC goes wrong, that isn't a character down the drain as might happen with any other player, its a campaign down the drain. I just don't think that trying to run a DMPC is worth the risk. I certainly don't see how it can be any fun if it is being done correctly, unless the DM is doing it just to exercise his ego, in which case he is probably a very bad DM in any event.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-15-06, 12:41 PM	If we didn't have any trust issues, we would be able to play the game with no rules, no stats, no character sheets and no dice. The fact that there are rules demonstrates a need for rules, because some people - in fact most people - do not play perfectly fair all the time. Rules don't exist because of a matter of mistrust. They exist for consistancy. So you always know how you achieve something and if you succeed. No, it implies we think that the DM is human and hence less than perfect. Neither are the other players. Why do we trust them not to be show stealing power nabbers and not the DM? On the contrary, the DM may instead concentrate on providing a decent game for everyone else with fewer distractions. Not only is it not really a distraction, but it can definately enhance a game. Only that he has to play everyone else, knows what is about to happen, controlls the world and is only human after all. Plus, the players are also only human. If a Player makes a suspect decision or argues an interpretation of the rules that the other players feel may unfairly favour them, they can appeal to the DM. If the player is the DM, how can they rely on them to be impartial? Again, you're assuming the DM is naturally going to be a bad person. If you make a bad call and someone calls you on it, you fix it and move on. No, but running an NPC with the party that he has no great attachment to is perfectly OK. It's running one as a player character rather than as an NPC that causes the problems. This assumes that any other player is fully willing to lie cheat and steal on thier character's behalf completely out of character. If anyone at the table has enough of an obsession with thier character that the DM having the same would harm the game, then they need professional help. I AM a DM, and I have tried playing a DMPC, so I speak from experience: It was hard work, not much fun and I felt like I was cheating whenever I succeded at something even when I knew I was being scrupulously fair and my players never complained. I constantly felt tempted to have my DMPC make the break that I knew the players had missed, or prepare for the blindspot in their plan that ignored some fundamental aspect of their opposition. In the end, I simply stopped and the game improved. No offense, but you're admitting to wanting to cheat. Not everyone's so apt to do so. IF your character doesn't know something or wouldn't think of something, then you shouldn't *make* him think of something. The second you start metagaming your character; as a DM or any other player, then you've goen over the line. You wouldn't put up with a bunch of wet behind the ears characters intrensically knowing trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid, so why would you put up with yourself doing the same thing? If a DMPC goes wrong, that isn't a character down the drain as might happen with any other player, its a campaign down the drain. I just don't think that trying to run a DMPC is worth the risk. I certainly don't see how it can be any fun if it is being done correctly, unless the DM is doing it just to exercise his ego, in which case he is probably a very bad DM in any event. If it goes right, it can add substantial depth and understanding to the campaign world and better roleplaying interaction among the party. And all it costs you is not being a horrible player. If the only fun you can have in DnD is 'winning', then yeah, don't play them, but if you have fun with party interaction and roleplay, then they can be both a valuable asset and very rewarding to play.
curan69 08-15-06, 12:43 PM	I am so glad our DM is running an Ally with our group and not whatever that other term is.
Hakar Maloye 08-15-06, 12:54 PM	I AM a DM, and I have tried playing a DMPC, so I speak from experience: It was hard work, not much fun and I felt like I was cheating whenever I succeded at something even when I knew I was being scrupulously fair and my players never complained. I constantly felt tempted to have my DMPC make the break that I knew the players had missed, or prepare for the blindspot in their plan that ignored some fundamental aspect of their opposition. In the end, I simply stopped and the game improved. Funny, neither I or the other DM (we rotate. when I dm, my character becomes a DMPC, and vica versa) in our group has any of those problems. Our players trust us, and we're having a lot of fun, despite the DMPC in the party. When the halfling rogue (well, Lunatic ***** really) in our party is fumbling with the secret door I know has a fussilage of darts in it, my dwarf doesn't stand on the other side of the map, but behind her in the lavatory (where the secret door was :P ) Besides, I use my DMPC as a sort of mouthpiece. So when the party is running from a group of zombies and try to get into a tower we have this: Reginald: They're right behind us! Get into the tower! Tungsten: How? There aren't any doors! Instead of: Reginald: "They're right behind us!" OOC where is the closest door? DM: There aren't any.
Tordek 08-15-06, 01:37 PM	I have had (and continue to have) a DMPC. He doesn't take part in many combats and is more of a long-term NPC. Basically he's my plot-device who gives the NPCs information/advice if they are stuck, so I use him sparingly. Having a single character that functions as a full party member can be problematic, but as long as the DM realizes they'll be watched and judged, its no problem.
TarlSS 08-15-06, 02:35 PM	Usually a bad idea, only to be attempted when you want the challenge of trying to make something that's normally bad good.
Atirakis 08-15-06, 03:17 PM	Ally FTW!
Pippa 08-15-06, 03:18 PM	Great; double post. See below.
Pippa 08-15-06, 03:20 PM	How do players feel about a DM who wants to have a character that travels with the party and is referred to as his character? You mean A DMPC? Honestly I was a bit nervous about things getting out of hand when a fellow player of mine became the new DM and his campaign started in his former PC's home village. But everything seems to work out fine, I don't feel overshadowed, and in fact have some great fun interacting with his character. I don't bother about missing treasure or so: in-game, for the partymembers who are played by players it would seem unreasonable if some people would get less treasure while PC's get more - there is no difference between the halfling who's been there from the beginning and the dark elf who recently joined to help us with our latest mission. (The DM is constantly balancing things out to help us achieve his plot goals: aranging more encounters or so when we're short on XP, throwing cheap but good gear at us when we're underequiped etc. All in favour and in line with the story.) So no, nothing 's wrong with a DMPC. But no DM is perfect, and many rant-stories about DMPC's actually point out that some DM's forget that a players' grasp on the world he invents for them is smaller than his own, and that he must surrender some of his own freedom in order to balance things out and give the players a decent playing experience. This might mean he can't play an über-, maxed-out persona, since DMPC's are almost by themselves played more efficiently in combat etc. Choices are for the players to make, and though railroading your players through your fantastic storyline is easiest to do, a good DM must at all times let his players believe that they make the story, although he controls the setting and adds the plot hooks. DMs will never entirely have the best of both worlds, I believe.
wonlee76 08-15-06, 03:37 PM	I run a game with a NPC in the group and I don't think there have been any problems. At least my players haven't objected yet. The problem from a player's perspective of DMPC's is that the DMPC being run in a horrible fashion. The super powerful omnipotent wizard DMPC (Think Gandalf from LOTR) who leads the group protecting them from dangers and giving them sound advice on how to proceed and the like is what players would hate. Such a DMPC ends up making the players feel like sidekicks to the "all powerful one's" adventure. I put the following guidelines for the DMPC in my games if I needed to introduce one for some reason. #1: PC creation = to the Players. Can't use anything that the players can't use and same point buy and all that jazz. So if I put book restrictions on the game or banned a feat/prestige class/spell or something, the NPC doesn't gain access to such material either. #2: I don't bother keeping track of the XP for the DMPC so I just choose to have the DMPC equal to the lowest level PC in the group at the time of introduction. Barring deaths and the like, the DMPC should never be higher level then the group. If the DMPC loses a level as a result of ress or raise dead, the NPC is behind the lowest level PC's level by 1 for at least 4 levels or so before the DMPC can catch up to the lowest level PC. #3: Don't mix DM knowledge vs. DMPC knowledge. I rarely volunteer any information with the DMPC unless asked for ("Hey, DMPC, do you know anything about...") or if its a given that this PC has the appropriate knowledge to volunteer such information. The only time I usually volunteer information through DMPC is for monster strengths and weaknesses if the DMPC has the appropriate knowledge skill. Usually the DMPC has no independent useful knowledge or any sorts other then maybe remind the PCs the name of an NPC/Place that they should know about. #4: DMPC gets equal share of gold and last choice on any magical items found. If a PC calls "dibs" on some item, the DMPC will defer to the PC. DMPC will use gold earned to increase magical items with only materials I would have permitted if a PC asked for it. Or in the case of the cleric, buy a bunch of Cure Light Wound Wands to keep the party happy. :P #5; DMPC gets his/her fair share of the xp too. The DMPC is not a complete lump of uselessness in a fight afterall. :P Though admitingly, I tend to play DMPCs that are support types. Presently, I have a cleric that usually memorizes spells like bless, protection from X, aid, prayer, and the like to assist the group in combat and tosses out an occasional flame strike when appropriate. I don't think the DMPC ever shines brighter then the PCs in this circumstance. In fact, her spell use actually makes the players look better in combat. #6; No favoritism for the DMPC. If the DMPC is a viable target in the field of battle and would be whacked by the baddies, the DMPC gets whacked. Simple as that. If the enemy has a particular dislike for the DMPC (personal hatred or racial hatred) or for strategic reasons would want the DMPC dead first, they try everything in their ability to kill the DMPC first. The perk for the DMPC being in the group is to fill a needed role in smaller groups. If I had a standard sized group, I would never introduce a DMPC. Its just not necessary. But in groups with a huge gaping hole such as missing a healer, I would introduce a DMPC only to avoid "forcing" a PC to become the healer even though its not his first choice for the campaign.
Pippa 08-15-06, 04:10 PM	Ally FTW! I thought I'd use 'DMPC', because although it's a contradiction in itself it explains most what we're dealing with. To me, 'Ally' isn't necessarily someone who travels with the party and has the same status and power as a PC, and although by ill reputation 'DMPC' has a negative ring to it, I use it because I find it more clear and complete. What do 'DMPC is teh suxor!!!11!' and 'Ally FTW!' mean anyway? I think the whole issue is like forbidding someone to ride a horse. My parents won't let me, because they fear I will break my back, although I have friends who would love to see me learn to ride a horse. I might fall, but it might turn out a nice thing as well. Is this enough reason to keep me from trying it and stating 'it is too dangerous and thus bad'?
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-15-06, 04:17 PM	What do 'DMPC is teh suxor!!!11!' and 'Ally FTW!' mean anyway? Its a bad variant of leet-speak (which is banned on these boards, by the way), that, in English, roughly translates to: "I say old bean, I don't like the term DMPC, therefore, there is no possible way it can be good. On the other hand, my good chum, I do find the term 'Ally', which means exactly the same thing, to be simply smashing."
Thubby 08-15-06, 04:22 PM	if you can manage to be non bias, go for it, though i warn you, few can do it right. if you want to have someone to guide a "lost" party, pick races that make you a bistander, think meoga from inuyasha, youroichi from bleach, jimmeny cricket(pinochio), or something like a lantern arcon, all of them are (usually) pointless in a fight, but have modest skills that help, such as real world experience (aka wisdom). this instantly puts the character in the back row, but lets you have a voice in the party.
Atirakis 08-15-06, 07:41 PM	Its a bad variant of leet-speak (which is banned on these boards, by the way), that, in English, roughly translates to: "I say old bean, I don't like the term DMPC, therefore, there is no possible way it can be good. On the other hand, my good chum, I do find the term 'Ally', which means exactly the same thing, to be simply smashing." Its supposed to be a bad variant of leet because leet is retarded. Its means literally; DMPC sucks alot & Ally for the win
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-15-06, 08:34 PM	Its supposed to be a bad variant of leet because leet is retarded. That version is just as, if not more retarded. Its means literally; DMPC sucks alot & Ally for the win 'For the win' would still need defining for Pippa, as he's pretty clearly not be exposed to stupid internet memes.
Atirakis 08-15-06, 08:45 PM	That version is just as, if not more retarded Its supposed to be. I am making fun of leet by showing them how stupid it looks.
Aterum 08-15-06, 09:08 PM	How do players feel about a DM who wants to have a character that travels with the party and is referred to as his character? I really don't understand the point of a DM having a character. As a player in his own story, he has access to information the players do not so he's going to have to play dumb in order to fit in. Which makes him completely useless when the PCs are investigating or strategizing. I think a DM should be satisfied playing all of the NPCs and running his story. He gets to interact with the characters so it's not like he's not playing the game.
LCD2YOU 08-15-06, 09:24 PM	Besides Ut-Nap and Danielinthewolvesden, what Val and Aterum have been saying as well. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A DM TO HAVE A PC THAT GETS MAGIC, EXP AND THE REST IN THEIR OWN GAME!
Atirakis 08-15-06, 10:07 PM	I tend to agree but I wanted some players opinions since Vaal and I have been going at it for some time over on the DM Boards
curan69 08-15-06, 11:17 PM	THERE IS NO REASON FOR A DM TO HAVE A PC THAT GETS MAGIC, EXP AND THE REST IN THEIR OWN GAME! I must agree with this statement. A DM can do all those things with an Ally and be 100% within the rules, so there is absolutely no reason to have a PC in their own game. As the rules go the definition of a Player Character precludes the DM from having one. It states a Player Character is "a character controled by a player other than the Dungeon Master"
pres_man 08-15-06, 11:41 PM	As the rules go the definition of a Player Character precludes the DM from having one. It states a Player Character is "a character controled by a player other than the Dungeon Master" Indeed, though a DM can certainly play characters that function almost identically to PCs, even to the point of having levels in only PC classes and not NPC classes. So we have NPC Allies which: -gain xp just the same as PCs. -gain a share of the wealth just as PCs. -can have levels in the same classes as PCs. -have equivalent abilities as PCs. Effectively these NPC Allies are PCs in all but name, because of the definition of PC.
curan69 08-15-06, 11:45 PM	Effectively these NPC Allies are PCs in all but name, because of the definition of PC. A point I have made several times. Allies are the NPC version of PCs. So that DMs who so desire can "play" along with the other Players 100% within the rules. All the fuss over that other term when A DM can do the same damn thing with an Ally. So the question becomes can your DM do it fairly? Like I suggested earlier if you cant trust your DM but you are stuck playing with him/her then make them agree to restrict NPC's to the subserviant ones. ( of course a bad DM could find a way to make a cook a killer, but its less likely)
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-16-06, 01:18 AM	Besides Ut-Nap and Danielinthewolvesden, what Val and Aterum have been saying as well. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A DM TO HAVE A PC THAT GETS MAGIC, EXP AND THE REST IN THEIR OWN GAME! If they don't get all that, then they're not being treated like everyone else -- which means you're cheating.
CryoSilver 08-16-06, 01:53 AM	DMPCs are ok, IMO, if they follow 2 simple rules: ECL < the lowest PC's Never divulge information the PCs wouldn't figure out on their own fairly easily.
LCD2YOU 08-16-06, 10:26 AM	If they don't get all that, then they're not being treated like everyone else -- which means you're cheating.Yes, the NPC, not DMPC, should take their share of exp (NPCs gain levels as well), get make items for risking their lives etc. However, the a PC that the DM would later use in another campaign should not be that character. I have used my own PCs as NPCs in a game, but they don't get exp (outside the game) nor do they get magic items (though if they are "part of the party" the do get their share. What that means is if I use my PC as an NPC, anything they do in my game doesn't happen anywhere else. All they are is just a well-known NPC that I can use for certain situations. Yes, they have been lied to, roughed up, left to die and even died in my game but again, that means nothing as they are "just an NPC" in my world.
PaddyPaddyFool 08-16-06, 10:40 AM	I tried something like this on my first ever time as DM. I was DMing with two friends who were rather more experienced than I was. They both chose to take basic melee combat characters, which didn't allow me to do all I wanted (hard to get much in that wasn't melee combat, in fact) so I created a couple of lower level NPCs with other skills - a cleric and a sorceror/rogue - to balance out the party somewhat. However, it swiftly got irritating managing the two NPCs as well as the outside game, so halfway through the first session in which the NPCs featured (my second ever) I decided to hand them over to the players to control, on a roll-off for who got which one. Not sure they much liked managing two characters at once (especially since they were highly critical of my inexperienced character builds), but it flowed a little more smoothly and they got to do more in general. Also, I found I could pick on the lackeys almost as much as I liked without them getting too upset (ie having a villain casting a spell that completely removed their effectiveness didn't bother the player too much, since he still had his main character to do stuff with). In future, I think I'll keep benign NPCs I control to short-term plot hooks as much as anything else (rescued damsels to protect and whatnot), and gently insist on a balanced party build.
Tormsskull 08-16-06, 10:51 AM	I think a lot of players have been babied on many issues, and the result is the current situation we see exposed on these boards time and time again. Players seem to want the play D&D easy mode, where the risks are minimal (though made to appear great to increase their awesomeness), rewards are staggering, and the PCs are gods walking among the peasants of the world. If there is an NPC, Ally, or "DMPC" in the group that happens to do something better than one of the PCs, that is a problem? I have seen this debate run over and over, and the more I see whiny responses the more I move into the Pro-PNPC camp. Whoever is the DM of the campaign should role-play ALL the NPCs. If it turns out by matter of story that one of those NPCs should happen to join the PCs, for temporary or permanent, they should continue to act as they would dependent upon their background, history, alignment, etc. OTOH, If as a DM you start the PCs off with an NPC and say "This is my character" then I think you are setting yourself up for problems.
Corpus Krusty 08-16-06, 11:06 AM	Now I have to admit to not having read the entire thread, so I may be repeating some things here for which I apologise... As far as I'm concerned, as long as your DM plays his character IN CHARACTER and treats him/her as a normal PC without being biased towards the characterm then fine. My DM has on more than one occasion had PCs which he played over several campaigns. He backs off from overtly making decisions, meaning the rest of the group has to decide the party's over all fate, but he's there as a character to help in combat, use his skills where suggested, etc. I ihave to admit, he's extremely good at keeping his character from influencing the group and has never shown any favouritism to his own (in fact I think he's had a character come VERY close to dying more than once). IF, however, he's not got the maturity to do this, it can and will cause problems within the group. Let him try and see if it works. If it doesn't, then gently suggest that he plays his character as a semi-PC, i.e. someone who isn't group leader & doesn't make decisions, but CAN make informed choices based on other character's suggestions. See if he can weork that way. Either way, good luck to you & I hope it works out well.
Twisted Puppy 08-16-06, 11:31 AM	However, the a PC that the DM would later use in another campaign should not be that character. I have used my own PCs as NPCs in a game, but they don't get exp (outside the game) nor do they get magic items (though if they are "part of the party" the do get their share. What that means is if I use my PC as an NPC, anything they do in my game doesn't happen anywhere else. Agreed. The ally/npc/dmpc/whatever should be specific to the campaign. It is there to interact with the PCs for some specific story reason. It's one thing to use a PC you're comfortable with and has traits that fit a role, but at that point you either A) stop using the character as a PC in the other campaign or B) give the character a different name and branch it off. Either way, nothing should go from your campaign into the other.
Hakar Maloye 08-16-06, 11:55 AM	Besides Ut-Nap and Danielinthewolvesden, what Val and Aterum have been saying as well. THERE IS NO REASON FOR A DM TO HAVE A PC THAT GETS MAGIC, EXP AND THE REST IN THEIR OWN GAME! So what happens to my pc when it's my turn to be dm? Does he disappear? Or does he just become unobservant and extremely generous?
curan69 08-16-06, 12:28 PM	So what happens to my pc when it's my turn to be dm? Does he disappear? Or does he just become unobservant and extremely generous? In our Group we do one of two things. 1. The disappearing thing, by that I mean you send them off to do something else. If we do this we automatically get the same XP as the rest of the group so that you dont get punished for DMing. 2. Since by the rules you cant have a PC when you are a DM your PC becomes an Ally. Since properly played Allies are just like PC's You dont have to become unobservant or generous or stupid. You collect XP and treasure just as a PC would, really nothing changes but the name. When you are not DM your character becomes a PC again. We are about 50/50 as far as what we do. Some like to use their characters for plot hook if they DM. We are not as original as our regular DM.
Shekias 08-16-06, 12:28 PM	The best suggestion I can give for playing a DMPC is to play him as if he were a PC. Give him/her character and not just a face. Such as Gorthank the Bloodied, a selfish human Barbarian. Have him try to hoarde the treasure, get mad when pc's won't let him have a magic item. Just don't let him be the "face" of the party. You want the party to decide where to go. Yes he can have oppinions, "Gorthank says we go this way!" but always have him succumb to the parties wishes, not his. Use him to throw the party off a little bit. If they start heading the right way have him dart off and say he found something over there in a room that's filled with ogres. The only other suggestion I can give you is not to get attached. Getting attached to your DMPC is BAD. You start wanting him to make a name for himself and not getting hurt. If this happens, kill him. :D
Twisted Puppy 08-16-06, 12:46 PM	Yes he can have oppinions, "Gorthank says we go this way!" but always have him succumb to the parties wishes, not his. Use him to throw the party off a little bit. If they start heading the right way have him dart off and say he found something over there in a room that's filled with ogres. True to a point, but the character should act in character. Had a case where the party got a message from a different NPC, suggesting BBEG was looking for them and had friends in town to help. Advised leaving. Two party members wanted to stay and fight the baddies there on their own turf, one wanted to go, one was indifferent. Ally had a history with the NPC that advised leaving and started packing. The character would have left town with or without the rest of the party. The party ended up leaving. Now, some might call that railroading. It wasn't. That character was prepared to leave the group; it led to some very good interaction between the characters as they decided what to do. The NPC can make decisions for him/her self, but that's all. If the others choose to follow along that's up to them. If they choose to follow along only because "the NPC must know the right thing to do," then that's metagaming. The only other suggestion I can give you is not to get attached. Getting attached to your DMPC is BAD. You start wanting him to make a name for himself and not getting hurt. If this happens, kill him. :D Right. It's a tool. Think of it as one from Craftsman. If you break it, you get another one for free.
kelvinaw273 08-16-06, 01:49 PM	The best suggestion I can give for playing a DMPC is to play him as if he were a PC. Give him/her character and not just a face. Such as Gorthank the Bloodied, a selfish human Barbarian. Have him try to hoarde the treasure, get mad when pc's won't let him have a magic item. Just don't let him be the "face" of the party. You want the party to decide where to go. Yes he can have oppinions, "Gorthank says we go this way!" but always have him succumb to the parties wishes, not his. Use him to throw the party off a little bit. If they start heading the right way have him dart off and say he found something over there in a room that's filled with ogres. The only other suggestion I can give you is not to get attached. Getting attached to your DMPC is BAD. You start wanting him to make a name for himself and not getting hurt. If this happens, kill him. :D This is essentially treating the "DMPC" as an NPC which is not the issue. The issue is taking the character and getting attached, favouring the character as DM and "competing" with the other player characters. This is not inevitable, especially in troop-style play where the job of DMing is shared by two or more DM/Players. But it is a risk, and combined with the dangers of self-favourtism or metagaming, it makes the DMPC (not an allied NPC) a danger.
pres_man 08-16-06, 02:15 PM	Right. It's a tool. Think of it as one from Craftsman. If you break it, you get another one for free. Which should be true of any character: NPC, PC, or what have you. We really don't need any more Blackleafs running around.
Grand Theft Otto 08-16-06, 02:18 PM	#4: DMPC gets equal share of gold and last choice on any magical items found. If a PC calls "dibs" on some item, the DMPC will defer to the PC. DMPC will use gold earned to increase magical items with only materials I would have permitted if a PC asked for it. Or in the case of the cleric, buy a bunch of Cure Light Wound Wands to keep the party happy. :P Why would a thinking individual who contributes an equal amount accept "last pick"? Unless the NPC ally is just a complete pushover, Id think they would want a fair loot selection. DMPC's can be run poorly. So can DM controlled enemies, who always pass their saves, manage to teleport away at the last minute no matter how much damage they've sustained, etc. If your DM is pulling stuff like this, always hides his rolls behind a screen, etc, then a DMPC is probably a bad idea. Then again, so is playing with this DM.
Pippa 08-16-06, 02:57 PM	favouring the character as DM and "competing" with the other player characters. This is IMO not what makes an NPC an DMPC, but what makes a plain DMPC a bad DMPC, the one you hear complaining about on the boards. To me, my friend's elf who was a PC in the previous adventure and now, while said friend is DMing the same set of characters, still walks along with the group, has become an NPC, is a DMPC. Should our DM start putting too much fancyness in the elf's hands, let her dictate the PC's what to do, or let her kill off entire army's, then this DMPC would be a bad DMPC. The bad undertone people hear in the word "DMPC" is favouritism, which doesn't have to be the case for a 'PC-like NPC'. it makes the DMPC (not an allied NPC) a danger. Albeit a potential danger. It's like pizza: you get them where you know they're good, and not burnt on the outside.
Hakar Maloye 08-17-06, 12:29 PM	In our Group we do one of two things. 1. The disappearing thing, by that I mean you send them off to do something else. If we do this we automatically get the same XP as the rest of the group so that you dont get punished for DMing. 2. Since by the rules you cant have a PC when you are a DM your PC becomes an Ally. Since properly played Allies are just like PC's You dont have to become unobservant or generous or stupid. You collect XP and treasure just as a PC would, really nothing changes but the name. When you are not DM your character becomes a PC again. We are about 50/50 as far as what we do. Some like to use their characters for plot hook if they DM. We are not as original as our regular DM. 1: Not an option. It's just way too silly and unrealistic in our opinion. 2: Yeah, but apparently, according to some people in this thread, doing this will bring down the apocalypse. Whether the character is called a DMPC or an Ally. Besides, this seems like petty semantics to me.
wonlee76 08-17-06, 02:29 PM	Why would a thinking individual who contributes an equal amount accept "last pick"? Unless the NPC ally is just a complete pushover, Id think they would want a fair loot selection. For me it works letting the DMPC get "last" pick. Though usually when I say "last" pick I mean I have 3 PCs and 1 NPC. The 3 PCs get 1 item out of a pile of treasure (I tend to give out piles of treasure by the end of an adventure, it all adds up) in some order that they determine between themselves. A few players will skip their pick just because nothing in the pile interests them or are useful to them. Its then the NPC's turn as the last person. It works out well and extra loot or hand me downs are commonly done between the players. Kind of like doing a "draft" for magical items. The NPC does end up with his/her fair share through hand me downs or whatever is left in the pile by the time their turn comes up.
kelvinaw273 08-17-06, 08:10 PM	This is IMO not what makes an NPC an DMPC, but what makes a plain DMPC a bad DMPC, the one you hear complaining about on the boards. This is the obnly kind I have ever encountered, so it is what I call a DMPC. NPC is in the DMG, whereas DMPC is not. The bad undertone people hear in the word "DMPC" is favouritism, which doesn't have to be the case for a 'PC-like NPC'. That is the major issue on the boards. But as I have stated previously, a lot of the fun of running a PC is not knowing what to expect. This is gone for a DMPC, as I discovered. It just stops being fun. Albeit a potential danger. It's like pizza: you get them where you know they're good, and not burnt on the outside. I have a friend who says: "I refuse to shell out hard cash for what emounts to cheese on toast." This is how I feel about DMPCs: I frankly cannot see any positive reason for them that an ordibinary NPC cannot fulfill - UNLESS the DMPC is there to railroadthe party in the name of leadership, and pander to the DM's ego. There is certainly no fun to actually playing them. I will concede that in troop-play, where players switch between them the role of DMing, it may not be a bad idea. But one thing I have noticed .... When I started playing D&D, every player was also a DM, and we all took turns at running campaigns (each was different, and we had different characters, so it was not troop style). Nobody ever ran a DMPC, the term was unheard of then. As I have played different games, I still never encountered a DMPC, through many different games and DM's including myself. Once, I tried running a player character when I was DMing - it didn't work very well at all, and I quickly dropped the idea. Only when I came back to D&D and looked on these boards did I encounter the DMPC. The very idea struck me as crazy. But now I am starting to understand, because DMing is no longer being shared. Now the DM is The DM, nobody else DM's they all want to play (and there is so much more player-oriented material in D&D 3.5 than ever before). So the DM never gets a break - if he wants to get the feel of being a player he has only one option, the DMPC - so maybe that is where it comes from. But I still think it is a dumb idea.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-06, 09:08 PM	We really don't need any more Blackleafs running around. It would clear the decks of bad roleplayers though... DM and otherwise...
True_Outcast 08-17-06, 09:40 PM	i have one dm who would always do this. he converted a char from 2nd ed, his first char ever. it was ok at first, first he was a guide, told use helpful info and sometimes helped with money. but when he decided that his char was going to have his own island was where the prob started. his char would always help us. three of us played plus the dm. i had a 4th lvl fighter, the other two a 6th lvl barbarian and a 3rd lvl cleric. so we might have needed a bit of help. but he had his char a lvl 20 sor/11 rog follow us and kill almost everything. it got so bad that we had to drop the dm from the group. so my thoughts on this are only bad.
Pippa 08-18-06, 07:34 AM	But as I have stated previously, a lot of the fun of running a PC is not knowing what to expect. This is gone for a DMPC, as I discovered. It just stops being fun. Hmm, one could start thinking the other way 'round, and concluding: the fun part about DMing is creating rich and convincing places, backgrounds and people - a 'DMPC' or PC-like NPC might be just more fun than a regular NPC. I can imagine running an NPC with higher stats, more personality and a longer bio etc is for some hard to do, but if this is not your style that's fine also. And I can imagine, on the other hand, that DMs who are more own-fun-orientated than player-fun-orientated, have a hard time realising that constantly standing in the limelight is bad for player-fun. I 'm not as long into the game as some of you might be, but I have heard about D&D being less player-orientated in the earlier days. Your theory, Kelvinaw, might proove right. But still, I am convinced that the DMPC or 'NPC that could have been a PC were it not that it's being played by the same person who thought up all the encounters and riddles and traps and intrigues, and thus has to be careful not to steal the players' fun to explore and defeat all these things, although he may take actions that improve the quality of experiencing the adventure', is not a bad thing in itself. Going by the stories on the What's a Player to do-department, success or failure of the concept 'DMPC' solely depends on the maturity and ego of the DM. At least, that 's how I see it.
Rowan_Whispercloak 08-18-06, 08:23 AM	I think a lot of players have been babied on many issues, and the result is the current situation we see exposed on these boards time and time again. Players seem to want the play D&D easy mode, where the risks are minimal (though made to appear great to increase their awesomeness), rewards are staggering, and the PCs are gods walking among the peasants of the world. If there is an NPC, Ally, or "DMPC" in the group that happens to do something better than one of the PCs, that is a problem? I have seen this debate run over and over, and the more I see whiny responses the more I move into the Pro-PNPC camp. Whoever is the DM of the campaign should role-play ALL the NPCs. If it turns out by matter of story that one of those NPCs should happen to join the PCs, for temporary or permanent, they should continue to act as they would dependent upon their background, history, alignment, etc. OTOH, If as a DM you start the PCs off with an NPC and say "This is my character" then I think you are setting yourself up for problems. I generally agree with this, but the times I DM'd I looked at all the NPC's and say to myself "These are my characters" I really like to try to be very character driven as a player and a DM. I feel that the PC are the main stars, but they need a excellent supporting cast to make them great. As for DnD light I know many people who don't play to the best of a character abilities or using feat for less than combat oriented role and many of them deem a DM that uses the full abilities to be a "killer DM". However, I enjoy the challege of "full contact" DnD and feel a little cheated if the DM is holding back too much, but at the same time I usually pull my punches on the parties I DM (I'm a hypocritic about that, but I just can't stand for the stars in their storys to be destroyed by a turn of good luck on my rolling). As for DM/PC my favortite on was a 3rd level bard that followed the PC around from about 9th level on to capture their deeds in immortal poetry, that hide from battle and occassional would stabilze a dying character then proceed to hide again or play dead. :embarrass
LCD2YOU 08-18-06, 10:36 AM	So what happens to my pc when it's my turn to be dm? Does he disappear? Or does he just become unobservant and extremely generous?That is a problem. Honestly, I think that you and the other players should have different characters for both games. Then, your PC is not doing languishing about and neither would the other DM's PC when they are DMing and not playing. I am not a fan of two DM's running PCs in each other's game unless there is a lot of trust built up between not just each other, but the entire group as well.
Twisted Puppy 08-18-06, 11:35 AM	I am not a fan of two DM's running PCs in each other's game unless there is a lot of trust built up between not just each other, but the entire group as well. This is a game, supposedly you join a group to have fun. We aren't talking personal finances or national security. To me, when you join a game group, or sit down and start a game with your friends, you should trust them until there is some reason not to, rather than withhold that trust until you think it is earned. When I sit down at a table as a player, I'm going to trust the DM until something happens to give me reason not to. Had a couple of bad experiences because of that, but by and large the games I've been in have been more fun when focusing on playing my character rather than worrying about whether I can trust the DM or not.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-18-06, 11:39 AM	I am not a fan of two DM's running PCs in each other's game unless there is a lot of trust built up between not just each other, but the entire group as well. Seriosuly, there's no reason for this. Once you're no longer also handling your DMing duties, you don't have any of your special DMing powers anymore. You just know monsters and maybe the CS or module. And if you're going to use it to metagame, you should be booted from the group anyway.
Hakar Maloye 08-19-06, 12:20 AM	That is a problem. Honestly, I think that you and the other players should have different characters for both games. Then, your PC is not doing languishing about and neither would the other DM's PC when they are DMing and not playing. I am not a fan of two DM's running PCs in each other's game unless there is a lot of trust built up between not just each other, but the entire group as well. That's the thing, there is only one game, and only one group of pc's. My point is though, that despite three of the four players being utterly new to D&D (the other DM is actually experienced), we haven't run into any problems whatsoever.
kelvinaw273 08-19-06, 01:39 AM	It would clear the decks of bad roleplayers though... DM and otherwise... If we cleared the decks of bad role-players, we would have to boot all the newcomers as well. I don't know about you, but I started out as terrible and learned as I went. We'll just have to do it the hard way and teach them to play instead ...
allenchan 08-19-06, 01:50 AM	Seriosuly, there's no reason for this. Once you're no longer also handling your DMing duties, you don't have any of your special DMing powers anymore. You just know monsters and maybe the CS or module. And if you're going to use it to metagame, you should be booted from the group anyway. I think this needs more clarification. I could see issues when, as Hakar seemed to be alluding to, the rotation of DMs is within the same story arc and set of characters. Thus, one DM might give his "PC" an intelligent vorpal sword at level 2, and then the other person has to deal with that headache when its his turn to DM. However, I'm currently involved in two games, one is a FR Red hand of Doom that I DM, and another that one of my PCs DM, a Greyhawk Age of Worms campaign. Absolutely no problems there. :)
Newpaintbrush 08-19-06, 10:04 AM	No DM controlled player character. Baaad idea. Use NPCs. To clarify, the point of having a PC is to have a persistent character between campaigns, right? But if you do that, I think the DM will inevitably focus some attention on the DMPC instead of the *campaign*. It's a conflict of interest. You can make a NPC (non player character) that persistently journeys with the party, use the NPC rules in the DMG. You can still form attachments, roleplay, etc. etc. But since the character is not persistent and will not be used in other campaigns, there is less conflict of interest.
Hakar Maloye 08-19-06, 02:46 PM	But if you do that, I think the DM will inevitably focus some attention on the DMPC instead of the *campaign*. It's a conflict of interest. Here's this wonderful thing again. Do you people really thrust your DM's so little, that you believe he will inevitably give his PC the good stuff? If so, please tell me why my pc received his +1 Battleaxe of Frost and Ring of Improved Jumping in the other DM's game, and not mine? (in which he received some gold)
Hakar Maloye 08-19-06, 02:48 PM	I think this needs more clarification. I could see issues when, as Hakar seemed to be alluding to, the rotation of DMs is within the same story arc and set of characters. Thus, one DM might give his "PC" an intelligent vorpal sword at level 2, and then the other person has to deal with that headache when its his turn to DM. No, that's not what I'm aluding to at all. What I'm aluding to is that, despite some people here proclaiming Armageddon, a DMPC doesn't automatically cause the world to end.
Atirakis 08-19-06, 02:49 PM	Because that DM was hoping you would then turn around and hook up his PC?
kelvinaw273 08-19-06, 04:17 PM	Here's this wonderful thing again. Do you people really thrust your DM's so little, that you believe he will inevitably give his PC the good stuff? Nobody has said it is inevitable, merely that it generates a conflict of interest. The CoI is regularly seen in those who hold public office, and great significance is attached to the idea that they declare such a CoI between their personal benefit and the duties of their office. Common sense says that you do not sit a man with major shares in a company on a board of enquiry into it's business dealings, or ask a prosecutor to conduct the case against his own family. This isn't because we don't trust them to do their jobs, but because THEY ARE HUMAN, and the CoI can (not necessarily will) complicate their job and may interfere with their judgement. Hence the cautionary nature of many of these posts, because when a conflict of interest does cause things to go wrong, they can go very wrong - and because the suspicion of them is sometimes enough to undermine things. DMs have to be impartial, and a DMPC is a PC, and where their PC is concerned players are very rarely impartial. I trust my DM, but I know he is only human. Hell, if I don't trust myself to run a DMPC, it makes sense to be careful around others.
Atirakis 08-19-06, 04:36 PM	:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: :bow: Well said!
Hakar Maloye 08-20-06, 01:43 AM	I trust my DM, but I know he is only human. Hell, if I don't trust myself to run a DMPC, it makes sense to be careful around others. Yes, you keep saying this. But once again, I have never encountered this, so it only makes sense for me to take your comments with a grain of salt.
kelvinaw273 08-20-06, 01:58 AM	Yes, you keep saying this. But once again, I have never encountered this, so it only makes sense for me to take your comments with a grain of salt. Well, as I've never encountered a well-run DMPC, you'll understand how I'll view claims of such then ...
pres_man 08-20-06, 02:36 AM	Well, as I've never encountered a well-run DMPC, you'll understand how I'll view claims of such then ... Yet I wonder how many well run long term NPC companions you have encountered. Some define a DMPC to be a poorly run character, so of course using that definition you are not going to see a well run "poorly run character". Yet if you define DMPC a character a DM runs that functions as a PC, then any time you see a well-run character under the control of the DM that plays long term significant role, of equal ability, in a party, you are seeing a well-run DMPC.
Newpaintbrush 08-20-06, 05:00 AM	The simple fact of the matter is that a DMPC is DEFINED as a persistent character that the DM will use in OTHER campaigns. Therefore, it is a simple conflict of interest. The DM will not want to kill his DMPC. There will inevitably be some compromises as the DM tries to save his DMPC, because the DM has a PERSONAL INTEREST. DMs can use persistent NPCs, but DMPCs are a bad idea.
Hakar Maloye 08-20-06, 02:24 PM	The simple fact of the matter is that a DMPC is DEFINED as a persistent character that the DM will use in OTHER campaigns. Where? Therefore, it is a simple conflict of interest. The DM will not want to kill his DMPC. There will inevitably be some compromises as the DM tries to save his DMPC, because the DM has a PERSONAL INTEREST. Except off course in the games we 'pro-DMPC' people play in. What a coincedence.
Meshakhad 08-21-06, 02:59 AM	In the campaign I just joined, we have a DMPC for reasons I am unclear on. He may be a holdover from when the group was much smaller. Anyway, while he is obviously a powerful character (in a group that itself is extraordinarily powerful), the DM is not overly protective. Today, he nearly died at the hand of two razorfiends who flanked him and dropped him. Timely and powerful intervention on our parts saved his life. Weird, eh? The DM is willing to let the DMPC die, and the PCs save him. Now, for reasons that again I am unclear on, the DMPC has a handle on some inner workings in the game (chiefly with regards to our employer, a half-green dragon named Viktor). For instance, we met with a powerful (and evil) fey druid, who we all made deals with for more power. The assassin sold his soul in return for becoming a shade, the warlock agreed to do "several" favors in the future in return for more/better invocations, I made the druid a masterwork musket in return for enhancing MY musket from a +1 shock musket to a +2 exit wounds shock musket, the dwarf gained (I forgot what he exchanged) items that ensured him an endless supply of beer and bacon. The DMPC did not make any deals. When I asked why, the DM answered, "He already knows what he's getting." But the DMPC is not central to the plot, nor does he steal the glory from the rest of us (if he tried to, the assassin would kill him in-game). He's still the DMPC, and we know very little about him. But it really doesn't matter.
Atirakis 08-30-06, 12:33 PM	I have an opinion on this. A DM cannot be a PC because PCs are characters controlled by everyone that is not the DM. Thats just the way it is...
Sereno 09-01-06, 12:56 PM	The only time I've ever seen it work well is in a game that's all set in the same campaign, but with rotating DMs. It simply makes LESS sense for a party member to "take a break" or "be busy doing something else" while the player is wearing the DM-hat for a while. Other uses for the DMPC, seem "off" to me. You already have control over EVERYTHING in the game, except for the four or six PCs, why do you also need your own PC? What does that "DMPC" get you that no other NPC could?
LCD2YOU 09-01-06, 02:12 PM	I have an opinion on this. A DM cannot be a PC because PCs are characters controlled by everyone that is not the DM. Thats just the way it is...Well dude some terms are like Military Intelligence. Though a DM can't be a player and by extension no character a DM controls can ever be a PC in their own game, some titles just stick. Just accept them for what they are, an oxymoron. So if I were to add psuedo-DMPC, would that be better? ;)
nimrodii 09-01-06, 02:25 PM	I admit I did it once, I was teaching my cousins to play, and there was no healer, so I played a cleric in my own game. I hung back and let them frigure things out themselves. Other than that there have been a few NPCs that have traveled with the party for short amounts of time in my other games, but this was for less than a session, and if it is a hireling I allow a player to run it within reason, someone is not going to do something suicidal just because they have been payed.
LCD2YOU 09-01-06, 03:17 PM	I admit I did it once, I was teaching my cousins to play, and there was no healer, so I played a cleric in my own game. I hung back and let them frigure things out themselves. Other than that there have been a few NPCs that have traveled with the party for short amounts of time in my other games, but this was for less than a session, and if it is a hireling I allow a player to run it within reason, someone is not going to do something suicidal just because they have been payed.That's not what we're really talking about here. I "run" NPCs that are in the PC party all the time. It is when you "play" the NPC like you are the player where the issue lies. Yes, run any NPC in the party with the PCs as a "real person" but remember, you can always roll another one up. Also, you should never take a NPC from your world and call it your PC and bring it into someone else's game. Kinda skanky.
pres_man 09-01-06, 05:20 PM	That's not what we're really talking about here. Really? Also, you should never take a NPC from your world and call it your PC and bring it into someone else's game. Kinda skanky. Well I would say that is not what we are talking about either, and thus irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously all characters created for a game should meet the character creation guidelines for that game. I "run" NPCs that are in the PC party all the time. It is when you "play" the NPC like you are the player where the issue lies. And what exactly does it mean to play 'like you are the player'? How is a player defined to play? Is there only one way for any player to play? Really this statement is so vague as to be meaningless. You might as well have said, "And don't smile like a smiler smiles." Or "Don't smurf as a smurf smurfs." Define THE way a player plays before making statements like this. Perhaps your definition is flawed and thus you are drawing a flawed conclusion from it. Yes, run any NPC in the party with the PCs as a "real person" but remember, you can always roll another one up. Your point being ...? Because you can always roll up another PC if you are non-DM player as well. Unless you are playing in some weird house-ruled setting that you only get one character and there is no raise, resurrection, or reincarnating. So if your character dies you have to sit out of the game until it is "over". That might be interesting for a short game (1-3 sessions), but I doubt it would reach much farther than that.
The Soul Collector 09-01-06, 06:32 PM	Wow, another DMPC thread. I won't fill this thread with what I think, I did that several times already. Basically, I've seen it work since I've done it and dealt with it. All it takes is a very mature DM that is able to seperate his more important DMing responsiblities then hogging the PC spotlight. In fact, my DMPC usually end up augmenting the story line and everyone's fun by being that person that holds other PC up to the limelight, help to dig into other character's backstories, and so on. In the worst case, DM's can usually get away with playing the walking bandaid (I mean cleric) if the party has no access to healing.
Atirakis 09-02-06, 01:12 AM	Thats what everyone always says "It works if he isnt really just like the other PCs but rather like a sub PC"... making him not really a PC... So why the obsession with calling it a PC?
Always-Late 09-02-06, 01:37 AM	Thats what everyone always says "It works if he isnt really just like the other PCs but rather like a sub PC"... making him not really a PC... So why the obsession with calling it a PC?Can we leave this in the DM boards, and accept the definition of "NPC which is a party member" for DMPC? This is supposed to be about player perspectives. As a player, now: I've seen it done well, I've seen it done badly. Well, it wasn't too special. Just tagged along, dished out some damage, not too much. He was retired swiftly for other reasons. The other one, the DM favored his character, just a tad. There wasn't really a plot to his campaign; it was basically "slice, dice, hack, slash." His players were so twinked, though, that they overshadowed him anyway. Wasn't great.
Schmendrick 09-02-06, 05:11 AM	For stat generation I like to use a method I heard about here about two years ago. Each participant (that is, all PCs, plus GM) roll a set of stats, preserving the order (e.g., the first roll is Str, the second Dex, etc.) and each of the numbers are set aside. Then the players take turns picking scores. Player A may want to play a tank, and so choose the highest of the rolled Con scores. Then player B, who wants to play a wizard, takes the highest Int. Player C might want a bard but be really concerned about skill points, so she selects the highest remaining Int score. Then Player D chooses, then A, B, C, D, A... Eventually everybody has their stats and there are a bunch of crap scores left over. I like to take those numbers, rearrange them to fit whatever class might benefit the party the best (possibly raising the highest score to 12 or 13, if necessary), and making that the [DM] NPC. The really horrid stats help But more on topic... I think the main difference between an NPC and a DMPC is that the latter has the DM's ego attached (kind of the way a player attaches his ego to a PC). In that sense, a DMPC is never a good idea, because there's an obvious conflict of interest. A recurring, or even constant companion NPC is fine.. it's when the DM his afraid to let it die, or feels the need for it to "show off" (or even take its place in the "spotlight") that things get iffy.
RogerWilco 09-03-06, 11:21 AM	How do players feel about a DM who wants to have a character that travels with the party and is referred to as his character? We're playing and DMing in turn, and therefore all have characters too. We usually have the PC of the DM absent from the party during their turn. Sometimes as a plot, like the PC is sick and the Party needs to find out why, sometimes just training/learning/etc off-stage. To keep the PC level with the rest, we do have the rule that the DMPC gets the same amount of treasure and XP (adjusted for level) as the average the party gets. Since we established this rule, the DMs are a lot less stingy with XP and gold. I have bad experience with the DMs character having an active role in the party.