Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ace_of_time 08-08-07, 10:47 PM	I use these all the time. We only have two players and they like it that way so I play one to make up the difference. We play high powered campaign. This time around I decided to go Cha rogue. We don't have a spell casting arcana only cleric/drow 3rd and 4th level minataur going barbar after HD. Can't decide on wand strike for my next feat or spring attack by 6th level. I was going 4 levels in fighter to get it and still might for combat bonus. You can post for my DMPC if you want but most don't like them. This is why I am posting this. What is the big deal with not using DMPCs? Do you like them or not? Any tips for those who might use them? We are 4th now. Yes I know most don't like LA on PCs but we don't mind and have fun with them. besides she going bar minataur she should have to worry about HP.
Mock26 08-08-07, 10:55 PM	In situations where the DM only has a few players, than a "DMPC" can be not only a good thing, but a necessity. However, I am of the belief that with a "normal" sized group that the DM should concentrate on the being the DM and let the players have all the "glory" of murdering poor monsters and stealing their money. My experiences with "DMPCs" is that they often become a vehicle by which the DM makes his character the savior of the group who solves all the puzzles, is the hero of every combat, and basically steals the show. I understand, though, that this is not the case of everyone. Regardless of who the DM feels about running a DMPC, I think that if the players don't want one then the DM should respect their wishes and not run one.
shadzar 08-08-07, 11:05 PM	DMPC always bad. NPCs that go along with and aid the player party always good. hirelings/henchman always good.
Jere_RB 08-08-07, 11:07 PM	Generally speaking, I don't like them, but only because they have a way of stealing the show. Most people that I've seen DM with them use them as uber-characters that dwarf the abilities of the piddly little PCs, allowing the DM to throw higher level encounters at the party than they should normally be able to handle. This ignores the fact that, if the DM could formulate encounters correctly, the party wouldn't even *need* said DMPC around. Otoh, I have, personally, used them. When I did it right, the character in question may or may not have been better in combat than the PCs, but he never showed it. Winning the combats was always the player's job. The DMPC pretty much stayed behind the scenes, taking care of minor tasks, hunting down small magic items, and generally doing cloak-and-dagger things to keep the story going smoothly without having to take up a large amount of game time. And, on the table, the PCs thought they were bada$$. When I didn't do it right, I was at least fair, because I let the PCs be as powerful as my DMPC. Of course, the game went to hell in a handbasket quick. Of course, that was my first attempt at DMing. So, that's my experience. Your mileage may vary.
trapspringer 08-08-07, 11:15 PM	A two man party often warrants a DMPC. Just make sure your DMPC doesn't become more important than the players. Ask yourself before anything that your DMPC does, "Will doing this make it so that the story couldn't take place without my DMPC?" To explain: You remember the scene in episode one where the queen was all like "I don't wanna' go to coruscant, I wanna' stay here and die!" Remember how the jedi were all like "no, *****, you'ze commin' with us to see Sidious." Yea, see that scene wouldn't work without the Jedi. The whole plot falls apart. The queen dies. Now, remember that scene at the end of the movie where the head of security is all like "*Pshew-Pshew*" and the droids are all like "*whirr-pow-boom*?" See, that scene would work without the head of security. He was a fixture in the room, and for sure some of the bad guys would have to be killed by some other people, and some of the exposition wouldn't be quite as clear, and let's face it the whole thing wouldn't be as cool, but the plot would still work. So remember, be the head of security. ...or something.
Tuah 08-08-07, 11:24 PM	I only use DMPCs in ongoing campaigns with alternating DMs. We only use them as mindless stat-blocks though that are only good for extra mechanical force.
Ace_of_time 08-08-07, 11:40 PM	I use three rules. 1. Knowledge checks for what I knowledge. 2. follow their lead on all things. I give hints but don't let them turn to me for answers. They get the sameone each time. " I have never seen this thing before" no matter what it is I say that and they no they are on their own with it. 3. I use classes they don't like to show them there is more to D&D then Elf sorc and drow cleric. Except bar and bard because I don't like them. I have alot of ranks on Tumble so I can get to them if things go bad. But let them win most battles unless they get low to dieing on HP. That sometimes leads me to being on the ground wait on them. I figure if they didn't want me around she is the healer of the group!
wizardguy2003 08-08-07, 11:45 PM	I tend to agree that you should keep DMPCs out of your games, as you should focus all your time into your players and the campaign itself. On the other hand, I am currently running a game for just a couple of us and I use steady NPCs to fill the gaps in the party. To be honest, I don't know exactly where to draw the line that separates DMPC and a NPC in this scenario other than a personal lack of ambition when it comes to my NPCs excelling, save for being atleast useful to my players. :)
Wight_Chocolate 08-08-07, 11:54 PM	Like so many aspects of running a game, DMPCs can be great if done properly, and an utter drag if done otherwise. The main upside is, of course, that sometimes a small party (especially a low-level one) will need some extra help to fill a role left unoccupied, and from a player's standpoint, it's often nice if said help is not wearing a metaphorical red shirt with "LIABILITY" printed on the front. It also gives the DM a readily available mouthpiece. Sometimes, no matter how well-crafted your campaign may be, the players will repeatedly fail to grasp that crucial hint or plot point, and there's a feeling of security that comes with the luxury of being able to nudge them in the right direction without having to resort to divine intervention or just blatant OOC pointers. There are less practical benefits to be had too. If the character is fun to play and fun to have around, it makes for all the more enjoyable interaction. If your players roleplay a lot then chances are they're going to spend a fair amount of time talking to each other, and it's a huge reinforcement to the DM-player bond to be able to participate in this rather than just sitting back and twiddling your thumbs. Woe betide the group, though, if a DMPC is run the wrong way. The most extreme case of this is, as mentioned, the all-powerful, all-knowing avatar of the DM that exists solely to fulfill said DM's desire to have this awesome character dominating everything in its path. The ego-trip DMPC will pretty much ruin any game. Of course, that sort of pitfall should be obvious to anyone. The real trick lies in seperating your knowledge of everything that's going to happen from the character you're playing. If you can pull that off, problems should be minimal with any luck. My experience with DMPCs has been nothing but positive. I've used one myself, and it did nothing if not liven the game up, both for the players and for myself. Granted, it did steal the show somewhat at first, but that was only because everyone else was failing to perform while I kept rolling 20s over and over again. Once that evened out, things ran beautifully.
shadzar 08-09-07, 12:16 AM	I don't know exactly where to draw the line that separates DMPC and a NPC in this scenario other than a personal lack of ambition when it comes to my NPCs excelling, save for being atleast useful to my players. :) here is the line. DMPC = Dungeon Master Player Character. it is a contraction like do not...as in don't use DMPCs. dungeon master = one running the game player character = entity in the world that one player has an attachment to and plays the character in a way to achieve the goals created by the player for the character. NPC = Non Player Character. it is a character that has no player. it exists as a tool for the world to interact with the PCs dungeon masters shouldn't have PCs. they have every other character to work with and devote their time to. if said DM wants a PC, then he or she should stop DMing, or find a second group in which to play the game instead of DMing it. some people have a hard time understanding the term DMPC is different from NPC.
Ace_of_time 08-09-07, 12:51 AM	here is the line. DMPC = Dungeon Master Player Character. it is a contraction like do not...as in don't use DMPCs. dungeon master = one running the game player character = entity in the world that one player has an attachment to and plays the character in a way to achieve the goals created by the player for the character. NPC = Non Player Character. it is a character that has no player. it exists as a tool for the world to interact with the PCs dungeon masters shouldn't have PCs. they have every other character to work with and devote their time to. if said DM wants a PC, then he or she should stop DMing, or find a second group in which to play the game instead of DMing it. some people have a hard time understanding the term DMPC is different from NPC. As to that last one. Two player with only a year or two of play time. Sadly never get to be a player and might never will. Been a DM since I was 16 and I'm now 28. Never been a player and never had the chance. I was wondering when some one would bring up Star trek. I sometimes use NPC for the red shirt but if someone has to die thats me but my players do let that happen to often to where it is a problem.
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-09-07, 02:21 AM	http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=13254472#post13254472
shadzar 08-09-07, 03:24 AM	As to that last one. Two player with only a year or two of play time. Sadly never get to be a player and might never will. Been a DM since I was 16 and I'm now 28. Never been a player and never had the chance. you really need to find more players. you must have other friends that might want to try. maybe there is someone else that could DM.
NordicBirch 08-09-07, 06:42 AM	As to that last one. Two player with only a year or two of play time. Sadly never get to be a player and might never will. Been a DM since I was 16 and I'm now 28. Never been a player and never had the chance. Looking at the redshirt comment, you apparently do understand the problems and only use NPC's but that longing to be a player is the best sign that one should steer clear of DMPC's. The happier one is with being DM, the safer they would be trying a DMPC and the more one yearns to be a player the more they'll be tempted by the wrong aspects of DMPC's.
SirTodd 08-09-07, 08:35 AM	DMPCs are bad. However sometimes it's necessary to have one. My group uses the following rules for DMPCs: 1- DMPC makes none of the decisions for the group. He doesn't even get a vote if the group is voting on some course of action. He just automatically goes along with what the group does. 2- DMPC never uses outside knowledge ever. And only uses knowledge skills when requested by the players. 3- DMPC gets last pick when treasure is divided. 4- DMPC can never be higher level than the lowest level in the party. Any excess XP is simply lost. The game is about the players not the DMPC. 5- If a super majority of the players are uncomfortable with any aspect of the DMPC build, personality, or anything else, then the DM must retire the character. This is to prevent DM abuse by giving favorable options to his DMPC. These group rules were put in place back when we had revolving GMs. Making it illogical for some party member to suddenly vanish while another former friend suddenly shows up with XP and new toys that keep him on par with the others. But they work very well for all times when DMPCs are needed. __________________ As a side note with small groups (like your 2 player group) it's often beneficial to allow Gestalt characters. Sometimes this removes the need for a DMPC altogether.
DrMorganes 08-09-07, 08:48 AM	DMPC always bad. NPCs that go along with and aid the player party always good. hirelings/henchman always good. Preach on, Brother (Sister?) Shadzar. Preach on! :clap:
Ceres323 08-09-07, 09:07 AM	As a player I was in a campaign where the DM had a character with the party, he referred to him as an "NPC ally" because he said all the characters the DM runs are NPCs. Some were just more fleshed out than others, depending how much interaction they had with the group. The point is the character - whatever anyone chooses to call it - acted in character, even when those actions weren't the best choice. I hadn't played a great deal before this campaign, so to me it was a nice lesson in how to play a character consistently and not metagame. When asked questions, the DM made the normal knowledge checks unless it was something the character would obviously know. Whether the knowledge was accurate or current remained to be seen, so we knew not to treat anything the ally told us as holy writ. As to the character having goals, I find the game more realistic and easier to get immersed in my own character if the NPCs do have goals of their own and create a little synergy with the party. If the NPC is with the party, though, they should be putting their own goals, if not behind, then at least alongside the rest of the group. Ideally I suppose helping the PCs attaining their own goals would lead to the NPC achieving theirs. Note: I've never run an NPC that travelled regularly with the party, even though I was fortunate to have a great example to learn from. I'm still new enough that some things my DM did as a matter of habit I still have to think my way through. I'd also be very wary of a new DM announcing that he had a character that was going to be with the group. In the case of my DM, it was an NPC the characters decided they liked having around and invited to join them. At no time did I ever feel I was required to keep the ally with us. In fact there were several sessions where the ally was not available due to personal business he had to attend to.
pres_man 08-09-07, 10:02 AM	Since this is the player's board, I will start off talking about a couple of experiences I've had as a player. Situation 1: I was fairly new to gaming, I had gamed some before, but never had a long term campaign. Several of the other players like-wise were new. Nobody decided to play a cleric, we all had our own ideas we wanted to play. So the DM, who was one of two people with us that had some serious experience, decide to make an NPC ally to join the party (Definition #1 of DMPC) that was a cleric. Now this guy is a good guy, but he plays in a lot of CCG tournaments and such, and so it is very easy for him to fall into a versus mode of thinking. By having a character in the party I noticed he did a better job then when he later did not have a character in the party. Situation 2: I was playing online where the DM had an NPC paladin in the party. It quickly became clear that this NPC was able to do things that a paladin of our level should not be able to do. Now understand the media is important because we don't really know this person and so our level of trust is pretty shakey to begin with. Add in an NPC with DM made up items that allow them to use the abilities more often and rule breaking homebrewed feats (that we were told we would not be able to take ourselves) and well it is just a bad situation. That DM was just bad and one of the main ways he demonstrated it was through the use of a DMPC (Definition #2). However sometimes it's necessary to have one. My group uses the following rules for DMPCs: 1- DMPC makes none of the decisions for the group. He doesn't even get a vote if the group is voting on some course of action. He just automatically goes along with what the group does. I would probably add, within reason. I mean surely your group would not think it ok to make the DMPC do something suicidal and the character would just brainlessly agree to it. 2- DMPC never uses outside knowledge ever. And only uses knowledge skills when requested by the players. Well the part about not using outside knowledge is something that should be true of any character NPC or PC. 3- DMPC gets last pick when treasure is divided. As long as he is getting a reasonable share, who cares right? In my own group we usually tend to start with who can best use an item and go from there. 4- DMPC can never be higher level than the lowest level in the party. Any excess XP is simply lost. The game is about the players not the DMPC. Well, that wouldn't work in my group as some players just miss a few games and fall behind. Also my party NPCs tend to do things that other party members dislike, like crafting so a reasonable share of xp is necessary. 5- If a super majority of the players are uncomfortable with any aspect of the DMPC build, personality, or anything else, then the DM must retire the character. This is to prevent DM abuse by giving favorable options to his DMPC. Again, I would suggest this is true of any character. No group should be held hostage to a disrupt character merely because it is a party member. Telling the character to walk should always be an option (though one that shouldn't usually be taken lightly) regardless if the character is run by the DM or some other player.
shadzar 08-09-07, 02:24 PM	Note: I've never run an NPC that travelled regularly with the party that is a key thing about NPCs, they don't journey with the party but for a short time to fullfuil their purpose. sent by the temple as a guide tos omehwere and back. sent by the king in order to introduce the characters to someone in another town. those types of things. NPCs as short term. when an NPC becomes a long term member of the party then something has gone wrong. the DM has encounters that are not tailored to his players.
Ceres323 08-09-07, 03:13 PM	when an NPC becomes a long term member of the party then something has gone wrong. the DM has encounters that are not tailored to his players. I don't think a long-term NPC is a good idea in every situation or game, but the most enjoyable campaign I've been in as a player had an NPC as a long term party member. I never heard any of the other players, some with far more experience than I, complain about the character. If the campaign being fun and all the players looking forward to the next session is a result of the campaign going "wrong," I hope all the campaigns I join are "wrong." There's nothing "wrong" when everyone is having fun. (Is this where we start discussing the metaphysics of "more fun?" God I hope not.)
wizardguy2003 08-09-07, 03:25 PM	that is a key thing about NPCs, they don't journey with the party but for a short time to fullfuil their purpose. sent by the temple as a guide tos omehwere and back. sent by the king in order to introduce the characters to someone in another town. those types of things. NPCs as short term. when an NPC becomes a long term member of the party then something has gone wrong. the DM has encounters that are not tailored to his players. Admittedly this is a difficult balance to play with, but a regular NPC is nothing new nor should it be something to be avoided like the plaque. Reoccuring NPC allies or villians are very common. As to a regular NPC with the party, imagine a person whose group consists of only two players and a DM? An NPC with his own drives and desires who is run by the DM, but not PREFERED by the DM, can be a live saver in this kind of situation. As I said before I think the real difference between a DMPC and a regular NPC is the attachment the DM may have to them. A PC is something we are taught to care about though the very nature of the game, while, as a DM, your taught to treat your NPCs like pawns on a chess board. That feeling alone should keep the DM out of trouble when it comes to favoritism. Least I would hope so. :)
Sundragon 08-09-07, 04:42 PM	Just to add my 2 pennies... I have always used DMPCs to a greater or lesser extent in my games and the players have loved them. DMPCs can play certain key roles. 1.) Sometimes they create good role-playing foils for players who are initially uptight about role playihng with other players, but comfortable for whater reason rping with the DM. 2.) Sometimes DMPCs become beloved by the players as iconic in the setting just as long lived PCs are in the minds of the players. Sometimes the characters become true friends of the DMPC and they are loathe for them to leave or die. 3.) I am easily able to role play multiple DMPCs of different types in the same game, each with different goals and personalities. Maybe the DMPC is the brother of one of the PCs. Maybe it is the "love interest" of a PC. 4.) Sometimes I am able to help a player bring out certain aspects of a character's personality that might otherwise go undeveloped because other PCs just don't care enough to interact with them enough to highlight it. 5.) DMPCs if done properly can help other PCs shine by maybe needing a rescue during a pitched fight, allowing a PC to talk about his backstory by expressing a genuine interest, give plot hints the players didn't catch, etc. There are a lot of uses for a DMPC or DMPCs in a group so long as they are used properly to help PCs shine, to make the world seem tangible and real, to help glue a group together, etc. If they are played properly the player's will mourn the loss the of DMPC (who died for the sake of plot advancement) as though it was their own PC and sometimes moreso. ;) Starlion
NordicBirch 08-09-07, 05:24 PM	There are a lot of uses for a DMPC or DMPCs in a group so long as they are used properly to help PCs shine, to make the world seem tangible and real, to help glue a group together, etc. If they are played properly the player's will mourn the loss the of DMPC (who died for the sake of plot advancement) as though it was their own PC and sometimes moreso. ;) What is your definition of the difference between DMPC and NPC and why couldn't an NPC be used to handle the things you listed?
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-09-07, 05:27 PM	There are a lot of uses for a DMPC or DMPCs in a group so long as they are used properly to help PCs shine, to make the world seem tangible and real, to help glue a group together, etc. If they are played properly the player's will mourn the loss the of DMPC (who died for the sake of plot advancement) as though it was their own PC and sometimes moreso. ;) There are a lot of uses for a NPC or NPCs in a group so long as they are used properly to help PCs shine, to make the world seem tangible and real, to help glue a group together, etc. If they are played properly the player's will mourn the loss the of NPC (who died for the sake of plot advancement) as though it was their own PC and sometimes moreso. And all that without the baggage, bull****, and nonsense associated with the DMPC. :)
tharivol266 08-09-07, 06:21 PM	A two man party often warrants a DMPC. Just make sure your DMPC doesn't become more important than the players. Ask yourself before anything that your DMPC does, "Will doing this make it so that the story couldn't take place without my DMPC?" To explain: You remember the scene in episode one where the queen was all like "I don't wanna' go to coruscant, I wanna' stay here and die!" Remember how the jedi were all like "no, *****, you'ze commin' with us to see Sidious." Yea, see that scene wouldn't work without the Jedi. The whole plot falls apart. The queen dies. Now, remember that scene at the end of the movie where the head of security is all like "*Pshew-Pshew*" and the droids are all like "*whirr-pow-boom*?" See, that scene would work without the head of security. He was a fixture in the room, and for sure some of the bad guys would have to be killed by some other people, and some of the exposition wouldn't be quite as clear, and let's face it the whole thing wouldn't be as cool, but the plot would still work. So remember, be the head of security. ...or something. qft. this is deffinatly the best advice i have seen on this subject to date
Sundragon 08-09-07, 08:29 PM	What is your definition of the difference between DMPC and NPC and why couldn't an NPC be used to handle the things you listed? Well a DMPC is actually nothing more than an NPC that is continuously run as part of the group by the DM. Isn't it merely an issue of semantics? Starlion
Sundragon 08-09-07, 08:32 PM	There are a lot of uses for a NPC or NPCs in a group so long as they are used properly to help PCs shine, to make the world seem tangible and real, to help glue a group together, etc. If they are played properly the player's will mourn the loss the of NPC (who died for the sake of plot advancement) as though it was their own PC and sometimes moreso. And all that without the baggage, bull****, and nonsense associated with the DMPC. :) Can you define the difference between an NPC or NPCs that travel with the group on a constant basis, treated as part of the group, work with the group and face the same challenges as the group and a DMPC? A DMPC is just a popularly used term for an NPC of a certain type. Starlion
DCAnderson 08-09-07, 08:42 PM	I don't know if this has been said before, but here is the House Rule I use if it seems the party is undermanned: Leadership feat for free. This gives the players all extra warm bodies that are under their control so I can't be tempted to Mary-Sue a GMPC. I also use the rules for Gestalt characters too sometimes, to help make let less people fill more roles. Also I've basically found you can pretty much scale the level of the party using the rules for ECLs so you know you won't overpower the players. So a party of three players can be treated as one level lower. A party of two is two levels lower, and a single player is treated as four levels lower. All these alternatives are vastly superior to using a GMPC.
DCAnderson 08-09-07, 08:47 PM	Also, any ability score generation method that inflates stats combined with the previous methods is good, because it makes the players a little more hyper-competent.
shadzar 08-09-07, 10:11 PM	Well a DMPC is actually nothing more than an NPC that is continuously run as part of the group by the DM. Isn't it merely an issue of semantics? Starlion no a DMPC is just that...the DMs PC. the DM has all the NPCs to deal with he doesn't need his own personal PC to be attached to and favor while trying to present a good game for this players. the players have the PCs that is where people screw up think DMPC = NPC in any form. it doesn't. a DM should not have a PC. neither should a single NPC be with the party for long periods of time. there should be breaks when the player are own their own. maybe a new NPC comes along to help when they need it, etc.
pres_man 08-09-07, 11:02 PM	All these alternatives are vastly superior to using a GMPC. Those are all possible advantages if the issue is solely power, assuming of course the players want to use such rules (some players may, as shocking as it may seem, not wish to play gestalt characters for example, or have followers). Yet almost none of those address the advantages Sundragon mentioned about the roleplaying advantage having a long term party character run by the DM can have.
pres_man 08-09-07, 11:05 PM	no a DMPC is just that...the DMs PC. the DM has all the NPCs to deal with he doesn't need his own personal PC to be attached to and favor while trying to present a good game for this players. the players have the PCs that is where people screw up think DMPC = NPC in any form. it doesn't. a DM should not have a PC. neither should a single NPC be with the party for long periods of time. there should be breaks when the player are own their own. maybe a new NPC comes along to help when they need it, etc. Seems as if you are describing two separate issues. 1) DM being "too attached" to a character. 2) Long term DM run party members are always bad, irregardless of how attached a DM is to the character. While most people could probably agree with #1, depending of course on what we mean by "too attached", alot of people might not agree with #2.
ArgulFraster 08-10-07, 01:21 AM	Where I live, there are few people to play with. In fact, my DM must come up to see me. As such, we have a gestalt party-me, the PC, and my three allies. My DM usually lets me lead the show, letting my allies slap themselves in their collective face whenever I do something stupid (save the druid/wizard, he's usually too stoned.) Likewise, in the one campaign I've DMed, I let my player (the usual DM) run about and do as he wished with a single DMPC to assist (a Harassaf named Sandrihalinath.) Said Harassaf was known to his friend (a Cavian Slayer test char) as "Sandy." There were a lot of jokes involving the mostly staid Lawful Neutral harassaf, one involving him getting a violent purple suit that made him look like a fiendish Willy Wonka when we needed to get into a high-class neighborhood to find out about a suspected rakshasa. His explanation was "It fit, she said it looked good, she said it flattered me, shut up." But yeah. DMPCs work best when they're mostly in the backround. Make them funny; they'll mesh better. And whatever you do, don't let them steal the show.
NordicBirch 08-10-07, 07:19 AM	Can you define the difference between an NPC or NPCs that travel with the group on a constant basis, treated as part of the group, work with the group and face the same challenges as the group and a DMPC? A DMPC is just a popularly used term for an NPC of a certain type. Starlion An NPC is just part of the background/setting whilst a DMPC is a player character for the DM. The latter is the base situation that spawns the horrors we've all seen either in our own games or told by others here. You can have an NPC and call it DMPC and everything is great but you might want to look a bit why you chose the term DMPC. Why did you feel the need to dedicate a character to yourself when your supposed to be the unbiased arbiter? The name doesn't cause the problems but it's a good way to distinguish between good and bad use of NPCs
pres_man 08-10-07, 08:17 AM	You can have an NPC and call it DMPC and everything is great but you might want to look a bit why you chose the term DMPC. For some DMs it is just a shorter way of saying: A DM run character that functions mechanically in all ways the same as a PC with respect to level, abilities, classes, race, xp gained, gp gained, etc.
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 08:22 AM	I don't know if this has been said before, but here is the House Rule I use if it seems the party is undermanned: Leadership feat for free. This gives the players all extra warm bodies that are under their control so I can't be tempted to Mary-Sue a GMPC. I also use the rules for Gestalt characters too sometimes, to help make let less people fill more roles. Also I've basically found you can pretty much scale the level of the party using the rules for ECLs so you know you won't overpower the players. So a party of three players can be treated as one level lower. A party of two is two levels lower, and a single player is treated as four levels lower. All these alternatives are vastly superior to using a GMPC.Most of these are good idea for pro players, but new players would get lost trying to figure these out and still get the rules right. AS to someone else who said the thing about wanting to be a player. DMPC is a good tool if used right. I have always used them with under 4 players rather then put to much on the other players. I have told my players if there is someone they would like to play with to bring them along but they say they are happy with just the three of us. If I feel my PC is getting in the way he goes bye bye and I make one that will not. As long as the DMPC helps everyone to have fun then I see no problem with it.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 09:28 AM	A two man party often warrants a DMPC. Nope, it warrants an NPC, perhaps 2. Hirelings would be good for this. Just make sure your DMPC doesn't become more important than the players. Then it is not a DMPC. Can you define the difference between an NPC or NPCs that travel with the group on a constant basis, treated as part of the group, work with the group and face the same challenges as the group and a DMPC? Yes. The DM doesn't have a problematic attachment to an NPC. [QUOTE]A DMPC is just a popularly used term for an NPC of a certain type. ****** was once a popularly used term for African American. Like that word, DMPC is also loaded with very specific negative meaning. That "certain type" is "NPC to which the DM has a problematic attachment." Well a DMPC is actually nothing more than an NPC that is continuously run as part of the group by the DM. If that were all a DMPC is then it would not be an issue. Isn't it merely an issue of semantics? No.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 09:47 AM	no a DMPC is just that...the DMs PC. the DM has all the NPCs to deal with he doesn't need his own personal PC to be attached to and favor while trying to present a good game for this players. the players have the PCs that is where people screw up think DMPC = NPC in any form. it doesn't. a DM should not have a PC. Finally, Sadzar and I see eye-to-eye on something. :) Those are all possible advantages if the issue is solely power, assuming of course the players want to use such rules (some players may, as shocking as it may seem, not wish to play gestalt characters for example, or have followers). Yet almost none of those address the advantages Sundragon mentioned about the roleplaying advantage having a long term party character run by the DM can have. They don't need addressing. All points were valid. Said "long term party character run by the DM" is called a NPC. For some DMs it is just a shorter way of saying: A DM run character that functions mechanically in all ways the same as a PC with respect to level, abilities, classes, race, xp gained, gp gained, etc. "NPC" is an even shorter way of saying it, without any negative connotations or emotional baggage attached.
Tytalus 08-10-07, 10:44 AM	I believe the OP's main point has already been addressed. NPCs that travel with the party can be an asset if used carefully, but can be a pain if the DM abuses his power. Whether you call these characters NPCs, NPC allies, or DMPCs is an entirely different issue. Unfortunately, virtually every thread gets bogged down by people trying to educate/convince others to use their own definition. There are at least two common uses of the word DMPC: (1) An NPC that travels with the party and an (2) NPC that travels with the party but is disruptive due to poor DMing (e.g., the DM getting too invested in the character). Note that both uses include the NPC travelling with the party, so if you want to express just that, DMPC seems quite fitting. They don't need addressing. All points were valid. Said "long term party character run by the DM" is called a NPC. "NPC" is an even shorter way of saying it, without any negative connotations or emotional baggage attached. Shorter, but not as precise. NPC is too vague to unambiguously describe the fact that the character travels with the party. Even NPC Ally (see DMG) doesn't do that properly, as there are different kinds of NPC Allies. All NPCs that travel with the party are NPCs (obviously), but not all NPCs travel with the party.
pres_man 08-10-07, 10:44 AM	"NPC" is an even shorter way of saying it, without any negative connotations or emotional baggage attached. NPC means only a character run by a DM, that does not describe what I suggested in detail. As for negative connotations or emotional baggage, well that is dependent on the one hearing the word. Some people do feel the term refers to the derogatory definition in my signature, while others feel it applies to the non-derogatory definition in my signature. Your statements seem to in dicate you are the former, which is fine, but you are not the absolute arbiter of how others feel. It was asked why the term might be choosen, I gave a reason. You may feel like a different term might be better, which is fine, but that doesn't negate the reason I gave. I clearly defined what a DM might mean by the term, that is not the derogatory definition.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 10:47 AM	Shorter, but not as precise. NPC is too vague to unambiguously describe the fact that the character travels with the party. Even NPC Ally (see DMG) doesn't do that properly, as there are different kinds of NPC Allies. The fact the NPC actually travels with the party covers it, it doesn't require a special term. All characters run by the DM are NPCs.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 10:48 AM	but you are not the absolute arbiter of how others feel. When did I claim to be?
pres_man 08-10-07, 11:13 AM	When did I claim to be? When you claimed that the term has "negative connotations or emotional baggage attached". That is only true if a person feels such term does. Just because some people feel that way does not mean all people feel that way.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 11:45 AM	When you claimed that the term has "negative connotations or emotional baggage attached". That is only true if a person feels such term does. Just because some people feel that way does not mean all people feel that way. You erroneous interpretation of something I wrote does not mean I wrote what you claim. Please read my sig.
Tytalus 08-10-07, 12:31 PM	The fact the NPC actually travels with the party covers it, it doesn't require a special term. You misunderstand. For describing an NPC that travels with the party, "DMPC" is more concise than "An NPC Ally that happens to travel with the party".
_Jayne_Cobb_ 08-10-07, 12:35 PM	You misunderstand. I understand full well. "DMPC" is more concise than "An NPC Ally that happens to travel with the party". If it were more concise then these contentious threads would not exist. Just call it an NPC and have it travel with the party, it doesn't need a special title any more than does "an NPC Ally that happens to be reading a book", "an NPC Ally that happens to be eating a mango", or "an NPC Ally that happens to like dogs." NPC is a term used for all characters controlled by the DM, they don't need any special titles beyond that.
DeathByRodent 08-10-07, 01:40 PM	However someone wants to use the terms, whatever. I used them to distinguish between an NPC, and a PC that the DM is controlling. DMPC - to me this means a "Player Character" played by the DM. NPC - non-player character played by the DM. The NPC has never and will never show up as a player character in another campaign. The NPC soley exists as a NON-player character in the DMs campaign, and nowhere else. The DMPC may have started life as a PC and the DM periodically substitutes the PC as an NPC. If people were always objective, mature, fair and trusting, this wouldn't be a big deal. But often the DM is just trying to "make up" for the hard DM that PC plays under, so he introduces him as an NPC and his pc starts getting "uberized". Even if the DM plays this character fairly, not all the players will see it that way. They will complain that he's bias towards his PC, complain that his PC gets better stuff, etc etc. This dissention will show up in other campaigns. There were few things I hated to hear as much as "didn't your pc gain ten levels and get that +infinity-vorpal-slay-everything-sword when we played in your world last month?" Whenever a player brings a character into my campaign, one of the criteria I had to adopt was to not allow any character that a player had used as an NPC in one of his campaigns. If so, that PC doesn't get into my campaign. It seemed like whenever I had new (to my group) players with pre-existing PCs, if those PCs had serious monty haul items and uber stats, almost all the time, one of those PCs had been played by one of those players while he was a DM. He wanted an uber character and he was happy to make everyone in his campaign uber to be fair. edited to add: I also won't play in a campaign group where the DM introduces one of his PCs as an NPC, or if one of the characters brings a PC that was an NPC in one of his campaigns. It always turns out to be disruptive.
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 02:12 PM	Since when, exactly, does the term "DMPC" constitute "an NPC that travels with the party and will receive better treatment than the rest of said party"? I might be miscounting, but it really doesn't look like there are enough letters in that acronym for that to work. If you're going to gripe about definitions here, a "Dungeon Master Player Character" can't exist. It's a contradiction in terms, as much so as "Non-Player Player Character", or "Player Dungeon Master Character." Therefore the entire debate is moot because there is no such thing as a DMPC. If, on the other hand, you're going by the less pedantic meaning of "PC" (that being "a permanent member of the party") then the term works. However, all it refers to is a a character that the DM is running as a party member, and will effectively act just as any other party member. You may claim that you're not just arguing semantics, but you are. I think it's pretty clear that the OP did not mean "Is it bad if a DM has a character travel with the party that has 18 in every stat and is showered at every opportunity with gifts and XP?" because that would be a really stupid question. In quibbling over the definition of "DMPC", you're just avoiding the issue that is supposed to be getting addressed here.
shadzar 08-10-07, 03:09 PM	For some DMs it is just a shorter way of saying: A DM run character that functions mechanically in all ways the same as a PC with respect to level, abilities, classes, race, xp gained, gp gained, etc. d+m+p+c = 4 n+p+c = 3 NPC looks shorter. oh, and not to mention a DM should not be running a character in his own game. not sure if you were arguing for or against DMPCs, or just redefining the term. :confused:
Rederik 08-10-07, 03:12 PM	So, umm... What does Jack Sparrow have to do with all this?
shadzar 08-10-07, 03:26 PM	All NPCs that travel with the party are NPCs (obviously), but not all NPCs travel with the party. that has to be the dumbest thing i have ever heard. nobody ever said all NPCs travel with the party. the point is simple the DM should not have a character in the game. NPCs don't gain levels with the party. when an NPC has outlived his usefullness he moves along or dies. when the party needs more help they search for a stronger NPC. the term "NPC ally" also does not exist. i don't care what you have read in any WotC product. they are just NPCs. some help the party, some hinder the party, some don't do either but just exist. in any event they are just NPCs...non-player characters. nothing more, nothing less. :banghead:
shadzar 08-10-07, 03:34 PM	If, on the other hand, you're going by the less pedantic meaning of "PC" (that being "a permanent member of the party") then the term works. yes now let us go ahead and remove those damned players that get in the way so often and just have the DM alone at a table with his PCs. since the PCs are jsut simply "a permanent member of the party". obviously none of them would need to be a cleric, because permanent would also mean they are all invulnerable. they are permanent after all. therefore at no time can be removed fromt he party. :rolleyes: you definition of PC makes about as much sense as a fireproof match.
MaryContrary 08-10-07, 03:37 PM	I love the Pirates of the Caribbean movies but I have to say that a Jack Sparrow wouldn't last five rounds in our campaign. The DM in our group is my boytoy, so unless my character is having a very interesting/entertaining romance with the DMPC... well we just kill them. Okay may not actually attack them until they die or anything. We just don't heal them. Or we encourage them to open the chest in the middle of the room. One time we even put the blame for something I won't admit to even now on the DMPC and let him get hauled off to jail. I think we've only had one time where a DMPC was an asset to the party. Other than that one time our DM has only tried it three other times that I can think of. Even when he makes one to strengthen the party because the campaign has gotten too tough we still just end up killed them/letting them die/forget to wake him up when we break camp and move on. Eventually we trained our DM to soldier up and just DM. Now that he's properly house broken we just keep him motivated with insincere promises that we'll DM soon and let him play. Working out very well so far. :D
Holy_Beholder 08-10-07, 04:02 PM	DMPCs are bad. Shadazar was right. However sometimes the players need help. This is when you introduce some sort of a safe haven, which includes other members. A guild, the resistance, I don't care. Sometimes and NPC is assigned to help them when they need help. However these NPCs are constantly changing, only come along sometimes, die more often than the players, and never become a DMPC. Sometimes the players will invite an NPC along. For instance, in one of my games, there was one character who was a bit of an outcast. He lived in a mountain, where smithing was the most important thing, and combat took second fiddle. However, he trained in combat. He was also not born on the mountain. He was orphaned by that campaigns equivalent of a lizardman. The campaign was very open, with different areas containing different entities, it was reptilian creatures versus the mammals. So when the players want to attack the lizardman, he is taken along. As the players want the character to come, it is fine. If they don't they don't come. An alternative to a DMPC is making both your players Gestalt. Basically they have two classes, and take the best features of each. For instance a Fighter/Sorcerer would have a good Fort and Will save, a d10 hit die, sorcerer spell casting, a familiar, bonus feats, and all sorts of other stuff.
MaryContrary 08-10-07, 05:25 PM	I guess I'm just old school. I and the rest of my group (and the DM) have the idea that the DM's whole job is to keep the game balanced. If the PC's are in over their heads (and not just playing badly and being stupid) then the DM has fumbled and needs to correct things. If the game is tailored to provide the PC's (and thus the players) with a nicely balanced challenge then it all comes down to how the players play, whether they work well together as a team, etc. You won't need NPC, cohorts and DMPC's. Of course with this approach the opposite holds true. If the PC's are sailing through the dungeon then the DM needs to make with the dirty tricks and epic monsters.
pres_man 08-10-07, 05:27 PM	d+m+p+c = 4 n+p+c = 3 NPC looks shorter. Indeed it does, but it does not convey the same information as the definition I gave. NPC only means "character run by the DM", that is all the information the term provides. It doesn't say anything about how it is run, how powerful it is, does it travel or stay in one place, etc. It only describes who is running it. Now, one way the term DMPC can be interpreted is as I said, "A DM run character that functions mechanically in all ways the same as a PC with respect to level, abilities, classes, race, xp gained, gp gained, [member of the party], etc." Using that definition then it provides more detail. So going back to your "size" comparison, to compare the two: [DMPC] vs. [NPC who travels with the party and functions exactly like the PCs] I'm thinking second one is a just a tad bigger. Now of course if you have no interest in providing that information, great, the term is not of very much value to you. Or if you dislike any long term NPC party member, irregardless of how it is played, again the term is meaningless to you. oh, and not to mention a DM should not be running a character in his own game. Actually a DM should be running lots of characters of their own. Each one with a personality, goals, desires, family, history, etc. not sure if you were arguing for or against DMPCs, or just redefining the term. :confused: I am suggesting that the term DMPC does not necessarily imply the deragorty definition. So, umm... What does Jack Sparrow have to do with all this? I think that the character's personality is suppose to be modeled on good old Jack.
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 05:43 PM	yes now let us go ahead and remove those damned players that get in the way so often and just have the DM alone at a table with his PCs. since the PCs are jsut simply "a permanent member of the party". obviously none of them would need to be a cleric, because permanent would also mean they are all invulnerable. they are permanent after all. therefore at no time can be removed fromt he party. :rolleyes: you definition of PC makes about as much sense as a fireproof match. I believe you've just illustrated my point perfectly. That is, debating over what you perceive "DMPC" to mean is inherently silly, and since it's also quite clear what the OP was actually talking about, completely irrelevant. Much like you know exactly what I meant when I said "permanent party member". Spare me the sarcasm until you address the issue at hand, please.
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 05:57 PM	So, umm... What does Jack Sparrow have to do with all this? I was wondering about when some one might ask. I use characters out of movies for my PCs sometimes and that was the only Cha based rogue I could think of at the time so that is his name. Just to clear a few things up since it keeps coming. 1. we do indeed play high powered game. Game stats are rolled because we all vote against points buy because of the cost and it not being as equal as rolling when it come to generating stats. 5d6 drop lowest. 2. A good player does need to make up weapon and items to make a good PC and the same is true for my DMPC. 3. NPC means non player character and as such any character not being played by a player is a NPC. That includes monsters and bad/good guys. 4.DMPC is a type of NPC used by the DM as his own PC. The PC does not have to always go around with the party but is count as part of the group. If the group uses allot of NPCs then it is most of the time better to just have a DMPC to save the DM on having to come with allot of stories for each NPC. 5.THE DMPC IS NOT A BAD DMING TOOL. If you have encountered a bad type then you should consider looking at that DMs gaming style first. Most of the time that is where the problem is.
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 06:02 PM	6. Oh and one last thing. Life is to short people so please don't fight over the little things.
ORC_Tuhteth 08-10-07, 07:16 PM	Hey guys, Please remember to be both polite and constructive in your replies -- I understand that sometimes a topic can just push your buttons (and I can sympathize!), but just try not to get snippy with each other. Also, please don't expend too much energy on the whole terminology thing (DMPC vs. NPC vs. Gandalf vs. Obi-Wan Kenobi) -- that's really just a "to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to" kind of thing and I can't see that going anywhere that's particularly productive. :)
Jexil 08-10-07, 07:16 PM	Just call it an NPC and have it travel with the party, it doesn't need a special title any more than does "an NPC Ally that happens to be reading a book", "an NPC Ally that happens to be eating a mango", or "an NPC Ally that happens to like dogs." NPC is a term used for all characters controlled by the DM, they don't need any special titles beyond that. Just out of curiosity--do you have "villians" in your campaigns? Or just "NPCs who happen to be opposed to the party?"
shadzar 08-10-07, 08:46 PM	I am suggesting that the term DMPC does not necessarily imply the deragorty definition. but it does. D&D has two "groups". DMs & Players. Players run PCs.... player characters. DMs run NPCs. special characters that have one purpose, to serve the PCs. they either serve as assistacne to the PCs or deterents. nothing run by the DM should gain levels like the PCs. there is never a reason a DM should have a PC because the DM is not a player. :censored: whine and moan. yes the DM is in sort a player, but a special player. one who is NOT part of the adventurers party. he is like the bank in Monopoly, or the host in games like jeopardy. he should not have a character for his own person gain. therefore should not have a PC. DMPC means a PC belonging to the DM. you don't seem to get it. DMPC was created as a deragative term to exaplin those DMs who were treating NPCs incorrectly. a DM should only have NPCs. anything else and he is showing his players a lack of respect. yes it is a :censored: to have to DM all the time and not get to play, but it goes with the job. yes sometimes enchounter are too tough for the player party, and those times do have need of an NPC in order to perform a special task the player party cannot. that does not mean the DM screwed up. and NPC going with the party is a tool to help advance the plot, not just to take care of the missing power a PC party has to deal with combat. NPCs are used for information only. they just happen to give that information when the time is right meaning they may enter battle and help the PC party until they can give their information at the correct time and fullfill their purpose.
shadzar 08-10-07, 08:53 PM	Also, please don't expend too much energy on the whole terminology thing (DMPC vs. NPC vs. Gandalf vs. Obi-Wan Kenobi) -- that's really just a "to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to" kind of thing and I can't see that going anywhere that's particularly productive. :) either way you say your word they are still things only good for making ketchup and pizza sauce. otherwise they are useless :yuck: it is in fact the point that is what the term DMPC connotates that people are trying to get others to understand. defining what terms mean is the basis for communication. :( if everyone is using terms differently then no one will ever understand what someone else is talking about. 4. DMPC is a type of NPC used by the DM as his own PC. The PC does not have to always go around with the party but is count as part of the group. If the group uses allot of NPCs then it is most of the time better to just have a DMPC to save the DM on having to come with allot of stories for each NPC. this is the whole problem in a nutshell. the DM should not have a singular PC in which to go with the party, or count as the group. that is bad DMing form manys point of view. if you can't take the time to have NPCs you aren't attached to do the job, then you should not be a DM and instead should be playing since you are wanting to devote too much time to yourself where it all should be devoted to your players.
pres_man 08-10-07, 09:07 PM	but it does. To some, evidently. :) D&D has two "groups". DMs & Players. Players run PCs.... player characters. DMs run NPCs. special characters that have one purpose, to serve the PCs. Well actually I believe player characters are the ones usually described as "special". Though I don't think all NPCs are there to serve the PCs, serve the players? maybe. serve the PCs? nah. they either serve as assistacne to the PCs or deterents. NPC do serve the game by filling all kinds of functions. PCs also serve the game in their own ways. nothing run by the DM should gain levels like the PCs. Sure if you want to ignore the actual rules of the game. Of course if you are playing "real D&D" and not this deluted 3.x crude, then feel free to ignore all the rules you wish. :) there is never a reason a DM should have a PC because the DM is not a player. Well the DM is a player, but you are right a DM never has a PC, but that is why a DMPC is an NPC that functions mechanically like a PC. It is still an NPC, by definition any character run by the DM is an NPC. :censored: whine and moan. yes the DM is in sort a player, but a special player. one who is NOT part of the adventurers party. he is like the bank in Monopoly, or the host in games like jeopardy. The bank is usually a player as well in Monopoly, at least in all games I have played in. he should not have a character for his own person gain. therefore should not have a PC. DMPC means a PC belonging to the DM. Any player, DM or not, that is only concerned with their own personal gain, is a bad player and should be avoided until they mature. you don't seem to get it. DMPC was created as a deragative term to exaplin those DMs who were treating NPCs incorrectly. An NPC that functions as a PC in the party, gaining xp and gp just like a PC, is a "correct" way of playing according to the 3.X DMG (read about NPC allies). Of course if one wants to play "real D&D", then 3.X rules be damned. a DM should only have NPCs. That is all he can have, by definition. anything else and he is showing his players a lack of respect. Just as much as a non-DM running non-PCs. You know like, cohorts, familiars, mounts, animal companions, etc. NPCs are used for information only. they just happen to give that information when the time is right meaning they may enter battle and help the PC party until they can give their information at the correct time and fullfill their purpose. Information only. :looloo: Ok, have fun gaming. :)
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 09:20 PM	You keep repeating that it's a bad thing and should never be done under any circumstances, but you're not explaining why. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone opposed to the use of DMPCs has, so far, actually presented any substantial logical debate as to why it's so awful to use them. The comments so far have effectively amounted to "Yeah, they are bad things." Similarly, very few (if any) of the pro-DMPC arguments were addressed before this descended into some inane debate over what "DMPC" actually means. The only point I see anyone on the opposing side putting forth here is that a DMPC may be favoured above the PCs by the DM. While that can certainly happen, that doesn't indicate that DMPCs are bad; it indicates that they can be used improperly. Practically any aspect of the game can be used improperly. Should we also be making a stand against the inclusion of, say, monsters? After all, any DM could easily set the party against a swarm of balors because they were feeling malicious or wanted petty revenge for some slight outside of the game. Therefore, they are a tool that should not be used. Furthermore, even if we assume that any functioning party member played by a DM will be favoured by said DM, so what? That doesn't necessarily mean you have to act on it. There's this thing called "self-control" that some people have been known to possess. (Also, and this is on a more personal and off-topic note, but any player who actually complains that their DM is "disrespecting" them by having a party character seriously needs to remove the metaphorical stick from a certain bodily orifice. It's just a game. If you're going to be that uppity about it then chances are you need to take a vacation in the real world for a while.)
shadzar 08-10-07, 09:30 PM	a DMPC is an NPC no a DMPC is a PC like any plauyers, that jsut happens to be run by the DM. again a DM should not be a part of the player party. DMPC =/= NPC. if it is a :censored: NPC, then why not just call it a :censored: NPC? why ever call it a DMPC? because you are unable to tell the difference in them. i can call a terd a candy bar. if you pick it up and start eating it, it doesn't matter how sweet and chewy it is, you are still eating :censored: .
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 09:32 PM	And on another more personal and off-topic note, I think someone is in desperate need of a chill pill.
shadzar 08-10-07, 09:34 PM	You keep repeating that it's a bad thing and should never be done under any circumstances, but you're not explaining why. why? can you not read? it is all over the posts many peole have written. a DM should not have a PC. he is not part of the adventuring party. any DM who insists on having a PC in the game that works just like any of the players PCs is not doing his job. tell me anywhere in the DMG where it states that a DM gets a PC just like the other players.
pres_man 08-10-07, 09:37 PM	Furthermore, even if we assume that any functioning party member played by a DM will be favoured by said DM, so what? That doesn't necessarily mean you have to act on it. There's this thing called "self-control" that some people have been known to possess. Yes, as if a DM can be trusted to be impartial when their significant other, BFF, child, crush, or who ever is playing, but let them have a character that runs with the party and all hell breaks loose.
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 09:39 PM	why? can you not read? it is all over the posts many peole have written. a DM should not have a PC. he is not part of the adventuring party. any DM who insists on having a PC in the game that works just like any of the players PCs is not doing his job. Yes, I can read just fine, and that's exactly why I said what I did. I can see this in every post, and it does not constitute a logical debate. Again, all you've said here is "you shouldn't do it". This does not provide a counterpoint to anything that has been said before. tell me anywhere in the DMG where it states that a DM gets a PC just like the other players. Ah. So we're going to encourage blind adherence to what the books say now, are we? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not voicing strong opposition to that very thing in a certain other thread? (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=872517&page=34)
shadzar 08-10-07, 09:52 PM	Ah. So we're going to encourage blind adherence to what the books say now, are we? Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you not voicing strong opposition to that very thing in a certain other thread? (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=872517&page=34) in order to explain to single track minded people why you shouldn't do something i need to know why they think they should. it must have been written in those :censored: ed WotC books that people are so want to adhere to that makes then think a term exists meaning something other than what it does. i need to know what about the simple concept you don't understand about "a DM is NOT part of the player group and therefore is not supposed to have a PC like the rest of the player group". once i know what part you don't understand then maybe i can explain it more simply so that it could be understood.
pres_man 08-10-07, 10:00 PM	From the :censored:ed WOTC book the Dungeon Master's Guide: Allies come in two types: those who help the PC's with information, equipment, or a place to stay the night, and those who actually travel with them on adventures. ... The latter function as party members and earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other character does. Essentially, these latter allies are adventurers who just happen not to be controlled by players. ...
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 10:04 PM	i need to know what about the simple concept you don't understand about "a DM is NOT part of the player group and therefore is not supposed to have a PC like the rest of the player group". I understand what the concept means perfectly well. I also understand that there needs to be a more concrete reason than "you're not a player, so you just shouldn't do it" for it to be the abhorrent crime you're suggesting it is. If running a DMPC happens to be beneficial to the game in every respect, why should I not do it? Just because I'm "not allowed" to have a player character as the DM? Who exactly is it that decides this sort of thing in a game? Oh yeah, the DM. That'd be me. Overruled. I'm asking for an explanation as to why this concept should be the case. If you plan to provide one, I'd appreciate it if you didn't include any veiled insults.
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 10:05 PM	either way you say your word they are still things only good for making ketchup and pizza sauce. otherwise they are useless :yuck: it is in fact the point that is what the term DMPC connotates that people are trying to get others to understand. defining what terms mean is the basis for communication. :( if everyone is using terms differently then no one will ever understand what someone else is talking about. this is the whole problem in a nutshell. the DM should not have a singular PC in which to go with the party, or count as the group. that is bad DMing form manys point of view. if you can't take the time to have NPCs you aren't attached to do the job, then you should not be a DM and instead should be playing since you are wanting to devote too much time to yourself where it all should be devoted to your players. That is your opion on it as you are intitled to it. Not everyone thinks that way. But thanks. Note: that you have never play with me as DM and to judge someones DMing just by having A DMPC is not the nicest thing. DM should be judge on merits only.
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 10:08 PM	in order to explain to single track minded people why you shouldn't do something i need to know why they think they should. it must have been written in those :censored: ed WotC books that people are so want to adhere to that makes then think a term exists meaning something other than what it does. i need to know what about the simple concept you don't understand about "a DM is NOT part of the player group and therefore is not supposed to have a PC like the rest of the player group". once i know what part you don't understand then maybe i can explain it more simply so that it could be understood. So how then do you have a group without the DM?
shadzar 08-10-07, 10:14 PM	From the :censored:ed WOTC book the Dungeon Master's Guide: those are sponges to absord the excess treasure, XP, etc that is more than the PCs should have sicne the NPC was there for whatever reason. it doesn't make it a PC. BAH this 3.x :censored: is making me hate it more and more. they not only bastardized the rules, but corrupted terminology and the way things even work. i don't know what it is, but i don't care what moniker that put on it....it isn't D&D.
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 10:15 PM	You keep repeating that it's a bad thing and should never be done under any circumstances, but you're not explaining why. As a matter of fact, I don't think anyone opposed to the use of DMPCs has, so far, actually presented any substantial logical debate as to why it's so awful to use them. The comments so far have effectively amounted to "Yeah, they are bad things." Similarly, very few (if any) of the pro-DMPC arguments were addressed before this descended into some inane debate over what "DMPC" actually means. The only point I see anyone on the opposing side putting forth here is that a DMPC may be favoured above the PCs by the DM. While that can certainly happen, that doesn't indicate that DMPCs are bad; it indicates that they can be used improperly. Practically any aspect of the game can be used improperly. Should we also be making a stand against the inclusion of, say, monsters? After all, any DM could easily set the party against a swarm of balors because they were feeling malicious or wanted petty revenge for some slight outside of the game. Therefore, they are a tool that should not be used. Furthermore, even if we assume that any functioning party member played by a DM will be favoured by said DM, so what? That doesn't necessarily mean you have to act on it. There's this thing called "self-control" that some people have been known to possess. (Also, and this is on a more personal and off-topic note, but any player who actually complains that their DM is "disrespecting" them by having a party character seriously needs to remove the metaphorical stick from a certain bodily orifice. It's just a game. If you're going to be that uppity about it then chances are you need to take a vacation in the real world for a while.) I would only add that the DM is already part of the group running horse, animal com, and familiars. Not including the gods that allow magic. I don't see how one PC will hurt things to much.
shadzar 08-10-07, 10:18 PM	So how then do you have a group without the DM? reread because you missed it....."not part of the player group"" the DM is like a host at a party, and the players are all the guests. maybe that makes it easier for some people to understand. they are similar at times, but in the end they are different. but i am through discusing this. people can screw up using incorrect terminology all they want. when they are met with other people that will laugh in their faces for not knowing what theya re talking about i will just sit and revel in the fact that they were unwilling to listen and just want to use whatever term they think means the right thing. don'r forget to stop at the green light when you drive and go at the red. they just changed it 20 minutes ago and i don't want any of you to get arrested for not knowing some ignorant choice was made by idiots that affect everyone else not only themselves. like calling an NPC a DMPC..... :rolleyes:
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 10:19 PM	those are sponges to absord the excess treasure, XP, etc that is more than the PCs should have sicne the NPC was there for whatever reason. it doesn't make it a PC. BAH this 3.x :censored: is making me hate it more and more. they not only bastardized the rules, but corrupted terminology and the way things even work. i don't know what it is, but i don't care what moniker that put on it....it isn't D&D. If you can't be civil we will just start ignoring you and your post. Please!
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 10:27 PM	reread because you missed it....."not part of the player group"" the DM is like a host at a party, and the players are all the guests. maybe that makes it easier for some people to understand. they are similar at times, but in the end they are different. but i am through discusing this. people can screw up using incorrect terminology all they want. when they are met with other people that will laugh in their faces for not knowing what theya re talking about i will just sit and revel in the fact that they were unwilling to listen and just want to use whatever term they think means the right thing. don'r forget to stop at the green light when you drive and go at the red. they just changed it 20 minutes ago and i don't want any of you to get arrested for not knowing some ignorant choice was made by idiots that affect everyone else not only themselves. like calling an NPC a DMPC..... :rolleyes: We all my use different terms but there is no need to act this way. We simple think differently on what it means. no harm in that. This is the last post you will get from me! sorry!
pres_man 08-10-07, 10:28 PM	The only logical arguments that I have ever seen made are: 1) Just not a prefered style of gaming. The players feel more comfortable with the DM being separate, all characters in the party, PCs or NPCs are ultimately controled by the non-DM players. This is based solely on a subjective preference so is not right or wrong and needs no more logical basis then merely a lack of preference. 2) Loss of time. Combat and other types of encounters take time. The more characters involved decreases the amount that can be done in each round for example. More characters involve means more time for each encounter which means less encounters per session. As a personal experience, I usually run a game with 6 PCs. Now there have been occassions where some conference or something was going on and we only had 3 PCs for that session, and the difference is noticable, we got through almost twice as many encounters. So that is certainly a logical issue, the issue of time. The question then becomes if the loss of time is an acceptable tradeoff for the chance to have another character in the party.
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 10:32 PM	I suppose I won't be getting that explanation I asked for, then. Would anyone else in the "no" camp that's a little more polite care to enlighten me?
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 10:33 PM	It sounded more like they didn't want to lose XP and Gold to the DM and I don't find that good argument.
Ace_of_time 08-10-07, 10:35 PM	I still say the ones that have run into a bad DMPC have had more of a DMing problem then a DMPC one.
TheAnthroDM 08-10-07, 10:49 PM	There's a huge problem with the phrase DMPC, as people intercept it in different ways. For the sake of clarity I don't use the phrase, so here's my opinions. An NPC who goes along with the Party, and is counted as a PC for purposes of loot sharing and experience division is very easy to do without causing problems. This NPC should probably be as developed as the BBEG since the players are going to be seeing a lot of her. However, if the DM fudges the saves for non-story relative reason for this NPC and considers them under the "personal protection of the universe" then it becomes a problem. No NPC should ever outshine the players, but a NPC Adventurer is not only perfectly fine, but also perfectly realistic.
trapspringer 08-10-07, 10:50 PM	I understand what the concept means perfectly well. I also understand that there needs to be a more concrete reason than "you're not a player, so you just shouldn't do it" for it to be the abhorrent crime you're suggesting it is. If running a DMPC happens to be beneficial to the game in every respect, why should I not do it? Just because I'm "not allowed" to have a player character as the DM? Who exactly is it that decides this sort of thing in a game? Oh yeah, the DM. That'd be me. Overruled. I'm asking for an explanation as to why this concept should be the case. If you plan to provide one, I'd appreciate it if you didn't include any veiled insults. There are two schools of thought on why not; The first, AKA The Stupid Argument or The Semantics Argument, goes like this: A DM can't have a Player Character because he isn't a player, therefore any character he might run could not possibly be said to be a "Player Character" of any sort. (It's true on some levels and utter nonsense on others, but that won't stop people from filling up pages with asinine commentary in an effort to convince the world it is full-proof.) The more rational and real argument is, I believe, as follows: Being a DM is really hard. Really, really hard. It's so hard, imagine the hardest thing you can and add one. It's just that hard. Therefore, to add anything to something that hard makes it practically impossible to do it well. Running a PC, while not quite so hard as being a DM, is also quite challenging. UB3r Hard + Sorta' Hard = Impossible (That's a bit tongue-in-cheek, of course. Really the strongest form of this argument is more like "To run a DMPC detracts from your ability to be a DM, even if only a little. It's not fair to your players or yourself to be anything less than the best you can be." In short, it is irrational to run a DMPC.) Personally, I agree with that last bit. It is usually quite irrational to run a DMPC. Personally, I think you should relegate any DMPC to the background in such a way as they would be more accurately described as an NPC. However, I believe quite firmly that there aren't many absolutes floating around out there. There are bound to be exceptions. I don't think they're frequent enough to warrant consideration in the general theory of this discussion, however.
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 11:09 PM	An NPC who goes along with the Party, and is counted as a PC for purposes of loot sharing and experience division is very easy to do without causing problems. Thank you. Now, for the sake of this discussion, can we PLEASE all agree to use this as the definition of "DMPC"? Yes, yes, I'm sure you have your own definition of the term to put forward that is subtly different in yet another way. I appreciate that. Just indulge a poor man stumbling in the dark for a while, if you would. However, if the DM fudges the saves for non-story relative reason for this NPC and considers them under the "personal protection of the universe" then it becomes a problem. No NPC should ever outshine the players, but a NPC Adventurer is not only perfectly fine, but also perfectly realistic. Agreed. However, the issue of DMPCs potentially outshining the players is one that has been addressed; all it means is that they can be used improperly. It does not mean that they are invariably a bad thing. The more rational and real argument is, I believe, as follows: Being a DM is really hard. Really, really hard. It's so hard, imagine the hardest thing you can and add one. It's just that hard. Therefore, to add anything to something that hard makes it practically impossible to do it well. Running a PC, while not quite so hard as being a DM, is also quite challenging. UB3r Hard + Sorta' Hard = Impossible (That's a bit tongue-in-cheek, of course. Really the argument is more like "To run a DMPC detracts from your ability to be a DM, even if only a little. It's not fair to your players or yourself to be anything less than the best you can be." In short, it is irrational to run a DMPC.) Surely, though, if a DMPC is run in a game then it is simply another part of being a DM in that game, as much as, say, controlling encounters. If you were to remove everything that detracts from your ability to be a DM from a game, it's true that DMing would be a much easier job. It's also true that very little would actually happen in the game. Also, that argument, like the issue mentioned above, is one that hinges on how the DM applies it, rather than attacking the use of DMPCs in and of itself. Let it not be said that running a DMPC effectively isn't difficult. It most certainly is, and if the DM is not up to the task then they should not do it. However, "difficult" does not mean "wrong", and this point is a universal one; the DM shouldn't be doing anything they aren't capable of doing properly.
trapspringer 08-10-07, 11:13 PM	Hey, I agree with you in principal, and I understand what you're getting at. ...but the argument is quite strong. You could accomplish most everything with an NPC that you could with a DMPC, and it would be a lower-effort endeavor. That saved effort could be spent improving the game for the players and sculpting a better story; Net gain in fun-ness (Admittedly I'm putting a bit of a utilitarian spin on this, but it really is a strong stand-alone argument). Essentially, a DMPC is unnecessarily difficult. The cost is greater than necessary for the return. Again, it is irrational to run a DMPC if your goal is being the best DM possible for the amount of effort you exert. Or to put it differently; anyone looking to be an inferior DM for the amount of effort they put in is behaving irrationally (after all, who works hard to be bad at what they do?).
Holy_Beholder 08-10-07, 11:19 PM	DMs run NPCs. special characters that have one purpose, to serve the PCs. they either serve as assistacne to the PCs or deterents. NPCs are used for information only. they just happen to give that information when the time is right meaning they may enter battle and help the PC party until they can give their information at the correct time and fullfill their purpose. Not all NPCs have to be assistance of information. The world seems strained when everyone treats the PCs as if they are some sort of special thing. There can be NPCs that are indifferent to the players. They have a purpose, but they don't just have to exist to fulfill the purpose. The general idea is, a DM controls tons of NPCs. So if a DM has 60 NPCs, each of them is less than 1/60th as important as the players, however they still seem like real people. I say less than 1/60 because they are also sharing space with the setting, and the plot(or multiple available subplots) So if a few of them die off, its no big deal, much less of a deal than if a player gets ability drain, or level drain, or even takes a lot of damage. However, if they become as important as a player, they become a DMPC, which is bad for the campaign. Any NPC that shows up too much(such as becoming a permanent member of the party) tends to gain importance very quickly, eventually becoming too important and stealing the players spotlight.
Wight_Chocolate 08-10-07, 11:43 PM	...but the argument is quite strong. You could accomplish most everything with an NPC that you could with a DMPC, and it would be a lower-effort endeavor. Ah, well, that's something that depends on the nature of the game and the actions of the players. You could accomplish the same thing with NPCs, but if they often get killed off due to being weaker, leave later on to deal with problems of their own, or simply booted out by the PCs for better ones, you effectively have to come up with and roleplay many different characters, in addition to all the NPCs the players meet that do not end up joining the party. By using a DMPC, you compress this into a single character that, barring something going wrong, will remain in the party indefinitely. It'll always be available, and it will be whatever it needs to be to improve the game, rather than what the players end up finding. The trade-off is having to downplay the character so that it isn't the focus of the game and doesn't know everything about the campaign, but it seems to me that the amount of effort involved in the two options balances out. Also, what if the DMPC adds to the fun of the game? A few posters, including myself, have mentioned that happening. Yes, you might not be able to focus so much on other aspects, but you've still improved the game by introducing the character, so again, it balances out.
shadzar 08-11-07, 12:23 AM	Not all NPCs have to be assistance of information. The world seems strained when everyone treats the PCs as if they are some sort of special thing. There can be NPCs that are indifferent to the players. They have a purpose, but they don't just have to exist to fulfill the purpose. Any NPC that shows up too much(such as becoming a permanent member of the party) tends to gain importance very quickly, eventually becoming too important and stealing the players spotlight. well isn't the NPC you mentioned both informative and a deterent to the players? by having an NPC that is not there to aid the party, but possibly part of his own party also travelling the world, it tells the players that while they are something important they cannot forget how small and insignificant that are to most of the world. if people have heard of Xavier the Great but not the PCs then Xavier will get more adulation than this group of newcomers to town. not saying the PCs aren't better than or equal to, maybe even lesser in strength to Xavier, but that they are not the only ones there. thus the PC have gained information. also they have been assited or detered by thos concept that they are not the only ones. they can jsut ggive up and let these other guys do everything, or get stronger and make themselves more known. that little extra push. now if the players want their PCs to just quit then maybe there is something wrong with the players or the game, or those NPCs are too frequent that want to make the PCs look small or compete with them so to speak as adventures to "save the world". the other option is the PCs could ignore this NPC. so the third possibility does exist of NPCs that are neutral to the PCs. but an NPC usually has a name and a purpose if he will be in contact with the PCs for any length of time. even if he doesn't he does have some part to play. the merchant, the fisherman, innkeeper, etc. all of which give information to the PCs if nothing more than the towns size and strength as well as the worlds current state of being. otherswise they aren't really NPCs but numbers. in a town of 10,000 how many are NPCs and how many are just extras? like in the movies the characters are the ones with speaking parts...everyone else is just an extra, there to give the feeling that more than just the few people with speaking parts are there. while technically those extras are NPCs...how many have stats? but that is a whole other kettle of fish that may further confuse people thinking the terms DMPC and NPC are fully interchangeable. ;)
shadzar 08-11-07, 12:33 AM	Thank you. Now, for the sake of this discussion, can we PLEASE all agree to use this as the definition of "DMPC"? no. DMPC = Dungeon Master's Player Character. PC belonging to the DM. DM = The player who portrays nonplayer characters, makes up the stroy setting for the other players, and serves as a referee PC = A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a nonplayer character. so the PCs should be controlled by someone other than the DM by definition. also by cross referencing we can see the reason to be that the DM is the referee. how often do we see when someone judges themselves without bias? well if you don't like my reasoning then read it yourself from the PHB pg. 311. while there read the definition of NPC.
trapspringer 08-11-07, 12:46 AM	... Some of the things involved in running a full-on DMPC don't actually show up in the scheme of things. Experience, treasure, leveling up, and the like are all arbitrated by the DM when it comes to NPCs. These elements don't actually add anything to the game as far as the other players are concerned, and are totally avoided by ditching the DMPC. A recurring NPC can do all the good of a DMPC, but he doesn't have all the drawbacks. But like I said, there are exceptions. Sometimes you totally need that DMPC. Under some circumstances he's a major boon and when properly managed is unquestionably the best addition to the game. It's just that far more often than not, an NPC will suffice. (Or so says the strongest version of the anit-DMPC argument, as I understand it.)
TheAnthroDM 08-11-07, 12:49 AM	while there read the definition of NPC. Sorry, there's no dictionary entry for NPC. To everyone in this thread. The Following Statements Are NOT Facts DMPCs are good DMPCs are bad Keep that in mind. Oh, btw, this is what a definition looks like Shadzar fact /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. o·pin·ion /əˈpɪnyən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uh-pin-yuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
shadzar 08-11-07, 01:03 AM	Sorry, there's no dictionary entry for NPC. wow you went looking in a dictionary for NPC? that explains why you think DMPCs are not bad...you can't read. :weep: read it yourself from the PHB pg. 311. while there read the definition of NPC. hopefully someone will read the above for you. no the quote tells you both what book to read, and what page number. under further inspection you will note that this page is in the glossary. therefore those things i have given must be glossary definition. :eek: i wonder how in the world you came to the conclusion to look up D&D terms in the websters unabridged, or any other dictionary with such concise information given on where to find what i had cited. :confused:
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 01:07 AM	Stuff. Oh hey, you're back. I thought you'd decided that we were all idiots and you were done trying to discuss this. And hey, here's a thought. Maybe if you just accept that the term "DMPC" is only being used for the sake of simplicity, and that we all realise by now that the way in which it is being used conflicts with what you think it means, the debate can actually progress somewhere. Or maybe gracing us with your presence again will turn out to be a waste of your valuable time.
shadzar 08-11-07, 01:18 AM	junk again how is DMPC and more simple than NPC. less letters to type. everyone knows what you mean. unless you are using the term DMPC to mean a PC played by the DM (which defies the definition of player character that PC stands for). if you mean NPC then say NPC. otherwise you are doing something wrong in your game by having a PC controlled by the DM. both by definition, and ethically. and in that case i feel very sorry for your player that you are wasting their time and teaching them the wrong way to play ANY RPG akin to D&D.
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 01:29 AM	again how is DMPC and more simple than NPC. OK, I give up. You win. If it's really so important to you, I will refer to the types of characters that are the subject of this debate as NPCs. Now, will you please bring something else to the table? if you mean NPC then say NPC. otherwise you are doing something wrong in your game by having a PC controlled by the DM. both by definition, and ethically. and in that case i feel very sorry for your player that you are wasting their time and teaching them the wrong way to play ANY RPG akin to D&D. Yeah, because my players don't have a clue how to play the game. They definitely were not the ones that got me into it to begin with, and they certainly have not been known to encourage my use of DMP...I'm sorry, NPCs, as well as make use of them themselves. If you're really set on making this personal, use a private message. Otherwise, cut it out.
shadzar 08-11-07, 01:45 AM	it isn't personal. too many people are trying to use a non-existant term to replace another one. the point still remains no matter what you call a character that travels with the party for the party's sake or stories sake is an NPC. a character that travels with the party so the DM can play a character of his own while running the game is a "DMPC" and is a bad thing. and there should never be an NPC that is always with the party levelling with them. NPCs should be replaced after a while. hirelings and hencmen are under the control of the players so can go with the party as long as they want, until they die, or until the DM decides the PC has done something to make the hireling/henchman no longer trust/respect the PC as someone they wish to follow. no matter how little work it is to have a sinlge NPC rather than many...then something isnt right witht he game. there shouldn't ALWAYS be an NPC with the PC group. if so then the encounters are too hard for the party and need to be toned down.
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 01:53 AM	it isn't personal. If it isn't personal then kindly stop making personal attacks. and there should never be an NPC that is always with the party levelling with them. NPCs should be replaced after a while. hirelings and hencmen are under the control of the players so can go with the party as long as they want, until they die, or until the DM decides the PC has done something to make the hireling/henchman no longer trust/respect the PC as someone they wish to follow. OK. Great. You have stated your position on the matter. Now, as I have been asking you to for the last page or thereabouts, explain why this is so. Bear in mind that I have already rebuked the "DMs can't have PCs because they are the DM" argument. Try addressing that first.
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:36 AM	Bear in mind that I have already rebuked the "DMs can't have PCs because they are the DM" argument. Try addressing that first. you want me to explain again why a DM can't have a PC? :confused: PC = A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a nonplayer character.
pres_man 08-11-07, 02:44 AM	Here is a link that might clarify what a DMPC is: http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11521295&postcount=164 Got to love Venn Diagrams. ;)
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 02:45 AM	you want me to explain again why a DM can't have a PC? :confused: Ugh. No. That is not what I asked you. And I noticed you played the "blind adherence to the rules" card once again. I don't even understand why you're referencing these books to support your arguments in the first place, since you consider them so worthless. Are you arguing in circles here on purpose, or what? I seriously cannot fathom how the meaning of my question isn't clear here. Maybe it'll help if I rephrased. You claim that an NPC should not be a long-term party member that receives experience and loot. What reason is there not to do this? And please don't say "because they just can't do it." They can, they have and we have proof of it in this very thread. Explain how it actually causes problems in the game.
pres_man 08-11-07, 02:55 AM	Some of the things involved in running a full-on DMPC don't actually show up in the scheme of things. Experience, treasure, leveling up, and the like are all arbitrated by the DM when it comes to NPCs. These elements don't actually add anything to the game as far as the other players are concerned, and are totally avoided by ditching the DMPC. Huh? I don't follow that. DMs have to hand out treasure already. If there are NPC party members, cohorts, followers, pack guys, whatever, you still are going to have to get into splitting up treasure. And those guys should get xp when they participate in challenges. A recurring NPC can do all the good of a DMPC, but he doesn't have all the drawbacks. If the character is there often or always, it is still is going to run into the exact same potential problems. If the problem is a DM MAY show favortism, the DM can do that no matter how often a character is present. Heck on of the worst DM problems is when they show too much favortism to the BBEG, and that character is rarely on stage. Emotional investment has nothing to do with the amount of stage time a character gets. Heck I've played with folks whose PC was involved all the time and when it got killed, shrugged and said, "Oh well, time to roll up a new character :) ."
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:57 AM	You claim that an NPC should not be a long-term party member that receives experience and loot. What reason is there not to do this? And please don't say "because they just can't do it." They can, they have and we have proof of it in this very thread. Explain how it actually causes problems in the game. i said earlier those NPCs are sponges. they shouldn't gain levels from XP like the PCs. they should reduce the XP the PCs get because the PCs didn't do it alone. and they get some of the treasure for the same reason. but the treasure the NPCs gets shouldn't be used by the PCs for anythign like lodging, feasts, etc. the PCs should spend their own money. the NPC can't gain a level because then he would become a PC. the Pcs shouldn't even know what level an NPC is for them to wonder whether he is gaining levels. lets say this NPC was properly a plot device. he goes with the party at about level 3 for some reason. he leaves after a while without gaining a level to go do his own thing. the next time the PCs see him he looks just about the same. the DM knows this NPC is level 8 while the party has only reached say level 6. the NPC didn't need any XP fromt he group nor did he need any treasure because the DM just assigns such things to an NPC when they are needed. when an NPC trvels with the PCs for any length of time to earn levels and want his own stake in the loot for being with them then he should be removed, handed to the players, or is being played incorrectly. if for some reason an NPC can't be handed over to the characters then he shouldn't be anything more than a spectator for the most time. again. this is all so the NPC is just a tool for the DM and doesn't take control over the PC party. not that he can't take any of the XP or treasure away from the PCs, but he shouldn't be their for the sole purpose of getting those things like a regular PC would be. get it now? getting late so explaining may be leaving me for the day, but i will continue to try to expound on anything that needs more clearification for as long as i can.
shadzar 08-11-07, 02:59 AM	Huh? I don't follow that. DMs have to hand out treasure already. If there are NPC party members, cohorts, followers, pack guys, whatever, you still are going to have to get into splitting up treasure. And those guys should get xp when they participate in challenges. one of them henchmen or hirelings dont advacned in level and don't need the XP. im thinking hirelings don't because they consist of just hired hands rather than other adventurers. also hirelings don't get any treasure. they get paid the agreed upon amount for their services.
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-11-07, 03:01 AM	If the character is there often or always, it is still is going to run into the exact same potential problems. If the problem is a DM MAY show favortism, the DM can do that no matter how often a character is present. Heck on of the worst DM problems is when they show too much favortism to the BBEG, and that character is rarely on stage. Emotional investment has nothing to do with the amount of stage time a character gets. Heck I've played with folks whose PC was involved all the time and when it got killed, shrugged and said, "Oh well, time to roll up a new character :) ." In other words, there are no problems unique to DMPCs, or at least I've never heard of one. In fact, most, if not all, of the problems blamed on DMPCs are actually caused by something else.
Sundragon 08-11-07, 03:22 AM	There's a huge problem with the phrase DMPC, as people intercept it in different ways. For the sake of clarity I don't use the phrase, so here's my opinions. An NPC who goes along with the Party, and is counted as a PC for purposes of loot sharing and experience division is very easy to do without causing problems. This NPC should probably be as developed as the BBEG since the players are going to be seeing a lot of her. However, if the DM fudges the saves for non-story relative reason for this NPC and considers them under the "personal protection of the universe" then it becomes a problem. No NPC should ever outshine the players, but a NPC Adventurer is not only perfectly fine, but also perfectly realistic. I agree. As long as the NPC(s) take the same risks, they get the same rewards. I don't metagame things in my campaign where somehow an NPC part of the party is not going to get XP or a cut of the booty because he or she is an NPC. I have seen this suggestion made, not here unless I missed it, but elswhere. The use of perpetual NPC friends/comrades of the PCs IME adds a ton to the fun of the game for both the DM and the players. In over 2 decades of DMing I have never had a problem (well once I became a good DM anyway ie. after the age of about 17). The only real impasse to such an arrangement are trust issues. The players must trust the DM and IME the DM should roll all saves and attacks for the NPCs in front of the players, at least until such trust is established. My players always see all of my rolls (except for stealth and diplomacy type rolls that I would prefer to role play the consequences of success or failure in game than just have the player know via a die roll) just because that is what we are used to doing. However, IMO if said trust does not exist over time, then that gaming group has deeper issues that whether or not NPCs are travelling with the party. There is a right way and a wrong way for the DM to run PNPCs (Perpetual Non-Player Characters) as opposed to DMPCs which are sooooo controversial. They shouldn't take the spotlight from the PCs but also shouldn't be mute furniture or nameless, faceless nobodies. They should be treated as the PCs, no better and no worse but can be killed for the sake of the plot unlike the PCs with no die roll necessary. Starlion
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 03:29 AM	i said earlier those NPCs are sponges. they shouldn't gain levels from XP like the PCs. And why not? They participated. That also doesn't answer the question. So what if they're sponges? If the players didn't want to end up with a smaller share of XP then they shouldn't have taken the extra guy along in the first place. the NPC can't gain a level because then he would become a PC. Since when does gaining levels make a character a PC? Heck, monsters can gain levels. Moreover, why is it a problem for this to happen? the Pcs shouldn't even know what level an NPC is for them to wonder whether he is gaining levels. Well, yeah. The PCs aren't supposed to know about levels at all. That's called metagaming. when an NPC trvels with the PCs for any length of time to earn levels and want his own stake in the loot for being with them then he should be removed, handed to the players, or is being played incorrectly. And again, why do you say that? What problem does this cause, beyond going against this rule that DMs can't have PCs (which isn't even a problem in and of itself)? again. this is all so the NPC is just a tool for the DM and doesn't take control over the PC party. How exactly does introducing a character to the party allow the DM to take control of it? (More so than the control a DM already has over the party.) not that he can't take any of the XP or treasure away from the PCs, but he shouldn't be their for the sole purpose of getting those things like a regular PC would be. Why not? Certainly if the players don't want an NPC along for the ride then you shouldn't force them to have one, but otherwise, I don't see why he shouldn't gain experience just like anyone else. get it now? No, I really don't. You're still just saying "He can't", "You shouldn't", "They don't" and not following it up with "Because..."
shadzar 08-11-07, 03:41 AM	~3.x based crap~ i can only guess you are talking strictly from 3.x because you mention monsters gaining levels. they have then in certain instacnes but to my knowledge monsters don't adventure unless an OPC is used. the levels any monster has would be hand given by the DM in preperation for any encounter with the PCs. for those wondering if i tried to make up yet a new abbreviation...no. please see Rifts. OPC = Optional Player Character. the equivilance of taking a hill giant and using that "playing as a character" to make a PC with it. those non-standard races pretty much. ;)
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 03:50 AM	Great. Your apparent hatred of 3.x rules aside what about all the other points?
shadzar 08-11-07, 04:07 AM	crap on a crap cracker...:rolleyes: And why not? They participated.because NPCs don't need to earn levels. they are assigned by the DM to meet the requirement of their reason for existing int he first place. That also doesn't answer the question. So what if they're sponges? If the players didn't want to end up with a smaller share of XP then they shouldn't have taken the extra guy along in the first place.exactly Well, yeah. The PCs aren't supposed to know about levels at all. That's called metagaming. And again, why do you say that? What problem does this cause, beyond going against this rule that DMs can't have PCs (which isn't even a problem in and of itself)? again the DMs character is taking away from the glory of the players characters. they should be able to do whatever own their own. they are the players not the DM. the NPCs shouldn't be using the PCs to attain their goals at the expense of the players. and are you saying which isnt a problem? that DMs cant have PCs isnt a problem to contend with, or that DMs having PCs isnt a problem? How exactly does introducing a character to the party allow the DM to take control of it? (More so than the control a DM already has over the party.) because he is taking away from the players choices. he is putting a character in there that can vote. possibly leading to railroading the players into doing something. an NPc never has any say in decisions of what the party will do. he either is there to lead the characters somewhere that the players chose to follow him to begin with, or he follows the players to wherever until his task is done. like all those people in the posiden movie. they danced while they were there, but died on cue to show waht was happening to the main actors. those the story is about. Why not? Certainly if the players don't want an NPC along for the ride then you shouldn't force them to have one, but otherwise, I don't see why he shouldn't gain experience just like anyone else. he can soak up some of the XP and treasure, but doesnt gain the levels. it is one of the expenses of the party having an NPC. some NPCs refuse to take part int he fighting or the treasure because they were sent along for other reasons and personal gain is not part of their mandate. No, I really don't. You're still just saying "He can't", "You shouldn't", "They don't" and not following it up with "Because..." maybe i have too much faith in even those who started playing 3.x to be able to figure out some of the whyfors for themselves. if all the answers are given to people it doesn't help them learn. it may show them one new way of thinking about something, but it doesn't mean they will trying thinking about things in many different ways. "if you give man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." i always prefer to teach people their are other ways of thinking about something and letting them try to come up with at lesat one new way before giving an answer so they have a foundation for thinking up new ideas on their own in the future. again maybe i give too much credit to some people at being able to do so.
Holy_Beholder 08-11-07, 01:45 PM	I can only guess you are talking strictly from 3.x because you mention monsters gaining levels. They have then in certain instances but to my knowledge monsters don't adventure unless an OPC is used. The levels any monster has would be hand given by the DM in preparation for any encounter with the PCs. For those wondering if i tried to make up yet a new abbreviation...no. please see Rifts. OPC = Optional Player Character. The equivalent of taking a hill giant and using that "playing as a character" to make a PC with it. Those non-standard races pretty much. ;) Giving a monster Character levels does not make them a PC, all that makes them is a tougher challenge. If they are going to be a recurring enemy(for instance they have escape methods) they can continue to gain levels. It allows further customization's of enemies, to make them more dangerous and more memorable. Also, I fixed the capitalization and spelling problems in your post. But it still says the same thing.
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 02:07 PM	crap on a crap cracker...:rolleyes: because NPCs don't need to earn levels. they are assigned by the DM to meet the requirement of their reason for existing int he first place. And if their reason for existing in the first place is to act as a party member, they're going to need to level with said party or become very useless, very quickly. again the DMs character is taking away from the glory of the players characters. they should be able to do whatever own their own. they are the players not the DM. the NPCs shouldn't be using the PCs to attain their goals at the expense of the players. That's for the players of the game to decide, not you. If they want to go it alone then fine, they don't have to take the NPC along. If they don't...then what? Still don't assign an NPC to the party because you're "not allowed" to do it, or think outside the box just a little? and are you saying which isnt a problem? that DMs cant have PCs isnt a problem to contend with, or that DMs having PCs isnt a problem? Both. I'll agree that if you really want to be pedantic, a DM technically cannot have a PC. However, they can have an NPC in the party that might as well be a PC given how he is played and treated. And I do not understand why doing that is such a problem, assuming the players don't object. because he is taking away from the players choices. he is putting a character in there that can vote. possibly leading to railroading the players into doing something. Or possibly not railroading the players. Again, this all just depends on whether the NPC is being played appropriately or not. he can soak up some of the XP and treasure, but doesnt gain the levels. Why not? What is so horrendous about the thought of NPCs levelling up? Because it only happens in 3.x? Oh dear. Unfortunately, it makes perfect sense. maybe i have too much faith in even those who started playing 3.x to be able to figure out some of the whyfors for themselves. if all the answers are given to people it doesn't help them learn. it may show them one new way of thinking about something, but it doesn't mean they will trying thinking about things in many different ways. "if you give man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." i always prefer to teach people their are other ways of thinking about something and letting them try to come up with at lesat one new way before giving an answer so they have a foundation for thinking up new ideas on their own in the future. again maybe i give too much credit to some people at being able to do so. ...OK. What I gather from this statement is that you think it's acceptable to enter a debate, drop an opinion without backing it up in any way whatsoever, and then leave again and...what? Someone's supposed to take it into account and start arguing against themself? I mean, if I could think of a good reason as to why NPCs should never act as party members then I would be arguing against it rather than for it, wouldn't I? Doesn't work like that. If you're going to say something, you need to have some supporting reasoning for it. If you don't, you're just spouting unbased personal views that have no place in a logical argument. You obviously have a good reason to support your viewpoint, so let's hear what it is. Or maybe the reason I can't think of the aforementioned good reasons is because there aren't any. You are neither giving me a fish nor teaching me to fish. You're bludgeoning me over the head with a fishing rod and expecting me to do the fishing for you.
shadzar 08-11-07, 04:01 PM	Giving a monster Character levels does not make them a PC, all that makes them is a tougher challenge. If they are going to be a recurring enemy(for instance they have escape methods) they can continue to gain levels. It allows further customization's of enemies, to make them more dangerous and more memorable. Also, I fixed the capitalization and spelling problems in your post. But it still says the same thing. first allow me to direct you to the lower portion of my sig so you can prevent violating the CoC next time. ;) then let me instruct you that monster HAVING levels and GAINING levels are two different things. you can still tailor enemies to the encounter without actually giving XP to them where they need to level. they don't need to gain levels. the DM just gives them to them. unless of course the DM in question is some mindless bafoon that thinks they must RP the enemies in order to get them up in levels in order to be ready for the PCs when they meet. :rolleyes:
shadzar 08-11-07, 04:10 PM	And if their reason for existing in the first place is to act as a party member, they're going to need to level with said party or become very useless, very quickly. and there we have it. no need to comment on the rest of your post because you have yet again failed to understand the purpose of an NPC. and NPC is not supposed to be a party member. they may travel with the party at times but never should they fully join it. that is the the excused used by DM to try to sneak a character for themselves into the game they are playing. you want a because????? because they have no idea what ethics are and thus are abusing the power of the DM by trying to be a player while being a DM. there is not now, or ever will be a good excuse for a DM to have a PC in the game in which he is running. judges/referees are supposed to be unbiased. no amount of claiming you can do it will put into anyones mind that the DM will be imparital when he has his own PC. and once again that is what you are implying. what does a DM get? what fun is it to be a DM? you get to be the god of the world. creating and shaping it the way you want. you get to present the challenges to the players and create a story for them to take part in thus altering your worlds fate with them. what does a DM lose? he lose the ability to play a PC in any way shape or form. he gets to have no attachment to any NPC he creates becasue this would violate DM/player relationship because he allowing the potential that at a crucial moment he will favor his NPC over the players PCs.
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 04:26 PM	What in goodness' name does ETHICS have to do with it? D&D IS A GAME. You are free to play it however you want to. If your players are OK with you using a character then you are not somehow stabbing them in the back when you do so. If the only argument you can put forward is that the DM can potentially favour the NPC over the PCs, you're done. That has already been refuted more than once. The DM can potentially favour any NPC over the players, so by your logic, using NPCs in any scenario whatsoever is wrong. Furthermore, as I have stated time and time again, if this happens then it is the fault of the DM and has no bearing on the concept of DMPC usage in and of itself. Your entire position is based on the following: 1. "An NPC can only be this and this, even though it is quite possible to use it for that without disrupting the game at all and maybe even improving it. 2. "DMs shouldn't have PCs because they are DMs and that is just wrong, regardless of the benefits it may provide or how good the DM is at pulling it off." And you have the gall to suggest that I'm being narrow-minded?
shadzar 08-11-07, 04:53 PM	What in goodness' name does ETHICS have to do with it? D&D IS A GAME. of course you are correct. ethics has nothing to do with it. so lets just removed the dice and everyone get 20 automatically for attacks. no it isnt unethical. not cheating in the least is it? i mean it is impossible to cheat in games right? the entire DCI is wrong since it has rules against cheating and ethical ways of playing. and isn't Magic jsut a game as well? then by all means the DCI should be abolished since it is useless and ethics have absolutely nothing to do with playing games.
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 05:21 PM	of course you are correct. ethics has nothing to do with it. so lets just removed the dice and everyone get 20 automatically for attacks. no it isnt unethical. No. It's not unethical. It's silly, because it completely breaks the game, but if the group actually has fun playing that way, what harm does it cause? Who are you to say they shouldn't do it? The rules are there so that there is actually a game to play, and so that the game is balanced. You are free to throw balance to the wind if you see fit to do so, because as far as an individual group goes, they can play their game however they like. You are not obligated to follow the rules to the letter. They are only guidelines. It even says so in your own signature.
pres_man 08-11-07, 06:42 PM	judges/referees are supposed to be unbiased. no amount of claiming you can do it will put into anyones mind that the DM will be imparital when he has his own PC. These analogies always are humorous. Oh the DM is going to not be unbiased if they have their own character, they have to be an impassive judge, blah blah blah. Except the DM is not an impassive judge, they already control the entire prosecution (or if you prefer the ref analogy, they control the entire other term). Personally I would feel "safer" if the judge had a stake in both groups and not just one. Besides which most DMs are more likely to favor someone else's PC that they have some kind of connection with (love interest, BFF, child, parent, etc), then their own. Of course very few people suggest that people should not DM for those they have connections with, but only strangers, why because we recognize that a DM that shows someone favortism is a tool. A DM doing the same to a character they control, is just as much a tool, if not more so. But characters do not cause problems, people who run them do.
shadzar 08-11-07, 07:10 PM	favoritism is a big problem in gaming...therfore since the possiblity for a DM to should favor towards another player, then why also include the possiblity for him to show favor to himself? blatant stupidity? the DM is NOT part of the player party. he is the DM. how fricking greedy can you be to already control the entire world, its gods, and the whole universe and its inhabitant than to take away the only thing making the PCs special in that the DM isn't one of them. how about Alex Tribek also be a contestant on Jeopardy while he is the host. i am sure that would be fair for everyone wouldn't it?
Wight_Chocolate 08-11-07, 07:27 PM	OK. It's becoming painfully obvious that I'm just banging my head against a brick wall here. I don't think there's any point in my further participation in this particular discussion.
Holy_Beholder 08-11-07, 07:59 PM	First allow me to direct you to the lower portion of my sig so you can prevent violating the CoC next time. ;) Then let me instruct you that monster HAVING levels and GAINING levels are two different things. Did you not read the bit about how they have more levels later if they are a recurring character? That counts as gaining levels. Also, I read the lower portion of your sig, and it says complaining about your spelling. I wasn't complaining about it, just fixing it in the quote without changing the content and leaving a note to say I did that. So technically I am fine with the CoC. I fixed it this time too, but also removed the irrelevant bottom portion.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 08:22 PM	it isn't personal. too many people are trying to use a non-existant term to replace another one. the point still remains no matter what you call a character that travels with the party for the party's sake or stories sake is an NPC. a character that travels with the party so the DM can play a character of his own while running the game is a "DMPC" and is a bad thing. and there should never be an NPC that is always with the party levelling with them. NPCs should be replaced after a while. hirelings and hencmen are under the control of the players so can go with the party as long as they want, until they die, or until the DM decides the PC has done something to make the hireling/henchman no longer trust/respect the PC as someone they wish to follow. no matter how little work it is to have a sinlge NPC rather than many...then something isnt right witht he game. there shouldn't ALWAYS be an NPC with the PC group. if so then the encounters are too hard for the party and need to be toned down. A DMPC is a term used online for a NPC used by the DM to advan with the rest of the group. Nobody ever said the terms was is any core books. There are alot of terms used online that are not in the core books or noncore books that still hold meaning to us. The term PC does mean what you say it does and so does NPC. The problem is a DM using a DMPC is the DM as well as Player and non of those terms really discribe what the Character is so we come up with our own term to discribe the DM character. But that doesn't change the fact that you have yelled (typed) at everybody using the term and still will not answer the simple statment of why is it BAD for the DM to run his own character and play it with the party.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 08:25 PM	you want me to explain again why a DM can't have a PC? :confused: No he wants you to tell us why the DM can't have his own character and why you think it is bad for him to use his own character.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 08:31 PM	Huh? I don't follow that. DMs have to hand out treasure already. If there are NPC party members, cohorts, followers, pack guys, whatever, you still are going to have to get into splitting up treasure. And those guys should get xp when they participate in challenges. If the character is there often or always, it is still is going to run into the exact same potential problems. If the problem is a DM MAY show favortism, the DM can do that no matter how often a character is present. Heck on of the worst DM problems is when they show too much favortism to the BBEG, and that character is rarely on stage. Emotional investment has nothing to do with the amount of stage time a character gets. Heck I've played with folks whose PC was involved all the time and when it got killed, shrugged and said, "Oh well, time to roll up a new character :) ." NPC are count in for XP but don't level up like PCs do. The rest don't get XP at all and just stay with guidelines on levels.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 08:33 PM	one of them henchmen or hirelings dont advacned in level and don't need the XP. im thinking hirelings don't because they consist of just hired hands rather than other adventurers. also hirelings don't get any treasure. they get paid the agreed upon amount for their services. However NPC do count on both getting XP and splint of the loot.
shadzar 08-11-07, 09:10 PM	A DMPC is a term used online for a NPC used by the DM to advan with the rest of the group. Nobody ever said the terms was is any core books. There are alot of terms used online that are not in the core books or noncore books that still hold meaning to us. The term PC does mean what you say it does and so does NPC. The problem is a DM using a DMPC is the DM as well as Player and non of those terms really discribe what the Character is so we come up with our own term to discribe the DM character. But that doesn't change the fact that you have yelled (typed) at everybody using the term and still will not answer the simple statment of why is it BAD for the DM to run his own character and play it with the party. sorry D&D wasn't meant to be played online. come back when you know waht D&D is. :rolleyes: it doesn't matter where you heard the term from it doesn't mean you are using it correctly. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/DMPC DMPC = Dungeon Master's Player Character. well go figure a dictionary that agrees with what i am saying. again i refer to you to page 311 of the PHB. you have two definitions that vastly contradict each other. one saying a DM has a PC, and the prime definition of a PC is a character in control of someone other than the DM. until you can find a way that the concept of a dungeon master controlled player character in somehow confroms to what a player character is to begin with then you are only confusing yourself by using a term that you don't even udnerstand. random gorup of people overheard on the street. so this character bob pulled off an amazing feet last night and defeated the dragon all by himself. passerby. really what game adn who was this bob? group. D&D and bob was the DM. passerby. so the DM beat himself? :ahem: oh wow how happy that group must have been to have had the DM beat his own creation. :rolleyes: Defining DMPC To begin, we should examine the pertinent definitions in the PHB and DMG before tackling what is and isn’t a DMPC. Adventuring Party: A group of characters who adventure together. An adventuring party is composed of player characters plus any followers, familiars, animal companions, associates, cohorts, or hirelings they might have. (PHB pg. 304) Ally: A creature friendly to you. In most cases, references to “allies” include yourself. (PHB pg. 304) Allies come in two types; those who help the PCs with information, equipment, or a place to stay the night, and those who actually travel with them on adventures…the latter function as party members earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any character does. (DMG pg. 104) Character: A fictional individual within the confines of a fantasy game setting. The words “character” and “creature” are often used synonymously within the rules, since almost any creature could be a character within the game, and every character is a creature. (PHB pg. 306) Cohorts: Cohorts are loyal servants who follow a particular character or sometimes a group of characters…So what’s really the difference between allies…and cohorts who do the same thing? Cohorts are people who take on a subservient role. (DMG pg. 104) Dungeon Master (DM): The player who portrays nonplayer characters, makes up the story setting for the other players, and serves as a referee. (PHB pg. 308) Nonplayer Character (NPC): A character controlled by the Dungeon Master rather than one of the other players in a game session, as opposed to a player character. (PHB pg. 311) Player Character (PC): A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a nonplayer character. (PHB pg. 311) ~~~ What then is a DMPC? The juxtaposition of DM and PC makes no sense in discussing a NPC and there are already terms to describe NPCs that function as equal party members (ally or cohort). Thus on the face of it, DMPC is an unnecessary term~~~ Dungeon Master Player Character (DMPC): A NPC that the DM favors over the PCs. go read the entire thread about DMPCs in redgar repository. i think this person who i have incluided partial post of has nailed the problem with the term DMPC. for any unfamiliar how to visit that thread without searching, all you need to do is click the http://forums.gleemax.com/images/buttons/dnd/viewpost.gif in the above quoted section from KJW.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 09:19 PM	I use three rules. 1. Knowledge checks for what I knowledge. 2. follow their lead on all things. I give hints but don't let them turn to me for answers. They get the sameone each time. " I have never seen this thing before" no matter what it is I say that and they no they are on their own with it. 3. I use classes they don't like to show them there is more to D&D then Elf sorc and drow cleric. Except bar and bard because I don't like them. I have alot of ranks on Tumble so I can get to them if things go bad. But let them win most battles unless they get low to dieing on HP. That sometimes leads me to being on the ground wait on them. I figure if they didn't want me around she is the healer of the group! I have said this before and I think it needs said again. My DMPC doesn't get a vote. I let the player roll their then I roll to cover what they need. I spend my part of the gold on the group buying items that will help the group as a whole. You have just taken all the bad parts of being a DMPC and say that's why it souldn't happen. If the DM follows these guidelines this shouldn't be a problem and if the DM does do the things you said you should think twice about playing with them because it is a DMing problem not a Problem with him playing a character. Given the said guideline above why should a DM play his own character.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 09:21 PM	I was talking about the online boards. you know to discuss thing about D&D. Kind of like what you are not doing right now.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 09:29 PM	sorry D&D wasn't meant to be played online. come back when you know waht D&D is. :rolleyes: it doesn't matter where you heard the term from it doesn't mean you are using it correctly. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/DMPC DMPC = Dungeon Master's Player Character. well go figure a dictionary that agrees with what i am saying. again i refer to you to page 311 of the PHB. you have two definitions that vastly contradict each other. one saying a DM has a PC, and the prime definition of a PC is a character in control of someone other than the DM. until you can find a way that the concept of a dungeon master controlled player character in somehow confroms to what a player character is to begin with then you are only confusing yourself by using a term that you don't even udnerstand. random gorup of people overheard on the street. so this character bob pulled off an amazing feet last night and defeated the dragon all by himself. passerby. really what game adn who was this bob? group. D&D and bob was the DM. passerby. so the DM beat himself? :ahem: oh wow how happy that group must have been to have had the DM beat his own creation. :rolleyes: go read the entire thread about DMPCs in redgar repository. i think this person who i have incluided partial post of has nailed the problem with the term DMPC. for any unfamiliar how to visit that thread without searching, all you need to do is click the http://forums.gleemax.com/images/buttons/dnd/viewpost.gif in the above quoted section from KJW. When you post rule in D&D that say a DM can't have his own character then we will finish this. That is any rule in The D&D books or WotC online FAQs and errata.
shadzar 08-11-07, 09:29 PM	I was talking about the online boards. you know to discuss thing about D&D. Kind of like what you are not doing right now. again my point made by the ever so eloquent KJW DMPC is an unnecessary term if you mean an NPC then you should say NPC. otherwise a player character controlled by the dungeon master is an abuse of power, and violation of the duties and impartial postion the dm is supposed to have.
shadzar 08-11-07, 09:37 PM	When you post rule in D&D that say a DM can't have his own character then we will finish this. That is any rule in The D&D books or WotC online FAQs and errata. Dungeon Master (DM): The player who portrays nonplayer characters, makes up the story setting for the other players, and serves as a referee. (PHB pg. 308) Nonplayer Character (NPC): A character controlled by the Dungeon Master rather than one of the other players in a game session, as opposed to a player character. (PHB pg. 311) Player Character (PC): A character controlled by a player other than the Dungeon Master, as opposed to a nonplayer character. (PHB pg. 311) well if the definition presented in the players handbook isn't good enough for you then i dont know what is. notice how the DM uses NPCs. notice how NPCs are specifically something other than a PC. thus a DM controls character that are not like PCs. to further this notice that a PC is controlled by someone other than the DM. so by definition the DM is not supposed to have a PC. therefore a DMPC cannot exist. again anyone insisting on using a DMPC is violating the spirit of the game and his/her players!
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 10:02 PM	well if the definition presented in the players handbook isn't good enough for you then i dont know what is. notice how the DM uses NPCs. notice how NPCs are specifically something other than a PC. thus a DM controls character that are not like PCs. to further this notice that a PC is controlled by someone other than the DM. so by definition the DM is not supposed to have a PC. therefore a DMPC cannot exist. again anyone insisting on using a DMPC is violating the spirit of the game and his/her players! Those are definitions give to help you understand the terms used in the books and are not rules used to play with, so no they don't count. The DMPC doesn't work the same as NPC and that is why we use another term for them. A DMPC level up just likea PC does. Not every word used in D&D is in that part of the book. LIke CR it isn't in there ether doesn't that mean we can't use it any more online.
setekh 08-11-07, 10:20 PM	As a Player I hate them, as a DM I use them only when undeniably neccesary (Two players in the party -Theres a helpful NPC or two in the adventure, one as a wand caddy (No healer. Or mage..) the other as "Dude... No?!" bait.
shadzar 08-11-07, 10:32 PM	Those are definitions give to help you understand the terms used in the books and are not rules used to play with, so no they don't count. The DMPC doesn't work the same as NPC and that is why we use another term for them. A DMPC level up just likea PC does. Not every word used in D&D is in that part of the book. LIke CR it isn't in there ether doesn't that mean we can't use it any more online. :ahem: DMG page 37 Monsters Below CR 1 nope it surely doesn't have CR anywhere in the book does it. :( and of course on page 36... "Each monster in that book has a Challenge Rating (CR) that," have no idea where in the world you got CR from since it definately does not appear in any book. :rolleyes: these are the 3.5 books by the way. don't know squat about 3.0 but i can guess that CR also appears in the PHB, DMG, or MM for it as well.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 10:55 PM	:ahem: DMG page 37 Monsters Below CR 1 nope it surely doesn't have CR anywhere in the book does it. :( and of course on page 36... "Each monster in that book has a Challenge Rating (CR) that," have no idea where in the world you got CR from since it definately does not appear in any book. :rolleyes: these are the 3.5 books by the way. don't know squat about 3.0 but i can guess that CR also appears in the PHB, DMG, or MM for it as well. I was talking about the Glossary in the PHB that you keep using. Thats 304 to 314 if you would like to look.
shadzar 08-11-07, 10:59 PM	I was talking about the Glossary in the PHB that you keep using. Thats 304 to 314 if you would like to look. i didn't say the terms only appeared in the glossary, but they have definitions there. other terms like CR are present all throughout the books with their difinitions near their first use. however, you will not find DMPC located in any of them.
sassyprassey 08-11-07, 11:06 PM	I am ace_of_times wife and one of the players in the group and I can tell you from experience that he does not play favorites and he will kill himself off first if he thought that it would help the rest of the group. As for the dmpcs thing I don't think that when you have a small group playing it really matters and with us D&D is a way for us to spend some time together so I could care less whether you think of it as an injustice or not because as far as I am concerned it isn't.
sassyprassey 08-11-07, 11:25 PM	here is the line. DMPC = Dungeon Master Player Character. it is a contraction like do not...as in don't use DMPCs. dungeon master = one running the game player character = entity in the world that one player has an attachment to and plays the character in a way to achieve the goals created by the player for the character. NPC = Non Player Character. it is a character that has no player. it exists as a tool for the world to interact with the PCs dungeon masters shouldn't have PCs. they have every other character to work with and devote their time to. if said DM wants a PC, then he or she should stop DMing, or find a second group in which to play the game instead of DMing it. some people have a hard time understanding the term DMPC is different from NPC. I understand that if you have had a bad experience with this but if you havent tried it dont knock it.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 11:33 PM	When you post rule in D&D that say a DM can't have his own character then we will finish this. That is any rule in The D&D books or WotC online FAQs and errata. Never said PC. As you can see above I said a rule that says the DM can not have his own character. Power gamer, Optimizer, MAD, SAD. These terms aren't in the books does that mean we can't use them ether?
DCAnderson 08-11-07, 11:38 PM	I understand that if you have had a bad experience with this but if you havent tried it dont knock it. Uhm, I've tried it, and I'm knocking it. DMPCs suck. I've played in games where the DM had one and I didn't like it because we spent a large portion of the game following the DMPCs around and watching them play the adventure. I've also had to run one, one time when we were doing a rotating game. The party had got hurt pretty bad so my PC had to show up to even the group out. As a DM I found playing him fairly lame because I had to make a conscious effort to play dumb and not take advantage of the vast amount of metagame knowledge available to me as GM. I also had to make a conscious effort to not throw punches or show favoritism to my character.
Ace_of_time 08-11-07, 11:52 PM	I don't know how other group run but in mine one of the players keep track of money and divides it evenly to everyone after selling items off. And the XP is divide even to all. I am not understanding how you can play fav to your Character if you are following your player and not making choice.
shadzar 08-12-07, 12:11 AM	I don't know how other group run but in mine one of the players keep track of money and divides it evenly to everyone after selling items off. And the XP is divide even to all. I am not understanding how you can play fav to your Character if you are following your player and not making choice. one way is by having the character. do you RP with yourself? do you actually talk from the character to yourself and then back to the character? you having a character, and yes a character in your above example is a PC because it explicitly is not an NPC, means you take more time for yourself than them. lets say 3 players. 1 DM and two players. the DM will be active more than 50% of the time. he must interact with each player as well as give the players information which already puts him in the "spotlight" more than the players. the two player then get, split somehow between them, les than 50% of the games focus. now saying the DM has his own PC that grants even more percentage to the DM. how? well the DM still must be active for more than 50% as described above, but now the players have even less time. the remaining less than 50% of the time is divided by 3 characters rather than just 2. initially each player got 50/2 or 25% roughly time. now the players geet 50/3 16.67% of the time of the game. that means the DM now has his 50%+ for DMing, as well as a 16.67% for being part of the party. 66.67% of the game is now about the DM. 2/3. while only 1/3 the time is for the players. seems kind of selfish to me. i mean the DM has to do a lot of work to present the game for the players and getting an automatic 50+% of the time during the session sems more than fair to me. but some people are greedy and must be the center of attention i guess. ----- i also have had at one time a character in a game with only two other players. we all found out right away it was no fun. i had enough to do to deal with the player that i didn't want to have a PC because i was having more fun being the 400+ NPCs. and the payers didn't like that my character really did nothing but follow them around and soak up XP and their treasure. yeah it helped in combat, but could offer nothing in the way of puzzle solving. it was the players idea i have a character to go with the party, and all of our ideas that he wander off into obscurity never to be heard from again. he actually started a little busniess that the players can to use sometimes for his special talents. but never again did he adventure with the party because he had found his true calling...smuggling.
tenguroEd 08-12-07, 12:22 AM	mixture. My DM has a character and it seems like the story revolves around his character.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 12:37 AM	one way is by having the character. do you RP with yourself? do you actually talk from the character to yourself and then back to the character? you having a character, and yes a character in your above example is a PC because it explicitly is not an NPC, means you take more time for yourself than them. lets say 3 players. 1 DM and two players. the DM will be active more than 50% of the time. he must interact with each player as well as give the players information which already puts him in the "spotlight" more than the players. the two player then get, split somehow between them, les than 50% of the games focus. now saying the DM has his own PC that grants even more percentage to the DM. how? well the DM still must be active for more than 50% as described above, but now the players have even less time. the remaining less than 50% of the time is divided by 3 characters rather than just 2. initially each player got 50/2 or 25% roughly time. now the players geet 50/3 16.67% of the time of the game. that means the DM now has his 50%+ for DMing, as well as a 16.67% for being part of the party. 66.67% of the game is now about the DM. 2/3. while only 1/3 the time is for the players. seems kind of selfish to me. i mean the DM has to do a lot of work to present the game for the players and getting an automatic 50+% of the time during the session sems more than fair to me. but some people are greedy and must be the center of attention i guess. ----- i also have had at one time a character in a game with only two other players. we all found out right away it was no fun. i had enough to do to deal with the player that i didn't want to have a PC because i was having more fun being the 400+ NPCs. and the payers didn't like that my character really did nothing but follow them around and soak up XP and their treasure. yeah it helped in combat, but could offer nothing in the way of puzzle solving. it was the players idea i have a character to go with the party, and all of our ideas that he wander off into obscurity never to be heard from again. he actually started a little busniess that the players can to use sometimes for his special talents. but never again did he adventure with the party because he had found his true calling...smuggling. So you can't find a rule that says that a DM can't play his own character so you try to disprove me by using math. The simple fact is the DM is active all the time. He is everything from the gods in the world to your horse you ride on. He talks most of the time. And from time to time he gets to ask the players what they are doing. I'd say it would be atleast 80% without the DMPC. One more character does not add that much more. Yes I do roleplay with my self. If we go in a bar and the guy ask us what we want then I talk to the guy just like I would make my players do. I don't solve anything for them and let them find out things on there own. In combat I help them but they take center stage. If you find it to hard to run the game and DMPC then just don't do it. Most of the post on he are about the DMPC be played wrong and have nothing to do with the DMPC a bad idea. I understand if you have had A bad time with one butjust because you have happened acrossed one doesn't make them BAD just the way they were played.
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-12-07, 12:51 AM	Uhm, I've tried it, and I'm knocking it. DMPCs suck. I've played in games where the DM had one and I didn't like it because we spent a large portion of the game following the DMPCs around and watching them play the adventure. I've also had to run one, one time when we were doing a rotating game. The party had got hurt pretty bad so my PC had to show up to even the group out. As a DM I found playing him fairly lame because I had to make a conscious effort to play dumb and not take advantage of the vast amount of metagame knowledge available to me as GM. I also had to make a conscious effort to not throw punches or show favoritism to my character. And remember, none of these problems could possibly occur when you call the character something other than a DMPC. For example, if the character were called a NPC Ally, all your metagaming problems would go away instantly.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 01:00 AM	So you can't find a rule that says that a DM can't play his own character so you try to disprove me by using math. The simple fact is the DM is active all the time. He is everything from the gods in the world to your horse you ride on. He talks most of the time. And from time to time he gets to ask the players what they are doing. I'd say it would be atleast 80% without the DMPC. One more character does not add that much more. Yes I do roleplay with my self. If we go in a bar and the guy ask us what we want then I talk to the guy just like I would make my players do. I don't solve anything for them and let them find out things on there own. In combat I help them but they take center stage. If you find it to hard to run the game and DMPC then just don't do it. Most of the post on he are about the DMPC be played wrong and have nothing to do with the DMPC a bad idea. I understand if you have had A bad time with one butjust because you have happened acrossed one doesn't make them BAD just the way they were played. The problem is that it's not possible for a DMPC to take at least some focus away from the players no matter how you play it. Unless the DMPC sits there the whole time with a thumb up his ass and never does anything (which is pointless) he is going to be doing things that the players should be doing on their own at least part of the time. Every time he damages the monster he is taking focus away from the players. Every time he overcomes a problem with one of his skills he is taking away focus from the players/ Every time he interacts with an NPC (even just a barkeep) he is taking away focus from the players. There is really and truly no reason a DMPC should be in a game. Everything related to party power can be made up for by properly scaling the encounters. As far as roleplaying is concerned NPCs should always be background characters. The PCs are the protagonists and that's that. And if there is no good reason for the DMPC to be there, then the DM shouldn't use one so he can't even be tempted to fall for any of the problems mentioned earlier.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 01:05 AM	And remember, none of these problems could possibly occur when you call the character something other than a DMPC. For example, if the character were called a NPC Ally, all your metagaming problems would go away instantly. If the NPC ally is just a mindless low level pud who works for the PCs and doesn't do anything beyond follow PC orders, then no. If the NPC is someone who pops in and gives advice or aid every now and then, but is only there to advance the plot, then no. But if the NPC is on par and/or more powerful than the PCs and accompanies them on all their adventures and is engaging in PC like activities, then yes, this is going to be a problem. But what I just described is a DMPC, and that is my whole point here.
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-12-07, 01:28 AM	If the NPC ally is just a mindless low level pud who works for the PCs and doesn't do anything beyond follow PC orders, then no. If the NPC is someone who pops in and gives advice or aid every now and then, but is only there to advance the plot, then no. But if the NPC is on par and/or more powerful than the PCs and accompanies them on all their adventures and is engaging in PC like activities, then yes, this is going to be a problem. But what I just described is a DMPC, and that is my whole point here. Sorry, allow me to rephrase that without the sarcasm; None of the problems you described are inherent to DMPCs, but are caused by poor structure, metagaming, and/or lack of trust between the DM and his/her players. Furthermore, I would like to know what problems a NPC on par with the PCs causes, assuming the NPC in question is played fairly and maturely. Too often I hear annecdotes about the horror of DMPCs, where it is glaringly obvious that the DM controlling said character is a total moron. Finally, on NPCs more powerful than the PCs accmpanying them (assuming the difference in power is more than one level, which is reasonable in normal play between PCs); Such a character, when not played properly, is called a Mary Sue. The term DMPC implies that the character in question was created with the same guidelines and restrictions as the PCs, and therefor very unlikely to exceed them in power dramatically. In closing, there is nothing stopping a power-hungry DM from placing/favouring ANY character in the game over the PCs. He does not need a DMPC for that. There is nothing stopping the DM from metagaming with ANY character in the game. There is nothing stopping the DM from railroading the PCs with ANY character in the game. The DMPC is nothing but a scapegoat for bad DMs and the players that suffer under them.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 01:39 AM	The problem is that it's not possible for a DMPC to take at least some focus away from the players no matter how you play it. Unless the DMPC sits there the whole time with a thumb up his ass and never does anything (which is pointless) he is going to be doing things that the players should be doing on their own at least part of the time. Every time he damages the monster he is taking focus away from the players. Every time he overcomes a problem with one of his skills he is taking away focus from the players/ Every time he interacts with an NPC (even just a barkeep) he is taking away focus from the players. There is really and truly no reason a DMPC should be in a game. Everything related to party power can be made up for by properly scaling the encounters. As far as roleplaying is concerned NPCs should always be background characters. The PCs are the protagonists and that's that. And if there is no good reason for the DMPC to be there, then the DM shouldn't use one so he can't even be tempted to fall for any of the problems mentioned earlier. The only time I use A skill is 1. The players have all missed there spot/listen/search checks. 2. I have a skill they don't have which could help the group. (AKA search for traps.) Now combat i just don't see your point on. I'm already helping them with animal comp, familiars, dogs, summons and the like. You say that if my DMPC does damage but I do damage from the rest of these and if they hire a NPC for that Advan. I keep the focus on them and if I think my DMPC is getting out of hand and stealing the lime light I just kill him off or something and make something that will not. I'm saying that you should use one if you can play it right and not be a hog. And everyone who is against it say Don't ever use it no matter what just because you could play it wrong. The whole point is that the DM and the players are having fun and as long as we are why shouldn't we continue. Isn't that what D&D is about having fun and socializing.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 01:48 AM	Furthermore, I would like to know what problems a NPC on par with the PCs causes, assuming the NPC in question is played fairly and maturely. The problem is that if the NPC is truly on par with the PCs and is actually adventuring with them, it is very easy for him to hog at least some of the spotlight, even with a good DM, because he is by his nature a lot like a PC, and will therefore take on PC like activities which take up "screentime". Finally, on NPCs more powerful than the PCs accmpanying them (assuming the difference in power is more than one level, which is reasonable in normal play between PCs); Such a character, when not played properly, is called a Mary Sue. An NPC with the party who is more powerful is pretty much more than guaranteed to Overshadow the PCs, because he is by his very nature more capable than the PCs. Especially in DnD where a difference in several levels is a big gap in power. It is very hard not to have such an NPC turn into a Mary Sue. The DMPC is nothing but a scapegoat for bad DMs and the players that suffer under them. A DMPC is definitely symptomatic of a bad DM. It is just by it's nature a bad technique, that in my experience should be avoided. I'm sure a very good DM could make good use of them if used sparingly, but I feel is really tredding on thin ice by using them.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 01:51 AM	Now combat i just don't see your point on. I'm already helping them with animal comp, familiars, dogs, summons and the like. You say that if my DMPC does damage but I do damage from the rest of these and if they hire a NPC for that Advan. I keep the focus on them and if I think my DMPC is getting out of hand and stealing the lime light I just kill him off or something and make something that will not. Familiars, followers, and summoned creatures are different because they are controlled by the PCs.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 01:56 AM	The only time I use A skill is 1. The players have all missed there spot/listen/search checks. 2. I have a skill they don't have which could help the group. (AKA search for traps.) #2 is a big problem. Especially when it comes to traps. Traps are actually a problem even when the PC rogues deal with them because they limit party interaction. Only the rogue has any way to deal with them, and the rest of the party just has to wait for him to finish. This becomes really bad when an NPC rogue disables them, because the Players are really not getting to interact with the environment. I( could get off on a whole rant about traps in DnD are crappy, but that should probably be reserved for a whole other thread.)
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-12-07, 07:20 AM	The problem is that if the NPC is truly on par with the PCs and is actually adventuring with them, it is very easy for him to hog at least some of the spotlight, even with a good DM, because he is by his nature a lot like a PC, and will therefore take on PC like activities which take up "screentime". Please give me an example of this 'pc like activity' you speak of. An NPC with the party who is more powerful is pretty much more than guaranteed to Overshadow the PCs, because he is by his very nature more capable than the PCs. Especially in DnD where a difference in several levels is a big gap in power. It is very hard not to have such an NPC turn into a Mary Sue. And this is not a DMPC. Thank you. A DMPC is definitely symptomatic of a bad DM. It is just by it's nature a bad technique, that in my experience should be avoided. And in my experience this is the part of the discussion where I ask why, and this question will either be ignored or met with a simple repetion of the statement that DMPCs are bad. Care to prove me wrong? I'm sure a very good DM could make good use of them if used sparingly, but I feel is really tredding on thin ice by using them. And in my opinion, any half-way competent and/or mature DM is capable of running a fair DMPC, assuming the players aren't utterly paranoid. Finally, I'd appreciate it if you quoted my entire post. You left out parts of my previous post which I fear might cause others to take them out of context.
Wight_Chocolate 08-12-07, 07:31 AM	The problem is that if the NPC is truly on par with the PCs and is actually adventuring with them, it is very easy for him to hog at least some of the spotlight, even with a good DM, because he is by his nature a lot like a PC, and will therefore take on PC like activities which take up "screentime". But this is no different from using independent NPCs that join up with the party temporarily because they're assigned to the same mission, or because they just happen to be in the same place, doing the same thing, and might as well combine forces. Once again, this is why you need to explain the situation to your players first and OK it with them. If they don't want the character in the party then they're free to forbid them from joining, as they are free to forbid any NPC from travelling with them. If they give it the go ahead then you are free to do as you wish, (within reason) and if they later start to complain that the character is "hogging the spotlight" because he/she/it did something other than stand in one place with a blank expression then it's their own damned fault for letting it happen in the first place, and they can still part ways with the character if they see fit. If the NPC ally is just a mindless low level pud who works for the PCs and doesn't do anything beyond follow PC orders, then no. In one of your earlier posts you state that even damaging a monster is taking focus off the players, but any NPC in the party with combat capabilities, no matter how low-level they are, will probably do this occasionally. Even a throwaway stooge with no fighting prowess and no initiative can potentially upstage the players by, say, rolling a natural 20 on a Spot check and noticing something that everyone else misses. Where do you draw the line here? Furthermore is an ally that might as well be a golem for all the thinking he/she does really going to be believable? Isn't it also going to compromise the game by sacrifing realism so that everyone who happens to join the party becomes a braindead puppet of the players? Again, this is something that depends on the individual group, not a universal rule. Are your players hell-bent on accomplishing every task by themselves, or would they prefer it if any NPCs that happen to team up with them had minds of their own and occasionally did something useful without being explicitly ordered to?
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 08:29 AM	Please give me an example of this 'pc like activity' you speak of. Going on adventures with the group, fighting monsters with the group, disabling traps, sharing xp, sharing treasure, etc. etc. Generally any amount of interaction with the game world on behalf of the party and/or demanding a share of party resources. And this is not a DMPC. Thank you. By your earlier strict definition of "created using same guidelines for PCs", then no. But if you go by the definition of "DM cleverly finding a way to be both player DM by using an NPC as a surrogate PC who accompanies the group", then yes, yes he is a DMPC. And the worst kind to boot. And in my experience this is the part of the discussion where I ask why, and this question will either be ignored or met with a simple repetion of the statement that DMPCs are bad. Care to prove me wrong? A roleplaying game can be thought of as a simulation where the Players are using the PCs as avatars for interacting with the imaginary world you've created inside your head (the campaign). It can be argued that the fun part of an RPG is in the interaction between PCs and the campaign, this is what seperates an Roleplaying Game from a mere story. If the DM is including a DMPC who is interacting with the campaign in a way the PCs should be, he is in affect creating a closed loop which cuts out the PCs and removes the interactive element of the game. And in my opinion, any half-way competent and/or mature DM is capable of running a fair DMPC, assuming the players aren't utterly paranoid. I believe that jusct because he can, doesn't mean he should, and that he will have to constantly be striving to avoid taking away from the players screentime. It is in my experience just a bad technique. Finally, I'd appreciate it if you quoted my entire post. You left out parts of my previous post which I fear might cause others to take them out of context. I'll try, but can't guarantee that. (Life is kind of unfair that way :allalone: )
ORC_Sinister 08-12-07, 08:35 AM	Hey Folks, I've been reading this thread. Please be kind to each other at not make attacks on each other but rather discuss the issues. As for me I introduced a character I played into a campaign a few years ago because the party I DMed needed a cleric. He was an awesome addition to the party and in fact I killed him off to save the party and their kingdom. They felt the whole thing was so cool they held a funeral for him and honestly their was no better way for that character to die in such a heroic fashion that the players acutally spent one whole session on a funeral for him. Keep in mind that if the DM isn't willing to make that kind of sacrafice then he probably shouldn't be using the character. Likewise I made sure that his actions were always done after the party had considered their options or asked for help from him. One person makes an excellent example of a DM character rogue who opens traps for the PCs and stops them from interacting with the enviroment. What's interesting to point out is the potential of role playing this moment. If you are a good or great DM then this has enornmous rp potential, if you are running around disarming rooms filled with traps and not letting the PCs play then you aren't doing your job.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 08:44 AM	But this is no different from using independent NPCs that join up with the party temporarily because they're assigned to the same mission, or because they just happen to be in the same place, doing the same thing, and might as well combine forces. I just try to avoid having situations like this come up. Once again, this is why you need to explain the situation to your players first and OK it with them. If they don't want the character in the party then they're free to forbid them from joining, as they are free to forbid any NPC from travelling with them. If they give it the go ahead then you are free to do as you wish, (within reason) and if they later start to complain that the character is "hogging the spotlight" because he/she/it did something other than stand in one place with a blank expression then it's their own damned fault for letting it happen in the first place, and they can still part ways with the character if they see fit. I agree with you 100% here. In one of your earlier posts you state that even damaging a monster is taking focus off the players, but any NPC in the party with combat capabilities, no matter how low-level they are, will probably do this occasionally. Even a throwaway stooge with no fighting prowess and no initiative can potentially upstage the players by, say, rolling a natural 20 on a Spot check and noticing something that everyone else misses. Where do you draw the line here? It is hard to draw the line, but I feel if the NPC is doing a signifigant amount of the fighting and interacting for the PCs it is bad. Furthermore is an ally that might as well be a golem for all the thinking he/she does really going to be believable? Isn't it also going to compromise the game by sacrifing realism so that everyone who happens to join the party becomes a braindead puppet of the players? I'm very willing to sacrifice realism to make the game more fun. DnD in general isn't exactly realistic Again, this is something that depends on the individual group, not a universal rule. Are your players hell-bent on accomplishing every task by themselves, or would they prefer it if any NPCs that happen to team up with them had minds of their own and occasionally did something useful without being explicitly ordered to? It is not so much that I feel like the players are hell bent on accomplishing every thing on their own. It's just that I feel that they may not realize it, but they get more satisfaction if they acomplish things themselves.
pres_man 08-12-07, 10:33 AM	I think one of the biggest problems people have is they don't separate the character from the player. A DM run character can be played without noticable difference from a non-DM run character, so much so that an outside observer when seeing the characters act might not be able to tell the difference. This does not mean the players' experiences are the same, they are not. For example it is impossible for a DM to solve a puzzle he has created, at most he can reveal the solution to the other players, but he can't solve it because he already knows the answer. Now the DM that thinks they can have the exact same gaming experience as the other players is delusional, they can't. But so what? If a player is experienced they aren't going to have the same gaming experience as a novice player. If a player plays a mage they aren't going to have the same experience as a player running a barbarian. Someone mentioned that it is lame because as a DM they have to work at not using their metagame knowledge. Now think about that for a second. Does that mean as a non-DM player, you can use your metagame knowledge? That it is some how considered ok in that circumstance? When a DM run party character works best is when it is a character focused on the party, but that is true for any party member. Most of the problems that are suggested seem to be indicated that they are "normal" behaviour for a "PC". I think that is a sad state of affairs, when someone thinks that playing a PC means you are going to: cheat, metagame, hog the spot light, etc.
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-12-07, 02:21 PM	Going on adventures with the group, fighting monsters with the group, disabling traps, sharing xp, sharing treasure, etc. etc. Generally any amount of interaction with the game world on behalf of the party and/or demanding a share of party resources. Much like most npcs that adventure with the group then. Off course, whether the dm wants to advance the npcs by granting them xp like the pcs receive, by deciding when they level up, or not at all, is something best left to the taste of each infividual dm. And very few npcs will adventure with the pcs for no reward at all, so whether they take a share of the loot, or simply demand payment, they are 'sharing treasure'. By your earlier strict definition of "created using same guidelines for PCs", then no. But if you go by the definition of "DM cleverly finding a way to be both player DM by using an NPC as a surrogate PC who accompanies the group", then yes, yes he is a DMPC. And the worst kind to boot. Assuming a fair DM, all PC's are created equally. This includes 'surrogate PCs'. In fact, the label of 'PC' is actually more restrictive, while 'any random NPC' can be created fully at the whim of the DM. In my opinion, any character that diverges greatly from the PCs, whether by sheer power or the use of rules not allowed for PCs, cannot fairly be called a PC, and by extension, a DMPC. A roleplaying game can be thought of as a simulation where the Players are using the PCs as avatars for interacting with the imaginary world you've created inside your head (the campaign). It can be argued that the fun part of an RPG is in the interaction between PCs and the campaign, this is what seperates an Roleplaying Game from a mere story. If the DM is including a DMPC who is interacting with the campaign in a way the PCs should be, he is in affect creating a closed loop which cuts out the PCs and removes the interactive element of the game. Quite true, if we assume that the DM for some reason does not allow the PCs to interact. Personally I have a hard time imagining such a situation, but in my mind it involves the DMPC jumping in between the PCs and the king, to discuss the rewards for {insert random quest here} on his own. Therefor, the DM has a duty, just as all the other players do, to allow everyone to interact with the world. And I do not see how having a DMPC makes this impossible, unless the DM purposefully creates a character that fills the same role as one of the PCs. I believe that jusct because he can, doesn't mean he should, and that he will have to constantly be striving to avoid taking away from the players screentime. It is in my experience just a bad technique. And somehow, I have absolutely no problems doing just that. Now, mind you, our group switches between me and one of the other players as DM, each running a few sessions in a row, and keeping our PC as a DMPC. I found that the easiest way of avoiding the problem you mentioned is simply to design your adventure to not focus on your DMPCs role. My character is a fighter, so my adventures simply do not focus on straight-up combat. The other DMs character is a cleric, so his adventures do not focus on the divine. And how much Dm experience did I have before all of this? Virtually none, yet somehow I'm capable of pulling off this trick that some claim is impossible.
shadzar 08-12-07, 04:37 PM	Furthermore, I would like to know what problems a NPC on par with the PCs causes because NPCs should never be considered as equal to the PCs. they are always something less than the PCs. the NPCs are servants of the PCs. they serve in any of a number of funcitons. you can have PCs without NPCs, you can't have NPCs without PCs.
shadzar 08-12-07, 04:55 PM	The only time I use A skill is 1. The players have all missed there spot/listen/search checks. 2. I have a skill they don't have which could help the group. (AKA search for traps.) who decides when your THING akes actions and what actions are taken? you or the players? problems with your above. 1. railroading. you are making checks for them that they missed. you are forcing them down a path with your THING in their party to make decisions on what to do. poorly designed areas. if you really mean or the PCs/player to find something with one of those listed checks then it should be easier to noticed. lower that, WTF is it called...DC? if the player are having a hard time in your game then you are making it too hard for them. you don't need a character just to make your encounters easier. you should do that yourself. 2. everything i said in 1. have them make better PCs. teach them to make a character that fits adventuring. if they are trying to powergame or metagame and take only skills/feats/etc that allow them infinite modes of specials attacks, then they need to learn how to make characters that work together as part of the party so they don't have that many gaps that need to be filled. Now combat i just don't see your point on. I'm already helping them with animal comp, familiars, dogs, summons and the like. You say that if my DMPC does damage but I do damage from the rest of these and if they hire a NPC for that Advan. I keep the focus on them and if I think my DMPC is getting out of hand and stealing the lime light I just kill him off or something and make something that will not. huh? well you shouldn't be controlling the critters they have. any familiar/companion/summon/etc is an extension of the PC and should be handled by the PCs controller 90% of the time. the only time a DM steps in and takes control over it is if the PC is trying to get the thing to do something against its nature. like having it make a suicide attack. not just an attack that might caught death, but an attack that will mean death for the creature in order to win. like say the familiar carrying a bomb over to an enemy. I'm saying that you should use one if you can play it right and not be a hog. And everyone who is against it say Don't ever use it no matter what just because you could play it wrong. The whole point is that the DM and the players are having fun and as long as we are why shouldn't we continue. Isn't that what D&D is about having fun and socializing. from your own examples you aren't "playing it right" as you call it. you are trying to use a character because you want one in the party. otherwise you would fix your game to where the other players don't need you to be a part of the party. either by adjusting any encounter to properly fit with the levels of the players and their PC, by helping your players create characters they can use rather than jsut some dream killing machine or something that leaves the party lacking, or both. of course the game is about having fun, but what are you teaching your players? are they going to be able to go to another game and play without causing problems there? when they DM their own games for other people will they cause problems by trying to have a character in the party?
shadzar 08-12-07, 05:07 PM	And in my experience this is the part of the discussion where I ask why, and this question will either be ignored or met with a simple repetion of the statement that DMPCs are bad. Care to prove me wrong? ah yes repetion. used when the point remains the same, but the listener failed to pay attention the first time. why is a DMPC bad? please read all previous threads on DMPCs. take special note of the parts where a DM is not supposed to even have his own PC. also read carefully how the DM takes away fromt he party by becmoing a part of it. and let us not forget that it is most often used as a device to fix problems with his game that this DM is too lazy and go back and properly make the encounters for the party of PCs his players created so it doesn't need his constant help via a character of his own. one more...the DM should not have his own character in his own game. by being the DM you lose that right to have a player character in order to gain the rights to control the entire world and all the nonplayer characters. if you want a PC then don't DM. if you want to DM then you don't get a PC. for whatever reason you may or may not be the DM...thems the breaks!
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 05:15 PM	So where does Johnny Depp fit in to all this?
shadzar 08-12-07, 05:21 PM	I think one of the biggest problems people have is they don't separate the character from the player. A DM run character can be played without noticable difference from a non-DM run character, so much so that an outside observer when seeing the characters act might not be able to tell the difference. This does not mean the players' experiences are the same, they are not. For example it is impossible for a DM to solve a puzzle he has created, at most he can reveal the solution to the other players, but he can't solve it because he already knows the answer. Now the DM that thinks they can have the exact same gaming experience as the other players is delusional, they can't. But so what? If a player is experienced they aren't going to have the same gaming experience as a novice player. If a player plays a mage they aren't going to have the same experience as a player running a barbarian. Someone mentioned that it is lame because as a DM they have to work at not using their metagame knowledge. Now think about that for a second. Does that mean as a non-DM player, you can use your metagame knowledge? That it is some how considered ok in that circumstance? When a DM run party character works best is when it is a character focused on the party, but that is true for any party member. Most of the problems that are suggested seem to be indicated that they are "normal" behaviour for a "PC". I think that is a sad state of affairs, when someone thinks that playing a PC means you are going to: cheat, metagame, hog the spot light, etc. :nonono: you were doing so well until the end. the DM should not have a party character. that is what the DM is. an entity completely seperate fromt he party. even NPCs that travel with the party rarely have the same goals. they may just be going along for various reasons: loot, ordered to do so, to trap the players, etc. but in the end the NPC should never look to join the party and continue to be controlled by the DM. the NPC then needs to move under player control. that is the ULTIMATE thing that defines a party member. the fact that the players control it. So where does Johnny Depp fit in to all this? who knows?
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 07:04 PM	Familiars, followers, and summoned creatures are different because they are controlled by the PCs. No they are not control by the player. They are told what to do by the players and the DM acts for them.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 07:12 PM	So where does Johnny Depp fit in to all this? Jack sparrow is the name of my Character. It has been said before a few pages back.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 07:23 PM	No they are not control by the player. They are told what to do by the players and the DM acts for them. Maybe that's the way you do it, but pretty much all the games I've played in they are controlled by the player, unless they do something that doesn't make sense, in which the DM can overule. Jack sparrow is the name of my Character. It has been said before a few pages back. I don't mean to be an ass here, but I'm sorry, that's just corny. That's like naming your Wizard "Gandalf" or naming your Barbarian "Conan".:rofl:
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 07:34 PM	who decides when your THING akes actions and what actions are taken? you or the players? problems with your above. 1. railroading. you are making checks for them that they missed. you are forcing them down a path with your THING in their party to make decisions on what to do. poorly designed areas. if you really mean or the PCs/player to find something with one of those listed checks then it should be easier to noticed. lower that, WTF is it called...DC? if the player are having a hard time in your game then you are making it too hard for them. you don't need a character just to make your encounters easier. you should do that yourself. 2. everything i said in 1. have them make better PCs. teach them to make a character that fits adventuring. if they are trying to powergame or metagame and take only skills/feats/etc that allow them infinite modes of specials attacks, then they need to learn how to make characters that work together as part of the party so they don't have that many gaps that need to be filled. huh? well you shouldn't be controlling the critters they have. any familiar/companion/summon/etc is an extension of the PC and should be handled by the PCs controller 90% of the time. the only time a DM steps in and takes control over it is if the PC is trying to get the thing to do something against its nature. like having it make a suicide attack. not just an attack that might caught death, but an attack that will mean death for the creature in order to win. like say the familiar carrying a bomb over to an enemy. from your own examples you aren't "playing it right" as you call it. you are trying to use a character because you want one in the party. otherwise you would fix your game to where the other players don't need you to be a part of the party. either by adjusting any encounter to properly fit with the levels of the players and their PC, by helping your players create characters they can use rather than jsut some dream killing machine or something that leaves the party lacking, or both. of course the game is about having fun, but what are you teaching your players? are they going to be able to go to another game and play without causing problems there? when they DM their own games for other people will they cause problems by trying to have a character in the party? What?:confused: :confused: :confused: I don't roll any skill for them unless it is something they wouldn't know about to begin with. Which is allowed in D&D whether I had my own Character or not. In the sample above I roll my own spot check for my own character after both other players. Whether they seen anything are not doesn't matter because I would have to roll my spot and search checks anyway to see if I act first round in combat. By letting them roll their own spot checks first I keep the focus on them and not my character. I am the scout of the group so that intells being the look out for the group. If I tell them something is coming and what it is and they decide that we should run then we run their choice not mine. All I do is report what I see. Now The DM can let the players play these. But as you have pointed out for five page if it is not a PC it is a NPC and should be played as such. All those things things you say should be played by the players are Special cohorts and all rolls and checks are made by the DM just like anything else. Unless the DM allows it. Simple put the CRs we made for 4 person parties. Down scaling is not going to change this fact. Even if I did want to stop playing my character, which I don't, My players wanted let me because they like it when I play one. I have already sat down with them like with every other thing in D&D and talked about it and they flat out said no that they liked when I played because group and less like player verse DM. Yes they have played with other groups and have had no problems. It just seem to me that you want to find something wrong with my group. Sorry but everything I do and every rule I used has been talked over with my players and we all decided to us it as a group. Oh and I decide what my player does but Except combat most of the time after the players and I always follow their lead.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 07:38 PM	Yes they have played with other groups and have had no problems. It just seem to me that you want to find something wrong with my group. Sorry but everything I do and every rule I used has been talked over with my players and we all decided to us it as a group. You're the one who asked: This is why I am posting this. What is the big deal with not using DMPCs? Do you like them or not?
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 07:44 PM	Maybe that's the way you do it, but pretty much all the games I've played in they are controlled by the player, unless they do something that doesn't make sense, in which the DM can overule. I don't mean to be an ass here, but I'm sorry, that's just corny. That's like naming your Wizard "Gandalf" or naming your Barbarian "Conan".:rofl: Well the wizard's name was Merlin. I have also had a kobold sorc named Kob. Again don't like playing Bars but i would more than likely go with Heman. Loved watching that when I was a kid. It is just something fun for the players. I have come up with so many names as DM that I don't care what I am called. Oh and that would be up to the DM to let the player/s play them but they are not PC characters and as such are controled by the DM. Some DM find it easier to let the players control them.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 07:47 PM	You're the one who asked: I Think there were more then just one on there it was your choice to post on that one.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 07:50 PM	Well the wizard's name was Merlin. I have also had a kobold sorc named Kob. Again don't like playing Bars but i would more than likely go with Heman. Loved watching that when I was a kid. It is just something fun for the players. I have come up with so many names as DM that I don't care what I am called. When your character's name is a pop culture reference it kind of kills the immersive experience of roleplaying. At least that's been my experience.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 07:59 PM	Plus it kind of makes the DMseem kind of lazy or apathetic to the game in general. "Wow, my DM can't even be bothered to spend the half a second it takes to come up with an original name for a character. This is gonna be fun:rolleyes: "
Wight_Chocolate 08-12-07, 08:07 PM	I'm going to have to introduce a new pair of characters now. Gandalf the Barbarian and Conan the Wizard. And you know what? I'll make both of them DMPCs. So there.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 08:09 PM	Hey Folks, I've been reading this thread. Please be kind to each other at not make attacks on each other but rather discuss the issues. As for me I introduced a character I played into a campaign a few years ago because the party I DMed needed a cleric. He was an awesome addition to the party and in fact I killed him off to save the party and their kingdom. They felt the whole thing was so cool they held a funeral for him and honestly their was no better way for that character to die in such a heroic fashion that the players acutally spent one whole session on a funeral for him. Keep in mind that if the DM isn't willing to make that kind of sacrafice then he probably shouldn't be using the character. Likewise I made sure that his actions were always done after the party had considered their options or asked for help from him. One person makes an excellent example of a DM character rogue who opens traps for the PCs and stops them from interacting with the enviroment. What's interesting to point out is the potential of role playing this moment. If you are a good or great DM then this has enornmous rp potential, if you are running around disarming rooms filled with traps and not letting the PCs play then you aren't doing your job. Thanks for the post. I don't act for them. they act first always except combat because that is random. None of them can nor like be rogue and I stop using traps except for the one in per made advan. Like most rogues at low levels half go off in my face and i disarm the other half. And yes we roleplay all encounters except buying and selling items. when we get to town We all get a grace period for buying and selling. I don't get to sell anything unless I sell one of my old things to buy a new one. I allow them to roll Dopl if they like to try for extra bonus (+/-10% depending on a good roll or bad one).
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 08:22 PM	Plus it kind of makes the DMseem kind of lazy or apathetic to the game in general. "Wow, my DM can't even be bothered to spend the half a second it takes to come up with an original name for a character. This is gonna be fun:rolleyes: " That would be the first reaction in most groups. My players are also long time friends and understand my sense of humor and know that I could have come up with a better one but did it so kicks. Note the Kob one was the players name for me. he couldn't speak to them and they could speak him At first so they just called him Kob. The name stuck. At last use he was 7th sorc/4th fighter lich with the feat PS. The group broke up when My wife had a fight with the other player about a non D&D thing and we start to play with the old group. Wife was a Bleakborn and the other was an Elf wizard vamp.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 08:29 PM	I'm going to have to introduce a new pair of characters now. Gandalf the Barbarian and Conan the Wizard. And you know what? I'll make both of them DMPCs. So there.:rofl: My side hurts now.
shadzar 08-12-07, 08:50 PM	That would be the first reaction in most groups. My players are also long time friends and understand my sense of humor and know that I could have come up with a better one but did it so kicks. the question begs to be asked why name the character Jack Sparrow? just because it is a well known name that players could relate to? i would hope he acts nothing like his movie counterpart. if you wanted a character that acted like Jack Sparrow it would be less Monty Haul of you to have given it another name and let the apperance of the Jack Sparrow persona just come out in playing. not saying you should have a character in your own game, but just in general when you have any character. why didn't the wizard just name his character Elminster? or have a knight named Robin with a band of musicians following him around, and when the party gets hungry and has run out of food they can eat Robins minstrels. and don't forget that NPC wizard enemy named Tim!
Wight_Chocolate 08-12-07, 08:55 PM	Because they players don't care and they get a laugh out of it. Or is that in violation of the spirit of the game too?
shadzar 08-12-07, 09:00 PM	What?:confused: :confused: :confused: I don't roll any skill for them unless it is something they wouldn't know about to begin with. Which is allowed in D&D whether I had my own Character or not. In the sample above I roll my own spot check for my own character after both other players. Whether they seen anything are not doesn't matter because I would have to roll my spot and search checks anyway to see if I act first round in combat. By letting them roll their own spot checks first I keep the focus on them and not my character. I am the scout of the group so that intells being the look out for the group. If I tell them something is coming and what it is and they decide that we should run then we run their choice not mine. All I do is report what I see. ok you keep secret rolls secret. good to know. you earned a point there. but again why would your character be spotting for something? aren't you altering the outcome of the event by having the character there that isn't the players? if you want to give the players a better chance at hearing/seeing/noticing something via those checks then make it easier for them to do so. you don't need a character to perform actions that the players should be doing. all your character serves as is a bonus modifier to them. a second chance if you will to one of their rolls to spot/listen/search/etc. you should not be the scout for the group. another HUGE problem. you are taking away their potential for passing and failing. you are effectively not allowing them to find out things on their own because you are iving them whatever information through your scout. why then do they ever need to make a spot check or such before your "character"? he already did it while scouting. the problem is they didn't decide to run. you did. you gave them finite choices based on your narrative characters position in the party. they should be the ones finding out that something is there for themselves and then decide what to do about it. a proper NPC should stand in the shadows and only come out to fullfill his duties. if his duties are to tell the players everything in advance of thing figuring it out themselves, then you are running a character like the DM in the cartoon. you have turned a character into the role of the dungeon master. :weep:
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 09:07 PM	the question begs to be asked why name the character Jack Sparrow? just because it is a well known name that players could relate to? i would hope he acts nothing like his movie counterpart. if you wanted a character that acted like Jack Sparrow it would be less Monty Haul of you to have given it another name and let the apperance of the Jack Sparrow persona just come out in playing. not saying you should have a character in your own game, but just in general when you have any character. why didn't the wizard just name his character Elminster? or have a knight named Robin with a band of musicians following him around, and when the party gets hungry and has run out of food they can eat Robins minstrels. and don't forget that NPC wizard enemy named Tim! Again as I have posted before and know you were reading because you have been posting from the begining. It was the only Cha rogue that I could think of at the time. The name doesn't matter in the game only the actions that count for my players. For some one to get all upset because my name is jack sparrow just doesn't make sense if he is a good player/good DM. Depending on who is using the name.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 09:11 PM	ok you keep secret rolls secret. good to know. you earned a point there. but again why would your character be spotting for something? aren't you altering the outcome of the event by having the character there that isn't the players? if you want to give the players a better chance at hearing/seeing/noticing something via those checks then make it easier for them to do so. you don't need a character to perform actions that the players should be doing. all your character serves as is a bonus modifier to them. a second chance if you will to one of their rolls to spot/listen/search/etc. you should not be the scout for the group. another HUGE problem. you are taking away their potential for passing and failing. you are effectively not allowing them to find out things on their own because you are iving them whatever information through your scout. why then do they ever need to make a spot check or such before your "character"? he already did it while scouting. the problem is they didn't decide to run. you did. you gave them finite choices based on your narrative characters position in the party. they should be the ones finding out that something is there for themselves and then decide what to do about it. a proper NPC should stand in the shadows and only come out to fullfill his duties. if his duties are to tell the players everything in advance of thing figuring it out themselves, then you are running a character like the DM in the cartoon. you have turned a character into the role of the dungeon master. :weep: because I'm the skill monkey of the group and that make me the scout and I have already said that they roll theirs first then I roll my which I would have to do any way to see if I get to act or not.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 09:16 PM	because I'm the skill monkey of the group and that make me the scout and I have already said that they roll theirs first then I roll my which I would have to do any way to see if I get to act or not. :banghead: Yes, you just described the function of a rogue. We're questioning why you even have him there.
shadzar 08-12-07, 09:22 PM	Again as I have posted before and know you were reading because you have been posting from the begining. It was the only Cha rogue that I could think of at the time. The name doesn't matter in the game only the actions that count for my players. For some one to get all upset because my name is jack sparrow just doesn't make sense if he is a good player/good DM. Depending on who is using the name. CHA rogue? whats that? :banghead: Yes, you just described the function of a rogue. We're questioning why you even have him there. what he said.--^^^^
Fallenangel359 08-12-07, 09:26 PM	I am in a 4 dm alternating game, where we run entirely different game worlds... characters go to sleep one night, and wake up in a different world... one DM runs eberron, one DM runs greyhawk, one DM runs faerun, and I run rokugan. We each have a character from that setting. When we are DMing, we can either play as a player, have our character run off somewhere else. If we run it as a player, we have to ignore our own knowledge of the situation, and use the character as a regular NPC, that runs with the group. I've never had a problem with it, mostly because when I DM, I pickout dungeon ideas nsuch ahead of time, and based off of how I play characters, I generally act first, think later anyways. We really haven't had trouble with it yet.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 09:34 PM	CHA rogue? whats that? I'd imagine a Rogue based on a High Charisma who has chosen to dump his skill points into Charisma based skills like Diplomacy and Sense Motive. With the amount of skill points Rogues get, you can be a total social monster. I know, I play one ;)
Wight_Chocolate 08-12-07, 09:37 PM	I am in a 4 dm alternating game, where we run entirely different game worlds... characters go to sleep one night, and wake up in a different world... one DM runs eberron, one DM runs greyhawk, one DM runs faerun, and I run rokugan. We each have a character from that setting. When we are DMing, we can either play as a player, have our character run off somewhere else. If we run it as a player, we have to ignore our own knowledge of the situation, and use the character as a regular NPC, that runs with the group. I've never had a problem with it, mostly because when I DM, I pickout dungeon ideas nsuch ahead of time, and based off of how I play characters, I generally act first, think later anyways. We really haven't had trouble with it yet. This is one thing I'm noticing. People arguing against DMPCs (or party NPCs or NPC allies or whatever I'm supposed to be calling them now) use the reasoning that it almost always (if not always) causes problems within the game, that the DM will favour his character and thus alienate the players and so on and so forth. Fair enough. It can happen, and it's a potential drawback. I don't think this validates the extreme method of thinking that they are always bad, all the time, but that's off the point as far as this post is concerned. What, exactly, are your thoughts on all the people so far that have cited good experiences with these characters? The ones who not only ran one (or several) successfully, but actually did so in a manner that made the game more enjoyable? Is it just that a bunch of rare exceptions to the rule all happened to show up at once, or does this kind of hint at something here?
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 09:48 PM	What, exactly, are your thoughts on all the people so far that have cited good experiences with these characters? The ones who not only ran one (or several) successfully, but actually did so in a manner that made the game more enjoyable? I don't think it necescarily made their game more enjoyable, but they have managed to keep it from spoiling their game. I view it as something that in my experience should be avoided. Using one isn't something that is automatically going to ruin your game, but at best it's not going to improve your game at all, and at worst will cause problems. That's just my opinion from experience though.
shadzar 08-12-07, 09:53 PM	We really haven't had trouble with it yet. i would explicitly refuse to play in a situation like that. it would allow other DMs to provide thing to a character i may not want in my games. just like ANY pre-made character brought into a game session i check the character for things not allowed and remove them from the sheet myself. i would see no way in it working that somehow the item left the player possession in one world, but reapperd in another. unless you tried to say said item didn't exist int he new world, but odds are it does it just isnt accessible by PCs at the current time. :yuck: Using one isn't something that is automatically going to ruin your game, but at best it's not going to improve your game at all, and at worst will cause problems. better safe than sorry right?
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 10:21 PM	:banghead: Yes, you just described the function of a rogue. We're questioning why you even have him there. Ok in every party there are four basic roles. tank, healer, spellcaster, scout. Now We have a healer and a tank already so I take the role of what ever else is needed. ( which again I have said before.) They needed a wizard type and a skill monkey. I chose skill monkey and make the cha rogue. ( which is a rogue that mostly uses cha based skill and specialize in them for his rogue) Most cha rogues are used for more of non combat type game where they mostly roleplay things. I did it to try a UMD build I have been coming up with. Since I have only 2 players I take up the miss role and then they are free to build the PC they like.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 10:31 PM	i would explicitly refuse to play in a situation like that. it would allow other DMs to provide thing to a character i may not want in my games. just like ANY pre-made character brought into a game session i check the character for things not allowed and remove them from the sheet myself. i would see no way in it working that somehow the item left the player possession in one world, but reapperd in another. unless you tried to say said item didn't exist int he new world, but odds are it does it just isnt accessible by PCs at the current time. :yuck: better safe than sorry right? I thought they were playing in the same world and taking turns DMing every once in a while switch to a new DM but stay with the same story line. These types of games the rules are discuss by all the DMs before starting. I guess this would be your worst nightmare because they are all playing DMPCs and taking turns in the lead as DM.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 10:40 PM	Ok in every party there are four basic roles. tank, healer, spellcaster, scout. Now We have a healer and a tank already so I take the role of what ever else is needed. ( which again I have said before.) They needed a wizard type and a skill monkey. I chose skill monkey and make the cha rogue. ( which is a rogue that mostly uses cha based skill and specialize in them for his rogue) Most cha rogues are used for more of non combat type game where they mostly roleplay things. I did it to try a UMD build I have been coming up with. Since I have only 2 players I take up the miss role and then they are free to build the PC they like. Parties don't actually "need" all four archetypes. Players can make up for deficiencies by multiclassing or making clever work arounds. Warrior: Easily the most expendable, as long as there are memebrs of the party who are semi-competent in combat, you're ok. Thief: Not really needed except to disable traps. In a worst case scenario the players could just eat the damage and move on. Arcane Spellcaster: In combat he is just another way to do damage. Outside of combat, any exclusive spell he has access to, you can just pay somebody in town to do. Healer: This is the biggest "we have to have one" fallacy out there. If all you need him for is healing he can easily be replaced by a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, Potions, or a Belt of healing.
shadzar 08-12-07, 10:57 PM	I thought they were playing in the same world and taking turns DMing every once in a while switch to a new DM but stay with the same story line. These types of games the rules are discuss by all the DMs before starting. I guess this would be your worst nightmare because they are all playing DMPCs and taking turns in the lead as DM. i was sure (s)he said they go to sleep in one world with one DM, and wake up in another world with another DM? this would mean that each DM is only privy to his own world, and the rest of the group doesn't have explicit knowledge of what may happen in it. i can think of no better show that something like Dr. Who to describe this. but they aren't jumping aorund worlds just time and of course the Dr has knowledge of past and future events that his passengers don't always have depending on their party make up. so it would seem that each DM has an independant cmpaign with shared characters to me. yes everoyne having DMPCs would make me pull all my hair out then move to the nearest person to do the same. maybe Stargate SG1 works for the world jumping thing... either way it just doesn't sound like it would suit me to keep switching back and forth on worlds even if it was with a singular DM without his own character in the party because the party could have no short term goals because they would only be on a world every other 4th day. my character would shoot himself in the head with a crossbow....and he is a kender!
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 11:03 PM	Parties don't actually "need" all four archetypes. Players can make up for deficiencies by multiclassing or making clever work arounds. Warrior: Easily the most expendable, as long as there are memebrs of the party who are semi-competent in combat, you're ok. Thief: Not really needed except to disable traps. In a worst case scenario the players could just eat the damage and move on. Arcane Spellcaster: In combat he is just another way to do damage. Outside of combat, any exclusive spell he has access to, you can just pay somebody in town to do. Healer: This is the biggest "we have to have one" fallacy out there. If all you need him for is healing he can easily be replaced by a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, Potions, or a Belt of healing.I know some was going to say this. Saddly I would point out that "again" that they play the same thing most of the time. The drow play goes cleric till she get the stuff for that drow pro class. ( don't remember the name) My wife is using monster class minotaur till 9th then bar and she has take that feat that let you use one size larger weapon so when she gets large size at 6th she will be able to use huge weapons. she doesn't multi class most of the time or use pro classes. So it is safe to say she will stay bar till 20th. They like to build the party around those party roles because they are still new and it helps them stay alive. Side note: wife has healing belt and my drow cleric is saving for the healing ring. I think it's called mystic healing. I could use any wand and magic item for anyclass so sticking to role is not required but that the way the like to play and it is half there game. I found it it is called drow judicator.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 11:08 PM	I know some was going to say this. Saddly I would point out that "again" that they play the same thing most of the time. The drow play goes cleric till she get the stuff for that drow pro class. ( don't remember the name) My wife is using monster class minotaur till 9th then bar and she has take that feat that let you use one size larger weapon so when she gets large size at 6th she will be able to use huge weapons. she doesn't multi class most of the time or use pro classes. So it is safe to say she will stay bar till 20th. They like to build the party around those party roles because they are still new and it helps them stay alive. Side note: wife has healing belt and my drow cleric is saving for the healing ring. I think it's called mystic healing. I could use any wand and magic item for anyclass so sticking to role is not required but that the way the like to play and it is half there game. Well I guess it works for you and your group. You started this thread to ask what the deal with DMPC hate is, and we explained it you. If that's the way your group likes to play, that's fine, but now you know why it doesn't work with every group. Good luck to you:)
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 11:10 PM	i was sure (s)he said they go to sleep in one world with one DM, and wake up in another world with another DM? this would mean that each DM is only privy to his own world, and the rest of the group doesn't have explicit knowledge of what may happen in it. i can think of no better show that something like Dr. Who to describe this. but they aren't jumping aorund worlds just time and of course the Dr has knowledge of past and future events that his passengers don't always have depending on their party make up. so it would seem that each DM has an independant cmpaign with shared characters to me. yes everoyne having DMPCs would make me pull all my hair out then move to the nearest person to do the same. maybe Stargate SG1 works for the world jumping thing... either way it just doesn't sound like it would suit me to keep switching back and forth on worlds even if it was with a singular DM without his own character in the party because the party could have no short term goals because they would only be on a world every other 4th day. my character would shoot himself in the head with a crossbow....and he is a kender! I loved playing a kender. But found Kobold and haven't played one in a while. Can't remember her name because it was before using the famous ones but she specialized in throwing club. Had a flaming returning one.
shadzar 08-12-07, 11:11 PM	Ok in every party there are four basic roles. tank, healer, spellcaster, scout. Now We have a healer and a tank already so I take the role of what ever else is needed. ( which again I have said before.) They needed a wizard type and a skill monkey. I chose skill monkey and make the cha rogue. ( which is a rogue that mostly uses cha based skill and specialize in them for his rogue) Most cha rogues are used for more of non combat type game where they mostly roleplay things. I did it to try a UMD build I have been coming up with. Since I have only 2 players I take up the miss role and then they are free to build the PC they like. my take on this party. sicne we are using terms i leave to EverQuest to describe classes then i will uniform to those terms only. your party has a tank/metshield and a walking med kit. what more should they need? one or the other can take a level or two in some rogue class under these new rules and get any little thieving skills they think they will need. you are still missing your wizard in your grop so how do your contend with that? simply you don;t need them like you dont need the rogue. if you have a party that doesn't have a rogue because there are so many traps in the campaign then you need to remove some if not all of those traps. your game is not made for your players. there can be some traps but the adventure doesn't have to revolve around them.
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 11:13 PM	Well I guess it works for you and your group. You started this thread to ask what the deal with DMPC hate is, and we explained it you. If that's the way your group likes to play, that's fine, but now you know why it doesn't work with every group. Good luck to you:) I just think the problem is with the bad type of powergaming with the DM then it is with a DMPC. And not all DMs are up to playing both everyone else in the world beside the PCs and their own character.
DCAnderson 08-12-07, 11:15 PM	I know some was going to say this. Saddly I would point out that "again" that they play the same thing most of the time. As an aside, the cruel and sick DM in me would suggest using the Darwinistic aproach to solving this problem: Let them play whatever they want, when they get TPKd, hopefully they'll learn their lesson and make a balanced party next time :devil:
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 11:22 PM	my take on this party. sicne we are using terms i leave to EverQuest to describe classes then i will uniform to those terms only. your party has a tank/metshield and a walking med kit. what more should they need? one or the other can take a level or two in some rogue class under these new rules and get any little thieving skills they think they will need. you are still missing your wizard in your grop so how do your contend with that? simply you don;t need them like you dont need the rogue. if you have a party that doesn't have a rogue because there are so many traps in the campaign then you need to remove some if not all of those traps. your game is not made for your players. there can be some traps but the adventure doesn't have to revolve around them. I do agree that wizard is not needed. I really don't think any one class is a most have but higher levels are easier with someone that can cast blaster and buffing spell and cleric comes up short with blasting spell for some time. They won't multi class in to rogue because there are to many option and they get confused. ( their words not mine)
Ace_of_time 08-12-07, 11:27 PM	As an aside, the cruel and sick DM in me would suggest using the Darwinistic aproach to solving this problem: Let them play whatever they want, when they get TPKd, hopefully they'll learn their lesson and make a balanced party next time :devil: I have done that before. My wife most of they time is Elf monk so she is coming around.
shadzar 08-12-07, 11:42 PM	I do agree that wizard is not needed. I really don't think any one class is a most have but higher levels are easier with someone that can cast blaster and buffing spell and cleric comes up short with blasting spell for some time. They won't multi class in to rogue because there are to many option and they get confused. ( their words not mine) then until they learn to play other classes you should remove the elements that require then to need this rogue. the more they do on their own the more they will learn. even for experienced player that can be said true as well. i jsut never see a need to make a game and have to few players. if you are making the game for just those player, then tailor it specifically to them. hey they found some locked trunk in a cave and must haul it back to a local locksmith. how about a street rat instead....you know some street urchin or orphan that has no hme and will gladly go with these two women ont heir journey and use his thiving skills in exchange for protection and food. he can pick their locks and find their traps. let them share the character and he only does things that a rogue is needed for. they can alternate rolling for him and you just do all the number crunching for the NPC and tell them waht di(c)e to roll and what not. like was told to Bilbo Baggins...you're the burglar, go burgle something! he cant fight because he is too weak, but he can be a device to help them if you insist on having a trap heaving world, and at the same time teach them to use rogue abilities. there are just so many more thing you could do rather than run a character yourself that more often than not the DM having a character is seen as lazy DMing. :yuck: are you all starting out or just the ladies? if it has been said before i ain't backtracking to find out.
Ceres323 08-13-07, 12:10 AM	What, exactly, are your thoughts on all the people so far that have cited good experiences with these characters? The ones who not only ran one (or several) successfully, but actually did so in a manner that made the game more enjoyable? This is the second thread I've posted on concerning what people call "DMPCs." My experience has been that the "pro DMPC" camp is careful to say that having a character with a group of PCs, whatever it may be called, is not always a good idea, like in the case of a new DM or a large party. From what I've seen they agree that such a character shouldn't be forced on the party, either. Meanwhile, the "anti-DMPC" camp is saying any character with the party is always bad, or is bad if it is played like a PC. Silly me, I always thought you played any character so that it acts the way that character would act. I'd expect a DM to treat every NPC as "his character," and play it as realistically as I try to play my PC. I do notice that when players who have played under a DM who had a character in a game post that they enjoyed the experience, for the most part they are ignored. As far as some of the posters on this thread are concerned, it is just an inconvenient fact. Although I did check some archived threads where the players who claimed to have good experiences were called outright liars or it was insinuated that the player in question was somehow romantically involved with the DM. On a previous thread (I think on the DM boards) I posted how I enjoyed the depth of interaction the NPC the DM had with the party made the game enjoyable, and someone else posted a link to a thread where one of his players actually told the story of their game. None of the "anti-DMPC" posters ever commented on either post. I doubt they even checked the story thread that was posted - I did, and that was another campaign I wish I'd been in.
pres_man 08-13-07, 12:39 AM	Plus it kind of makes the DMseem kind of lazy or apathetic to the game in general. "Wow, my DM can't even be bothered to spend the half a second it takes to come up with an original name for a character. This is gonna be fun:rolleyes: " Actually, this makes me think of this. http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=854 Nobody wants to play a campaign with Emporer Fred or High Chancellor Gary, and so the usual approach is to give everyone high fantasy names like King Geon’ai, Sir Lua’an-Eradin, or Lady Alaain Mera-Dovrel. You know, strange and fantasy-ish. Of course, this means the names will all be unpronouncable, difficult to spell, and easily confused. For fun, have your players describe the plot of your campaign after it’s over. I promise it will sound something like this: The dragon guy with that black sword was opressing the people that lived on those hills. Then that one king with the really long beard got that one chick with the crazy hair, and she went to that one lake. Then she got corrupted by that curse thing that made her attack that group of guys we found dead. You know, the ones that had that +1 sword and the bag of holding? Once we broke her curse she told us about the dragon guy and gave us that thing. And the map. Then we found the dragon dude and kicked his ass. It’s like living in a word without proper nouns. I’ve always wanted to make a campaign like this: The Dark Lord Walter, wielder of the Black Sword of choppery, was opressing the peoples of Pittsburgh. Then King George Washington elisted the help of the Warrior Princess Rapunzel. Sadly, in the Land of Yellowstone she fell under a spell and slew the Steelers, Knights of Pittsburgh. At last the heroes freed the princess, traveled through the kingdom of Barstow, and confronted Walter in the land of Spokane. Sure, it sounds stupid, but you have to admit: your players will be able to remember, pronounce, and even spell all of the important people and places.
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-13-07, 02:58 AM	ah yes repetion. used when the point remains the same, but the listener failed to pay attention the first time. why is a DMPC bad? please read all previous threads on DMPCs. take special note of the parts where a DM is not supposed to even have his own PC. also read carefully how the DM takes away fromt he party by becmoing a part of it. and let us not forget that it is most often used as a device to fix problems with his game that this DM is too lazy and go back and properly make the encounters for the party of PCs his players created so it doesn't need his constant help via a character of his own. one more...the DM should not have his own character in his own game. by being the DM you lose that right to have a player character in order to gain the rights to control the entire world and all the nonplayer characters. if you want a PC then don't DM. if you want to DM then you don't get a PC. for whatever reason you may or may not be the DM...thems the breaks! Thanks for proving me right.
DCAnderson 08-13-07, 03:17 AM	Thanks for proving me right. If that statement isn't baiting, I don't know what is. Dude, get over yourself.
Ace_of_time 08-13-07, 09:52 AM	then until they learn to play other classes you should remove the elements that require then to need this rogue. the more they do on their own the more they will learn. even for experienced player that can be said true as well. i jsut never see a need to make a game and have to few players. if you are making the game for just those player, then tailor it specifically to them. hey they found some locked trunk in a cave and must haul it back to a local locksmith. how about a street rat instead....you know some street urchin or orphan that has no hme and will gladly go with these two women ont heir journey and use his thiving skills in exchange for protection and food. he can pick their locks and find their traps. let them share the character and he only does things that a rogue is needed for. they can alternate rolling for him and you just do all the number crunching for the NPC and tell them waht di(c)e to roll and what not. like was told to Bilbo Baggins...you're the burglar, go burgle something! he cant fight because he is too weak, but he can be a device to help them if you insist on having a trap heaving world, and at the same time teach them to use rogue abilities. there are just so many more thing you could do rather than run a character yourself that more often than not the DM having a character is seen as lazy DMing. :yuck: are you all starting out or just the ladies? if it has been said before i ain't backtracking to find out. Since I have posted on these ttap things before I'll just post them instead of posting back. Thanks for the post. I don't act for them. they act first always except combat because that is random. None of them can nor like be rogue and I stop using traps except for the one in per made advan. Like most rogues at low levels half go off in my face and i disarm the other half. And yes we roleplay all encounters except buying and selling items. when we get to town We all get a grace period for buying and selling. I don't get to sell anything unless I sell one of my old things to buy a new one. I allow them to roll Dopl if they like to try for extra bonus (+/-10% depending on a good roll or bad one). I would like to point out that only traps with search DC of 20+ can be search for by rogues any with lower than 20 can be found by anyone.
Ace_of_time 08-13-07, 09:59 AM	Actually, this makes me think of this. http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=854 As I would love to use those types of names I have that Learning disability where I switch the letters and numbers around and would never be able to read those names out to my players. I was trying not to post this because it is personal to me.
Manic Man 08-13-07, 12:34 PM	Some one who follows the party either long term or short term is an NPC Ally. So far problematic NPCs raised by people in the various complaint threads are referred to as DMPCs. I have not seen anyone say that the NPC Ally raised the entire party after single handedly dispatching the 100th level bad guy. This fellow is consistently referred to as a DMPC. The distinction between the NPC Ally and DMPC for me is pretty simple. As long as the DM is not so attached to the NPC, its not a problem.
Hakar_Kerarmor 08-13-07, 02:36 PM	If that statement isn't baiting, I don't know what is. Dude, get over yourself. It's not, get over yourself.
DCAnderson 08-13-07, 03:09 PM	It's not, get over yourself. "I know what you are, what am I?":rolleyes:
graddlin 08-13-07, 03:33 PM	GOD IN HEAVEN! Another DMPC Thread! WHY WON'T IT STOP?!:banghead: Where do these blasted things keep comming from? Hasn't everyone seen the ridiculously long threads these things produce while everyone who posts upon them gets drawn into a verbal war, all the while trying to prove that his or her point of view is the right one?! Somebody, ANYBODY, MAKE IT STOP! The Horse is dead! It's been dead for the last decade! There's nothing left of it! Leave it alone people! Take care, firends.
Ace_of_time 08-13-07, 03:41 PM	Some one who follows the party either long term or short term is an NPC Ally. So far problematic NPCs raised by people in the various complaint threads are referred to as DMPCs. I have not seen anyone say that the NPC Ally raised the entire party after single handedly dispatching the 100th level bad guy. This fellow is consistently referred to as a DMPC. The distinction between the NPC Ally and DMPC for me is pretty simple. As long as the DM is not so attached to the NPC, its not a problem. I have decide, for my post, to just call it just his character. We have decide and some WIZOs have pointed that fighting over what term to use is pointless so call it what ever you like.
Ace_of_time 08-13-07, 03:45 PM	GOD IN HEAVEN! Another DMPC Thread! WHY WON'T IT STOP?!:banghead: Where do these blasted things keep comming from? Hasn't everyone seen the ridiculously long threads these things produce while everyone who posts upon them gets drawn into a verbal war, all the while trying to prove that his or her point of view is the right one?! Somebody, ANYBODY, MAKE IT STOP! The Horse is dead! It's been dead for the last decade! There's nothing left of it! Leave it alone people! Take care, firends. I'm trying to keep this one civil. But some people just like to cause trouble if you know what I mean. You haven't said for or against it? I was just wondering you don't have to post back if you don't feel like it.
shadzar 08-13-07, 05:01 PM	Since I have posted on these ttap things before I'll just post them instead of posting back. I would like to point out that only traps with search DC of 20+ can be search for by rogues any with lower than 20 can be found by anyone. then what purpose do they NEED a rogue if not for traps? i still see no reason for your "needing" a character in their party.
Ace_of_time 08-13-07, 06:18 PM	then what purpose do they NEED a rogue if not for traps? i still see no reason for your "needing" a character in their party. I believe I have said that "again" already I was trying out a UMD build and rogue can be a good scout. It is a Cha rogue. They can be a 100 different build and half don't evolve DD and traps. they6 can be spies, assassin, Diplomat and etc. Traps are just one of there things.
shadzar 08-13-07, 09:43 PM	I believe I have said that "again" already I was trying out a UMD build and rogue can be a good scout. It is a Cha rogue. They can be a 100 different build and half don't evolve DD and traps. they6 can be spies, assassin, Diplomat and etc. Traps are just one of there things. "UMD"? UnManageable Dictator, Unus Mundus Database "build"? is this a character or a house we are talking about? quit trying to abbreviate crap and actually say what you want to say. this ain't no IM. not everyone knows these abbreviations from those video games and 3.5 etc. then when someone has the proper words you are using defined they can understand and comment on what you are saying. thus the reason we went through defining...or trying to...DMPC.
graddlin 08-14-07, 12:16 AM	I'm trying to keep this one civil. But some people just like to cause trouble if you know what I mean. You haven't said for or against it? I was just wondering you don't have to post back if you don't feel like it. For or against, you ask? Well, let's take a look at what you are fundamentally asking. You want to know if DMPCs are good to have in the game. Do you think they are? If you do, then they are fantastic for your setting. If you do not, then they are the worst thing since Pokemon. Look, it's all about what the DM and the Players want. If the DMPC is what everyone wants, then it should be a part of the game. I personally do not use DMPCs, I find it much more rewarding to have many fully-fleshed NPCs that the PCs encounter and work with from time to time. However, I ain't gonna bash someone who uses DMPCs. If they add to your fun, then more power to ya! Take care, friend.
Ace_of_time 08-14-07, 03:20 AM	For or against, you ask? Well, let's take a look at what you are fundamentally asking. You want to know if DMPCs are good to have in the game. Do you think they are? If you do, then they are fantastic for your setting. If you do not, then they are the worst thing since Pokemon. Look, it's all about what the DM and the Players want. If the DMPC is what everyone wants, then it should be a part of the game. I personally do not use DMPCs, I find it much more rewarding to have many fully-fleshed NPCs that the PCs encounter and work with from time to time. However, I ain't gonna bash someone who uses DMPCs. If they add to your fun, then more power to ya! Take care, friend. My fav post so far. It is easier for me to have just one NPC then make four or five in full detail. But I under stand some DM love making them and have no Problem with that or groups not using DMPC. Thanks for the post.
Ace_of_time 08-14-07, 03:23 AM	"UMD"? UnManageable Dictator, Unus Mundus Database "build"? is this a character or a house we are talking about? quit trying to abbreviate crap and actually say what you want to say. this ain't no IM. not everyone knows these abbreviations from those video games and 3.5 etc. then when someone has the proper words you are using defined they can understand and comment on what you are saying. thus the reason we went through defining...or trying to...DMPC.That short for Use Magicial Device. If I use a term you don't know please just ask what it is. I don't mind telling anyone anything. Also I have a play and post Online game me and my wife play just to kill time and spend time together. If you think I a Bad DM then read it for your self then decide for your self. You can get there by clicking the show post botton on my post about the 15 points buy characters or I'll post it again for you if you like. Here is what i want to do. I need at least three DMs that are willing to start new campaign. I'll post the guidelines to the game on here and we will run it for 30 days to see what happens. You can post after each game. and I think it would be nice if we posted the PC's stats at the start and the finish. After 30 days we will vote to see if we should go on or change to the new one. I'll post the over all guidelines but if you want to make it tougher post you own guideline for your game. when we quit a campaign we will post a voted winner and that DM's Players will start the next game with a magic item. If you would like to try this post here and in a week I'll post the guidelines for the first one. I'll most likely be the only one to try it but hope to get some others. PLEASE?!?! Note: thats in game time. ACE group death count: 0; day 7 / 0 Day 9/ 0 deaths Death count day 16/ 0 Day 28/ 0 deaths This is the first post to the thread. I couldn't find where I had it on this one so I posted it here. Read and judge for your self.
graddlin 08-16-07, 12:20 AM	My fav post so far. It is easier for me to have just one NPC then make four or five in full detail. But I under stand some DM love making them and have no Problem with that or groups not using DMPC. Thanks for the post. You are most welcome. Take care, friend.
Holy_Beholder 08-16-07, 11:36 AM	"UMD"? UnManageable Dictator, Unus Mundus Database "build"? is this a character or a house we are talking about? quit trying to abbreviate crap and actually say what you want to say. this ain't no IM. not everyone knows these abbreviations from those video games and 3.5 etc. then when someone has the proper words you are using defined they can understand and comment on what you are saying. thus the reason we went through defining...or trying to...DMPC. Use magic device. Build just came out of the internet, yes it gets annoying but deal with it. Also you are on to talk about it being "no IM". Fix your own problems before complaining about someone else's. And while they are much better than before(what with the really long paragraphs which were almost impossible to read) they can still be improved.
Tiberia 08-16-07, 01:51 PM	GOD IN HEAVEN! Another DMPC Thread! WHY WON'T IT STOP?!:banghead: Where do these blasted things keep comming from? Hasn't everyone seen the ridiculously long threads these things produce while everyone who posts upon them gets drawn into a verbal war, all the while trying to prove that his or her point of view is the right one?! Somebody, ANYBODY, MAKE IT STOP! The Horse is dead! It's been dead for the last decade! There's nothing left of it! Leave it alone people! Take care, firends. If only it would stop, but I doubt if it will. DMPCs are always defined as bad because the term means nothing more nor less than "an NPC whom PCs do not like." Some PCs do not like the BBEG (Big Bad Evil Guy) and call him a DMPC. Most PCs are Evil, they like the BBEG, they hate all Good NPCs and call them DMPCs.
Ace_of_time 08-17-07, 02:23 AM	Jack died last night. We were in eberron playing the Part 3 advan about the Vamp sword. We were on the boat. During the battle I couldn't use outside knowledge(about the potions) so I used a jump check to jump to the Archer boat but after the last part in the encounter and with nobody else to shoot at they arrowed me. The last time my players saw jack he was falling to the floor of the boat and then the ship went down. I was only at -1 but no way they could have made the jump but they found the potion and didn't die but now I have to roll a new one and put Him in Some how. right before the boss fight is coming. No way 2 player alone can take out a vamp without killing him at 6th. they won't another rogue. Might just go NPC and make up a story and want to see what happens with the boss before final jack death. Thought maybe capture and torture rescue mission before part four.