This thread is NOT intended to create the final definition of DMPC. This thread is NOT intended to resolve whether a DMPC is a good or bad idea. This thread is simply intended to give everyone ONE shot to make their case about how they view DMPCs. By the end of the thread, it is up to the individual reader to make up their own mind about DMPCs.
Now that said, here are some ground rules and suggestions. This thread is not for a debating the previous post, this is for stand alone ‘articles’ about how you feel and think about DMPCs. In other words, you get one post to make your best pitch possible for how you view DMPCs. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; there is no ‘right’ answer about DMPCs. Therefore, the articles should be your argument about DMPCs not an attack on previous views.
Remember, the real audience for this thread is not those writing the articles--they have made up their minds already about DMPCs--but for a new player coming to these boards. Whenever anyone feels inclined to educate a new player about DMPCs, they will be able to refer them to this thread for a comprehensive explanation. Hopefully, this will allow us to focus on less contentious issues, like paladins. . .
I would like to thank everyone in advance who submits a thoughtful post to this thread instead of starting another thread on DMPCs.
Remember, the real audience for this thread is ... for a new player coming to these boards.
...And, I might add, for not-so-new players like me who had never heard of a "DMPC" until reading this article or why there would be any controversy. The subject never came up in the games I've played.
I think a definition is in order before this thread starts. After googling for the term, I gather that DMPC is synonymous with "NPC member of the party" where said NPC has been fully developed as a character just like the PCs, and controlled by the DM. Correct?
1. Attempt to describe the term
2. Its Use
3. Its Abuse
4. A Conclusion
1. The DMPC, or Dungeon Master's Player Character, has earned this name because it is in many ways similar if not identical to the PCs. The concept, whether it is named DMPC or no, is the following: it is a character built like a PC, traveling with or often traveling with the PCs, probably gaining XP and treasure like the PCs, and which the DM regards as 'his' character, more than his other NPCs.
2. The DMPC might assist the players by filling in a gap in the party (i.e. a cleric or healer, or melee-oriented fighter is there is none), or provides plot hooks or information to keep the game going smoothly, etc. Unlike a plain NPC ally, and as an effect of the DM's devotion to it, the DMPC is more fleshed-out and interesting to interact with by the players, and probably more fun for the DM to play.
In a group where DMs take turns while sticking to the same set of characters throughout the different adventures, PCs become DMPCs when the character isn't removed from the scene, as such an intervention is often hard to motivate.
3. Complaints one might hear on these boards often imply DMs that put their own masterwork creation in the spotlights, either by outsmarting or outpowering the PCs, or keep the best for themselves: the fanciest items found fit the DM's character best, the entire campaign suddenly seems to revolve around him alone, etc. Players get the feeling that they are just his audience.
Maturity and common sense (the game ought to be fun for everybody) on the DM's behalf is the cure. A DM that sees to it that the important decisions are made by the PCs, instead of railroading them, and provides balance in combat, treasure and glory should be able to run a DMPC well.
4. I believe that the DMPC concept in itself is not bad. Just because it is a (potentially) very prominent aspect of the campaign abuse might spoil the game for the players thoroughly. In the campaign I'm currently in, though, I am enjoying the roleplaying with the DMPC elf very much, as she's holding back information about what makes her so moody and ill-tempered lately, and as her village in which we recovered from a major plothook risks to be laid to waste by an undead dragon. And no doubt our DM enjoys this better than just another table-spawned character rolled up for the occasion.
I suggest not making the DMPC a taboo because of the occasional bad news on DMPCs, but rather using this most creative tool when needed to make things more comfortable / interesting / fun.
Firstly, there's the obvious down-side of over-favorably buffing the DMPC above the regular PCs. To me, that seems like battling yourself. The idea of a DM is to have a good time by making the PCs have a good time (or at least how I've always perceived the DM's job). It is not by running yourself through a huge hack 'n' slash adventure, and cutting out the PCs who are stuck underneath your rules and your buffed character.
Not only that, a DMPC easily gives DMs catalysts to railroading plots. For example, once the players decide to leave your lovely adventure hook hanging in the water, it makes it simple for the DMPC to say, "in-character" that the players shouldn't do something. Obviously, there are other ways to railroad players, (like literally putting them on a train and not letting them get off...I think that'd be pretty hardcore railroading), but with a DMPC, the DM has the power to "inconspicuously" railroad characters.
Finally, I think that a more experienced DM could handle a DMPC how he's supposed to be handled, but, for some reason that never happens, and that makes me think that usually it's the more inexperienced DMs who do want to add in their own character to the campaign.
<_<
~Bass'-ist.
- A NPC that accompanies and assists the party, classified in the Dungeon Master's Guide as an "NPC Ally." They generally have class levels, a share of the XP, and a share of the treasure. Generally, these are just fine assuming the party needs them for one reason or another (a missing role, a special skill that is needed, or a temporary roleplay reason). They generally either shun the spotlight or take the spotlight briefly as part of a story arc.
- An actual Player Character belonging to the DM. In my opinion, this is a horrible idea due to conflict of interest and not being true to the DM role. The notable exception is gaming groups that rotate who DM's between adventures for the same group of characters.
- A disparaging slang term, like munchkin, twink, ghoulfriend, drama llama, etc. This is the most common usage I have seen, and probably the source of much of this strife is between people who think it is a neutral phrase and those that don't. Someone who holds to this definition would be as unlikely to purposefully call one of their NPCs a DMPC in their campaign as a player would be to call himself an munchkin. It's a term thrown at and earned by an NPC that should be like #1 but is played like #2. Often, they are "better" in one way or another than the PCs, such as by being more rare, for example a half-dragon multiclassed badass, or a former epic-level PC making a drawn-out recurring cameo. For one reason or another, something called a DMPC in an accusatory manner is a "pet" NPC that would not have been slapped with the label unless it appeared to be an inherent problem for the game. It's the difference between "You're killing this NPC?" and "You're killing my NPC?"
This article was inspired by the latest fad of threads in the AD&D message boards - the fad of long threads about DMPCs that seem to go back and forth until everyone starts realizing that it's getting nowhere fast. Since many wanted some form of closure, yet wanted to have their view on the matter known, it was proposed that some of us write articles on the subject, advocating our opinions. This is such an article.
Firstly, it's important to note that, due to some emotional attachment with DMPCs that some players have, a few misguided definitions have been floating around. Gamers who have had bad experiences with DMPCs flavour the description of the concept with their own dislike, and impress this upon new gamers. As a result, some minority of the gaming community has a false definition for what a DMPC is. Thus, to clarify, it should be noted what a DMPC is, and what a DMPC is not.
A DMPC is a character, run by the Dungeon Master, which is mechanically indistinguishable from a Player Character, and is a member of the main adventuring party. As such, they participate in in-game activities alongside the PC party, gain experience and wealth just as the PCs do and, if the metagame view is ignored, is an equal member of the party (more or less).
A DMPC is not a standard PC who is favored by the DM. A DMPC is not, by definition, a tool used only by bad DMs, or an in-game entity that ruins the game. Keep in mind I say "by definition", allowing for bad DMs to use them just as often as good DMs, and allowing for cases where the DMPC does ruin a game. The fact is, a DMPC is just like any tool or game element. They can be helpful if used correctly, or a gaming nightmare if misused.
In fact, I propose that using a DMPC is an ideal test of a DM's gaming ethic, since it is the ultimate example of having metagame omniscience and omnipotence, yet playing a character with limited knowledge and ability. It is a great way to determine just how good a role-player the DM is, and how fair they are in seeing if they show any bias toward their DMPC. Many horror stories about DMPCs involve the character having unreasonable amounts of information, awareness and/or ability that provides an unfair advantage. Eventually the entire party falls behind the DMPC, forced into playing support roles while the DM essentially plays with himself. Naturally this would upset any gaming group. There are other problems, like a DM modifying the game or the actions of NPCs in favor of their DMPC, choosing not to bring harm to their beloved character or selecting treasure that benefits the DMPC more than other characters in the group. These are all examples of a DM who can not separate his petty selfishness from the long term goal of hosting an enjoyable game for the players. In other words, this is not a DM who is role-playing a character, but a player who is role-playing a DM (and doing a poor job of it).
A DMPC is also an ideal test of a DM's ability to run an interesting game. Sometimes, the DMPC is used as a plot device; an in-game tool to babysit the party and make sure they "color inside the lines" of the DM's plot. Sometimes, this is because the PCs are shallow and detached, having no friends, family, history or dreams for the DM to piece together an in-game reason for the party to get out of bed, let alone adventure without being pulled by a proverbial leash. More often, the DM is simply not taking advantages of the PCs' goals, dreams, ambitions, histories and fears, to motivate their adventuring lifestyle. Whatever the case, the DMPC is used to tug the uninterested PCs along a plotline they care little about, and likely the players find this uninteresting at best, frustrating at worst.
On the flip side, a very capable DM can still use a DMPC for positive effect. In the question of gaming ethic, an ethical DM will use the DMPC as a support character, to selflessly help make the PC party look good, or to play the part of a herald or servant of the party - a role few players would willingly play with their PCs. They can also fill in some gaps in the party that are lacking, such as a passive healer or rogue who quietly follows along until needed, though if they are too meek it is a mark against the DM's ability to play an interesting character. The best role-playing balance is found in a character who is interesting and helpful, but does not attract the spotlight to the level that the PCs do, both by action and by behaviour. At most, a DMPC should be an equal party member in some aspects, but lesser in others.
In the question of the DMPC as a plot device, I've found it best if the DMPC has a background, goals and dreams just like the PCs do, but these are not used to create a central plot. Instead, it is more involving for the group if the DMPC's story coincides with that of other PCs, and/or with the main plot. Even if the DMPC's story is separate, it should be engineered to provoke party interest, such as keeping the DMPC's flavour interesting, yet convenient or a welcome break from the high-tension main plot that is all about the PCs. Keep in mind that though the DMPC would have a central role in this side story, it should be done to help establish the DMPC as a member of the PC-centric party (by needing to rely on the PCs to save the day, or some such) and/or answer questions that the players would be asking about the DMPC's past or character development. At most, this should be a brief moment for the DMPC to have some of the spotlight, but only if the players are genuinely interested in this DM-run helper with an unexplored or mysterious past. Sort of a "15 minutes of fame" for the DMPC, who is surrounded by a party of star PCs. This once again leads to the DMPC as an element of making the PC-centered (and player-focused) game interesting.
Here are two example DMPCs that I've run in the past. Both were successful and welcome by the gaming group.
1. Musora Kai - from "The Mangoons"
Musora Kai was an equal member of the PCs in ability (but not behaviour), in a game we called "Mangoons". It was a contemporary superhero power-game where all the players played quirky but incredibly powerful superbeings, who all ended up meeting in Vancouver, Canada.
Musora Kai was a co-equal member of the Magoons, arguably as powerful as any other. His past (and side-adventure) was equal to that of the other Mangoons. For all purposes, Kai was a PC who I (the DM) also happened to run. He didn't have any knowledge or information he shouldn't have had, he didn't overshadow other party members. He mostly helped in little ways and submitted to his adopted father, Master Wang (a PC, arguably the center of the group), whom he bickered with at times to provide comic relief. When things got a little heavy or dangerous, Kai would contribute to the level of an equally-powered Mangoon, but mostly he was a rather passive support character. After a time, after the Mangoons have already explored each individual PC-driven plot (taking up a few game sessions each), the party wanted to see Kai's story come to fruition as well. So they uncovered his strange past, discovering that he was the son of a Japanese god of storms, which explained his powers, and confronted his father atop Mt. Fuji.
Later, in what could be called "Mangoons Endgame" (pretty much epic level; where each character met their end, retired or whatever), Kai returned as an (equally powerful) divine messenger, whose purpose was to bring news to the Mangoons, get them together and then follow and chronicle their great deeds, to record it as legend. Then to sit forever atop Mt. Fuji and tell the Mangoons' legend to the world in dreams and in wind-shrouded myth.
On paper, Kai looked like another Mangoon. Incredibly powerful, great description, interesting past. His personality was unique and involving. What made him a great DMPC was that despite all this, he was played like a secondary character most of the time, and an equal primary character when the situation called for it, yet never overshadowed the PCs. Even at the endgame, he was a sort of bard or herald, whose only plot-purpose was to bring the Mangoons back together and acknowledge their greatness.
2. Kyle Henniger - from "The Strongest of Worlds"
The party was a group of guys who grew up in a foster home together, never getting adopted. They all saw each other as family ("brothers from other mothers") and, when they turned 16, pooled their resources, bought a big truck and started a furniture moving business. Kyle was one of them, but he was rarely around. He got sucked into an Amway cult, and spends most of his life selling and trying to look like a movie star.
Things went wrong, and eventually the group found out that their entire lives were generated by an alien computer while their bodies were "grown". They broke out, got recaptured and found out they were in a post-apocalyptic world, and that they were being bio-engineered to be the ultimate gladiators in the form of lowly mortal humans. Gladiators for an event that was run by world-collecting alien beings every ten thousand years. Billions of lives were being wagered on the outcome of the battles, and the characters had 10 years to travel the war-torn Earth, grow in power and knowledge, and train themselves to match the likes of the mightiest dragons, gods and beings of legend in mortal combat. The results were staggering.
Again, we have a DMPC who seems on par with the group. But he was designed to only be around every now and then, since he was a sort of loner who did his own thing most of the time (as habit from his Amway days in the false world). When together, he was actually a second string contributor, not really able to defeat enemies, but very good at hindering, weakening and confusing them before the group could deal the damage and death that was needed. There was only 2 moments in the entire 18 months of gaming that Kyle took the limelight.
One was when he threw a tantrum at his brothers, frustrated that their power has given them a god-complex, trivializing the lives of less powerful beings. Back before their training, deadly confrontation was a truly traumatic, nightmare-inducing experience that prompted professional therapy. Now they were like children toying with human lives like ants, and Kyle was terrified of what they'd become. This moment was designed to help create tension in the group. Some were basically turning into monsters - others self-styled champions; they were supposed to all kill each other in the very end of the arena event anyway. This was to plant a seed for future confrontation in the arena, when surviving brother turns against brother. Here, the DMPC was used as a small plot device - a single voice that was timed to help add a new dimension of internal rivalry to the game. A factor which was crucial, yet started up with a small, isolated incident.
The second was at the very end, to tie it all up. Kyle, as a master psychic, has been implanting suggestions in his brothers for the last 10 years, to be activated when Kyle says a bizarre phrase. Just as the last of the brothers were about to kill each other, he activated these suggestions, such that all (except the one brother who could raise the dead) sabotaged themselves and died at a critical moment, and after the competition the winner raised his brothers back. Then Kyle erased their memories, put them back in the machine with the simple, happy life as furniture movers and lived happily in blissful ignorance (to be continued?).
It was a twist the players weren't expecting from the psychic cyber-salesman. They all looked forward to testing their characters against each other, rivalry was high and with the DMPC's plan, they could go all-out without the players getting upset if their character was annihilated. The big, main story came to a close where all the players got to be part of the happy ending, so all the time, work, design and so on was not in vain. The group loved it. Again, the DMPC becomes a device, but mostly on a metagame level so that the players can follow through on their big final act without hesitation or sour feelings.
I hope with these two examples, you can see how a DMPC can be used as a means of improving a game. The negative experiences of some should not cast such an unpleasant shadow on such a useful tool for any decent DM. If there are any conclusions to make based on a bad DMPC experience, it's that your DM still has room to grow and improve.
The DMPC is the best sort of test to determine how good a DM really is, ethically and creatively.
I am
Malignor.
A well-run "DMPC" exists as an equal member of the group, but does not lead the party or overshadow the other characters. It makes mistakes, has no "extra knowledge", or special treatment. This does require effort on the part of the DM, and good role-playing skills. The DM is always required to separate what (s)he knows from what the character knows (although, this isn't really different from what all players must do with their characters).
A poorly-run "DMPC" tends to help railroad players into a set course, outshine or overshadow (or make redundant) the other characters. They tend to get the best/most treasure, the most "spotlight" time, etc. This is usually only a problem that new DMs or less mature DMs face (having difficulty allowing others to take the spotlight).
If you think you might have problems running a character and running the adventure (and separating the two), if you think you can't avoid ruining the fun of the others by DMing and playing, then don't do it.
If you think you are responsible enough, have good enough role-playing skills, and are mature enough to handle the task, then try it. If it works, great, if not, stop and maybe try again later.
I, personally, have never had a problem playing a character and running the adventure at the same time. No one in my games has had a problem with me doing it either (and yes, they would have said something). I always make sure that the fun of the party as a whole comes first. My characters don't lead the party, but they are active members of the party. I guess it really boils down to being able to balance everything.
1) The Terminology
2) Origins of the Tool
3) History and Drama
4) Avoiding Injuries
The Terminology
DMPC is a term that's been cropping up semi-randomly for the last couple of decades (at least) in gaming systems. . primarily those that use 'DM' to describe the gamemaster (GMPC has also popped up in other genres)
It's meaning, while not technically accurate. Is somewhat universally understood to mean a PC-like NPC that is part of the party in a Role Playing Game. Generally, this means one (or both) of two things
- The NPC functions mechanically like a PC (gains experience, levels, etc.)
- The NPC is an erstwhile member of the party
Other terms have been offered up, including such things as NPC Ally or Party NPC. However, unless some official terminology is defined in a major game system and embraced by the populace. . it appears the DMPC term is going to live on.
Origins of the Tool
DMPCs tend to become part of an adventuring party for one (or more) of the following reasons
- to fill a gap in the party (i.e. a cleric for a healer-free party) so that the players can play what they want more freely
- To function as a living plot hook for the DM, as a tool to more subtly guide the player's actions
- To assist with immersion and/or set an example of how to play
The most common type one generally sees is the gap-filler. However DMs have used all three types of DMPCs.
Gap-Fillers are most often utility or healing classes, as many players prefer to take a more active role in combats and shy away from behaving as a 'heal-bot' or 'buff bot'.
Living plot hooks tend to be more common in more RP heavy campaigns. However in many cases a party may have a long-term mascot, a sentient magic item, an individual left with the party to report to an employer, or someone the party must protect. Some of these will exist even in games lighter on RP and often won't provide much combat/support value and may even be a hindrance.
The immersion sort is more often seen in PBEM/Play-By-Post games but they also appear in tabletop campaigns. Generally they'll be used to provide flavor (dialect, etc.) as well as to assist the players by demonstrating what reactions are considered normal in the DM's world (by acting shocked if the players lash out at a respected individual, functioning as a guide, etc.)
As always, any DMPC can fill a combination of roles.
History and Drama
The tool itself has been used historically since the advent of the RPG. There have been examples of helpful or even exceptional DMPCs, but there also have been examples of ones that are negative or even game-breaking.
The reasons why should be apparent. When the DMPC itself ends up taking a role that interferes with the player's enjoyment it becomes a negative. If the gap-filler is more powerful than the characters or the RP hook ends up leading the players by the nose then it takes away from the player's feeling that their characters are important.
In the past, the 'bad' examples of DMPCs have been invariably attributed to bad DMing without the tool itself being seen as a major source of risk. This made sense, as the DM is largely omnipotent and the DMPC is one of dozens of potentially amazingly powerful tools that a DM can abuse.
Recently, on a subset of forums (including here) individuals have been using bad examples of the usage of the tool to decry the tool itself rather than the root cause of such bad usage. This has led to many fierce debates and some hard feelings.
However, in the interest of being a good DM AND a good player, it's very important to learn to tell the difference between tool and usage. There are many examples of DM tools that have been used poorly (metagaming PC abilities, potentially irrational traps/dungeons, BBEGs that may be irrational or illogical, leaning on helpful players sometimes leading to favoritism, and the list goes on). In some cases the DM is using a tool that pretty much never should be used, however in most cases it's a failure of usage on the DM's side (and/or an overreaction on the PC's side) and very rarely does one find a tool that's inherently 'bad'.
In a nutshell, the DMPC is a tool, and it's very important for us as DMs and Players NOT to get caught up in the drama or let past experiences color our impressions past the point of rationality. We instead must focus on being good DMs and PCs and helping everyone enjoy the game.
Avoiding Injuries
This is actually going to be surprisingly short, as in almost every case a 'bad DMPC experience' can be attributed to 'poor DMing'. However, there are some easy ways to keep a DMPC from becoming a problem
- If the DMPC has combat value, make certain the combat value is of a support nature and doesn't outshine the players.
- Avoid having a DMPC that's both a strong RP presence AND a strong combatant
- Don't overuse RP-hook DMPCs to string along the party. Use subtlety
- Don't give the impression that your DMPC is your 'character' (even in campaigns with DM-swapping, it's generally better to have a fellow player run your character)
- Be aware of the reactions of your players. Ask them about all aspects of your game, including your DMPC
That's really all you need to do. If you pay attention and don't let the DMPC outshine the players and DM well odds are very slim you'll run into any issues at all.
And remember, all of these are merely guidelines. It is indeed possible to run a RP-potent DMPC that also is quite powerful in combat, it's just more difficult and a lot more work for the DM, especially when it comes to making sure that all's going well for the party.
For the players themselves. The most important thing to do is NOT let your past conceptions excessively color your views. If you've had a bad experience with a DMPC in the past and it makes you nervous, then SAY so! Let your DM understand, just as you would if you didn't enjoy high or low power or magic campaigns or weren't comfortable with evil campaigns.
And also feel free to point out that you would've had more fun if 'Bob the bezerker' didn't seem to take over the fight or you'd have liked to figure out the grand vizier was the bad guy without help from 'Dave the diviner'.
----------------
Article ends: Feel free to post thoughts/opinions or PM me directly
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)
Clearly, by these definitions DMs portray NPCs and players portray PCs. There are two types of NPC party members, allies and cohorts. Allies are equal members of the party and cohorts are very similar to allies, but are distinguished by their subservient nature. Do realize that while a PC can acquire a cohort with the leadership feat that is not the only way. Cohorts are a type of NPC not limited to that feat and can join the party in many ways.
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, but let’s examine the three main arguments for using the term DMPC.
First Argument
The first argument for DMPCs is that ally and cohort do not adequately describe NPC members of the adventuring party who are run by the DM and not the players. As discussed above this argument has little merit; allies by their definition (see above) are full equal members of the party, and cohorts should be treated equally, but are subservient in their manner to the PCs. These are good terms that are defined in the rules and thus available to all who play D&D. Just because a character is a NPC does not mean is must be shallowly developed, thus there really isn’t a need for the term DMPC in this regard.
Second Argument
The second argument for DMPCs is that the DM wants his own personal PC to be part of the party, not just an ally, but a character the DM has a vested interest in. This is the contentious issue of this debate. A DM has an obligation to be fair and impartial and allow the players to decide the party’s course of action. If a DM has a NPC with the party, be it ally or cohort, he should roleplay the personalities of those characters, even if that comes into conflict with the players, but it is the players that control the destiny of the party. By the DM raising one NPC to an equal, and arguably greater, status than the PCs creates problems that outweigh the ego benefits to the DM in having his ‘own’ character.
It is understandable why some DMs want to have a DMPC, these are DMs who would rather be playing but are stuck as DM. Still as a DM you get an opportunity to roleplay (more than any player), participate in combat (on both sides if running allies and cohorts as well), and create and adjudicate a setting. There is no reason to have a DMPC unless the DM wishes to show favoritism to a character, so if you feel you must have a DMPC then you should probably return to being a player and let someone else DM.
It is argued that some DMs can run DMPCs fairly or that running a DMPC is a mark of a skilled DM, I strongly disagree. In all those situations, the DM is running the DMPC as a NPC ally, so why call it something else? All the rules and suggestions provided to play DMPC are just tips on how to run an effective NPC with the party, so using in this term in this situation must mean something else.
By using ‘DMPC’ the DM is rejecting his duty of impartiality to ‘share’ in the adventure. If a DM tells his players that a character is a DMPC, then the other players must treat it as a PC not a NPC. There is a difference, PCs are more tolerant of one another than they are of NPCs; this is basically playing nice with others. The DM is signaling to his players that a DMPC is his character and is special above all other NPCs. This informs the players that the DM expects the players to not treat this character as a NPC, but accord it the same respect as a fellow PC. Thus the DM, even if he is fair, has intruded upon the party dynamic, for he now controls both the world and participates in the control of the party.
There is a division in D&D between the DM and the players; this is not opposition, but a balance of responsibilities for a successful campaign. The DM controls the world and all the characters beyond the PCs and does this as fairly and impartially as possible, while the players control the ‘heroes’ of the campaign. This concept is fundamental.
This all leads to the third argument in favor of the term DMPC. Before moving to the third argument, what about when a DM brings in a former PC in as a NPC, should this be called a DMPC? No, the DM by bringing the PC into the campaign must treat it as a NPC in other worlds as a tool of the campaign and setting. The temptation of favoring a former PC is great, but as long as the DM reminds himself that the PC is now a NPC and a tool of the story there should be no problems.
Third Argument
The third argument for the term DMPC and the only one that makes sense is that a DMPC is a poorly portrayed NPC that the DM favors over the other PCs. Obviously, DMs run NPCs, so the juxtaposition of DM & PC is an oxymoron, but a useful one as it reflects what is wrong in this situation. A DMPC represents those NPCs, we have all encountered, that are favored by the DM, sometimes they are with the party or sometimes they are with the opposition, often many BBEGs become DMPCs. A DMPC somehow always has the answer when the party is stumped, a DMPC is often a very exotic character painstakingly crafted by the DM to maximum effect, a DMPC guides (or forces) the party in directions desired by the DM, and a DMPC seems to be a true survivor, this is especially true of BBEGs that have attained DMPC status. Of course, some DMPCs vary from minimal favoritism to outrageous game ending favoritism, but the result is the same, unfair favoritism towards a NPC over the PCs. This is the only definition of DMPC that makes sense and the one most commonly accepted on these boards:
Dungeon Master Player Character (DMPC): A NPC that the DM favors over the PCs.
Just making what I feel is an important counterpoint to the attempts to 'define' DMPC properly.
1) DMPC as a term is not an official term in any game that I'm aware of
2) Instead, as mentioned in my earlier post, it is an intuitive term that people have been coming up with for decades when describing an NPC that functions much more like a PC
3) There are indeed other terms that could be used (NPC Ally's mentioned in the D20 material, however it's arguably less intuitively accurate than DMPC is. . as it could apply intuitively to an individual who is an 'ally' but does not adventure with the party at all.)
4) In the end, the term DMPC (or GMPC in other games) will continue to crop up when defining a PC-like-NPC-run-by-a-DM. No attempts at linguistically defeating a trend is likely to succeed. . as this particular forum is only one small part of the RP community.
5) Locally the term DMPC has also been used to describe a specific subset of DMPCs (i.e. the 'bad' ones, giving the term a negative connotation)
Other points were made in my earlier post, however I feel it's important to point something out.
Attempts to 'define' DMPC to mean something other than what has been cropping up over the years (i.e. the PC-like-NPC-run-by-a-DM) will have no impact on those not at this forums and can only cause confusion. It should be accepted that this particular sort of NPC will sometimes be called a DMPC by people who will never be part of these conversations.
It's somewhat akin to saying that 'escargot' means 'bunny' in Kansas and expecting the menus to change in France.
We can, perhaps, help ease the local trend (in which individuals far more narrowly define DMPC, causing frustration and confusion in communication) by helping people break the association between the tool and bad usage (while accepting the fact that we can't change the intuitive--if inaccurate--usage of the term) and accept the term for what it is.
1. As a DM, I personally HATE THEM! Because this means in addition to running all activity that the player's don't see, I also have to be a player. However, I don't get a lot of the excitement and fun of being a player, because I know what comes next.
2. That said, I do occasionally run them. They are extremely useful for beginning players, to introduce them how to play the game. However, if you have an experienced player, have them teach the n00bs. Seriously, it's not worth the hassle.
I'm a storyteller. Mostly my stories are science fiction with the balance being fantasy. I've been doing it for 12 years. While the audience is small (the Mensa Science Fiction and Fantasy SIG), I put all of myself into it. Some of the SIG members have even said they like my stories. I can at least say I've never been asked to stop submitting my stories.
I came to play D&D for my first time in Spring 2005 in part because I like storytelling. D&D does not disappoint, but it isn't the same as writing a story. When I write, I have one or a few core elements around which I'll craft a story. It could be the redhead girl wearing a green dress on the subway; it could be a strange thing like airport 48U, the Greater Green River Intergalactic Spaceport. Once I have some elements that can grow into a story, I gather characters. They're obviously a part of me, but they're not me. In fact they have lives of their own. They interact with each other in ways I cannot plan. Sometimes I'll include some elements to help turn, guide, or otherwise twist the story, but I never try to force characters into doing anything. Some stories write quickly, some simmer for years. A few I've tried to write simply stop, and must be allowed to lie dormant.
I've only so far crafted the core of a D&D game, which I subsequently turned into a short story. I've not yet been a DM, but the time draws nearer. The difference between writing a story and crafting an adventure I think is that the DM only sets the environment in which the game is run. The DM establishes the conflict situation or world, and the adventurers interfere with it and subdue it.
An evil wizard has been lording over villages in the Araban mountains...
If he's been lording over villages, then he's somehow achieved power over lots of people who aren't likely to submit easily. That means the wizard has placed underlings throughout the region in order for him to steal and control with relative impunity. That also means there are going to be lots of villagers to react with the adventurers. Some will want help, and some will want to subdue it. Maybe the adventurers are supposed to determine why certain goods have stopped flowing to a distant village, or maybe they've been sought to assassinate this leader. In any case, there should be a sufficient hook to get them started, and enough information along the network of paths to get to the wizard.
A network of paths should be sufficiently extensive that you're not "guiding the party by the nose," limited in scope to ensuring they could eventually find the evil wizard. WotC's Vicious Venues is a particularly twisted way to add to the network. Whether a DM uses one of these or creates his own, he gives the party some action they weren't expecting. It's up to them to decide they're on the wrong path, assuming they survive.
I see lots of potential for NPCs, some helpful to the party, some detrimental. Overall though I see the DM as operating completely opposite the adventurers, the heroes. The funny thing is that I wrote this as a position against DMs who run their own PCs, a position I maintain. I now also see an origin for its opposite, the DM who wants to "win the game".
The original concept was to distinguish one particular NPC from the others, as that NPC actually travels with the party, interacts with them as an equal and gains in experience as a party member - but is still an NPC at the end of the day. It was a way to fill in the blanks for a party that was otherwise unbalanced or under strength.
The term DMPC is an oxymoron, as DMs cannot by definition run PCs. Nonetheless, some DMs have tried to run their DMPCs as if they were full-fledged PCs, and have invested a lot of time and effort into them ... and run full-tilt into a conflict of interest problem that can destroy their game.
The reason for all the venom in the threads was that some posters held the former view and couldn't see what was wrong with it; others had experienced the latter and had bad associations; a few represented the latter but didn't want their fun spoiled.
All in all, it's a term that never should have been coined because it is so misleading in its original context. 'PNPC' would have been the better term (for Party Non-Player Character) to use, but done is done ...
I don't think this exclusively should be treated as an issue. A DM can entirely screw up any game by doing any number of things. And also, every group is different. Most can just get over it and be happy, whichever way they feel and whichever way the DM is acting, I think the problem lies when people want an absolute "right" way to do it, and others think differently.
I have ALWAYS had a DMPC. It has never been a problem, either for me or for any of my players. That said, I usually let that player sit back and do only as he is told, he will heal people, fight some, but he won't revel a boss' weakness, tell them the next plot point, or help them figure out a puzzle, even if I could have, as a player, thought of it.
I have seen those who have abused this. They have a DMPC-ish character who is higher level, steals the spotlight, they always lead people into the plot, but also are secretive, and smugly know everything. That is a pain in the ass, but guess what? That DM also made up rules randomly, kills players in a way that they have absolutely no defence, and is in general a power crazy jerk I think, in general, a bad DM is a bad DM, and a good DM is a good DM. If you somehow convince a Bad DM to not have a DMPC, it won't make the experience any better. Nor will having one in any way hamper a good DM.
On to what DMPC means. I think it is abundantly clear that it means what it says... Dungeon Masters Player Character. A character that the DM views as his PC. There can be no other definition. To have another definition would be like saying that although “BK” stands for Burger King, it just means any fast food restaurant that serves cheeseburgers.
"What’s wrong with DMs running PCs?"
DMs need to devote a lot of time and attention in session to running the session. He manages everything from NPCs, to traps, to anything else that he has to keep track of, including all of the PCs actions. The PCs likewise have to devote a lot of time toward thinking as their character and deciding how to react to the situations presented by the DM. If the DM were to attempt to play a PC as well, he will have to sacrifice some of the time he would be DMing to playing his PC and both roles will suffer for it. Pick the side of the screen that you are happiest on and do that to the best of your ability so that your entire group can benefit.
Personally I swear by DMPCs, and they are the best tool that I can recommend to DMs like myself who don't particularly like DMing but are forced to do it every time anyway. Quite simply, DMing isn't a whole lot of fun unless you're the kind of person who's into it or you run a hack'n'slash. Sure you run NPCs, sic monsters on the party, and control traps, but if you're a DM like me who likes to let your players roleplay rather than jumping from encounter to encounter then you'll find you're spending a lot of time just watching the players.
A DMPC also has a good use as a method to get the adventure on track. Not to railroad the players, of course. Rather, when Johnny PC fights for a week to get to the orc caves then suddenly decides to stand in front of the cave entrance and refuse to let any of the other PCs enter because "I don't like being railroaded" it's nice for the DM to have his own PC there can calmly inform the guy that he's been paid in advance to do this mission and to stop being a prick. (Yes, this has happened to me.)
The Cons of the DMPC
Obviously, a DMPC can be a bad thing as well. As has been brought up before, a DM is tasked with controlling the entire adventure and running a DMPC can detract from that. That said, I've run DMPCs in all of my games and it has never distracted me from running the game.
There is also the temptation to the DM to run his DMPC as the hero, giving him most of the XP and all the good items, and putting him in the spotlight to the point where the players feel like spectators. However, as has been mentioned before, this is usually not the issue. Simply put, a bad DM who runs a DMPC poorly is a bad DM even if he's not running a DMPC.
In Conclusion
In my last adventure I ran a DMPC. He was one level higher than the party to start because I originally had a VERY small party: only three people, one of which couldn't even make his own character. When we started getting more players I leveled him down.
He got a share of the XP and a fair share of the treasure. He helped in combat. However, when we got to the "trap gauntlet" section of the dungeon he stood back and let the real PCs figure out the puzzles and get past the traps. When they had to use any sort of diplomacy, bluffing, etc with NPCs he let them do that as well. He never took the spotlight.
So I fully believe that a DMPC, run well, can be a good thing and I will still advise new DMs to look into it.
A DMPC is fine as long as it doesn't take a leading role. One DMPC I had ended up having such a high Diplomacy, Bluff, Gather Information, etc, that what I noticed was that the party stopped roleplaying and asking questions and started relying on my DMPC to just do it for them. For a bit, I made him act dumb and say, "Well what should I ask the shopkeeper?" but that got annoying so I wrote him out of the story.
What's worked are things like clerics, who support the party with spells, some combat, and answering questions about very specific things (religion..undead..history...) like a sage. Fighters can work as well, as long as they're not the only fighter. Barbarians work well in this role also.
Mostly though, I think it's a good measure of a DM. You can be a good DM without playing a DMPC, but you can't play a DMPC without being a good DM.
In the English Language not all words are deliberately interpreted in the most literal and narrow manner possible. 'Football' does not mean a ball made from, or shaped like, a foot. 'Goldfish' does not mean a fish made of gold.
I could argue for ages that a 'goldfish' cannot exist, as it would quickly sink into the water, but people who use the common definition would laugh at me. It's even more of a mistake to apply the same logic to a term that does not have a dictionary definition. To argue against common usage is foolish and accomplishes nothing.
For the purposes of debate, the DMPC's definition should incorporate the range of frequently accepted sorts, rather than one narrow and exclusive definition.
Running a DMPC
While there are legitimate arguments against specific types of DMPCs, it should be made clear that the more effort put into the personality and design of any sort of NPC, the EASIER they are to run in a campaign and generally the more rewarding the interactions with the players.
As a DM, running a character with a fully formed personality is simple and doesn't use up some limited pool of mental functioning.
In such a scenario, any failings would be attributed to bad DM-ing and not the existence of a DMPC or NPC of any sort.
Defining the DMPC:
In the English Language not all words are deliberately interpreted in the most literal and narrow manner possible. 'Football' does not mean a ball made from, or shaped like, a foot. 'Goldfish' does not mean a fish made of gold.
No, "football" means a ball that you kick with your foot and "goldfish" means a fish that is golden in color, the same way that DMPC means a Dungeon Master's Player Character.
I personally do not have a problem with a DMPC or whatever you want to call them outshining my character in combat, provided the character is not a complete one-up of mine. For example, one of the DMPCs in one game I'm in is a Ranger with a fullblade. Needless to say, this guy deals a lot of damage in melee, and much more than my Swordsage does, but that is what he is supposed to do; my character can do a lot of things he can't. Similarly, in the game I run I have a greatsword smash character (because for some reason everyone in my group wants to play a Rogue, Monk, or Wizard in every game, or some class that is very similar to one of those, like Swordsage) who can deal more damage with a pure full attack than most of the other characters. Nobody has a problem with this since she was made with the exact same rules their characters were.
The thing with DMPCs is that they have to have a point. They need to be side quest fodder or have interesting roleplay interactions with the PCs, or they're really just a mindless zombie. Sure, every group wants to have a healbot, but if the healbot DMPC is a non-character, they quickly put the "bot" back in "healbot". The game I mentioned above that I play in has three DMPC characters, a Cleric of Olidammara, a Ranger, and a Rogue (The PCs are a Swordsage, a very atypical Warblade, and a Wizard). Each of them has some role in the story that we (and sometimes they) do not totally know about; the Rogue somehow has a modern-era sniper rifle and does not know where he got it, the Cleric was obviously fleeing something and seems to have a connection to one of the BBEGs, and the Ranger seems like a total bum but my character has been ordered by his liege to bring him to a specific major city, an order described to him as "of the utmost importance".
Not just that, but DMPCs are good "scratching posts" for players to roleplay their character's less desirable traits without having to worry about offending another player personally. The Cleric mentioned above is commonly used as such a scratching post by my Swordsage, mainly in his constant condemnation of her deity and alignment (He worships Hextor), as well as extremely cruel personal insults. This allows me to roleplay my character as the sneering, judgmental ass that he is without ruining another player's enjoyment of the game.
[b]The Name[b]
Can a DM have a PC? Isn't it then an NPC? Blah? Blah blah blah? Etc. This is quite possibly the LEAST important point here. No one here would stop arguing if a DM did the exact same thing, but just called it an NPC. So please, while arguments about the validity of terms are, indeed, themselves valid, I don't think it's what most people are complaining about.
A DMPC would hog the spotlight!
Possibly. The DM could also kill your character for no reason. He could reduce you to level 1. He could have an NPC hog all the glory. A bad DM will ALWAYS ruin a game, it is IMPOSSIBLE for him or her not to (almost).
Every DM I have known to have a DMPC always keeps to the shadows. If they have special skills, they will use them only when asked. They are reactive, not preparatory (unless it's something obvious, like a strength buff to the tank before a battle) etc etc. A DM could just as easily tailor encounters to make one other player constantly in the spotlight, or an NPC who is in and out, not a constant presence like a DMPC (in fact I know a DM who does both, often, which is why I was never in his game).
A DMPC could not do both!
Depends, again, on the DM. Some are so on top of things they can doodle while game is going, and it works out fine. Others are sweating and stammering and going 10,000 miles a minute, still not keeping up or making game run smoothly. In my game, people make jokes, tell stories, etc, in the middle of game. It makes EVERY game run slow, but we all like it that way, so it works. However, this leaves me sitting around a lot, and everyone else too. And I am more than on top of things. I plan out EVERYTHING. Every structure has a hardness and hp, every person has a sheet and stats that they meet. Every location they can reach in a game period has specific stuff happening at specific times. I keep track of time spent accurately, so they pay for goofing around in game too much, etc etc. For me, it is no problem to run a DMPC. If the mob has a secret weakness, I attack it like normal. If someone asks me to roll knowledge on the mob, I'll do so then tell everyone the weakness if I make the DC.
In fact, I think you have to play your DMPC in a laid back way, not solving puzzles, guessing weaknesses, leading, etc, and that is what makes it easy enough to do both at the same time.
Why argue on the board?
This isn't so much an issue, as an earnest question. Now I know the boards boil down to chest puffing contests, asking for info you could find yourself if you were less lazy, showing off knowledge, and then the .01% of actual, heartfelt community and exchange of ideas. And I know that's what this boils down to: my way MUST be better than yours and I'll type and type and type until you agree or leave, or I catch something you said on some technicality and claim your point of view is wrong because you don't know the STR bonus of a Centaur or something. Hell, you could say that is what I am doing. But I am here honestly trying to get people to open their minds to this concept: In D&D, all that matters is the group. Some house rule so much you can barley recognize it is d20, others are all rules lawyers, some DMPC, some do not, some like to play evil, others not. Where this discussion should REALLY be happening, is within a group. I think a lot of people here just want to create an online base, so that in game they can say HA! They agree, so stop it. Or maybe they are just venting frustrations from game.
The best way is to just play the game. If you get overruled sometimes, you just have to roll with it. If it becomes too hard for you, stop that game and find someone else. Bad experiences or no, it's not good to attempt to browbeat others who disagree with you.
I will thus be using the definition of
"1. The DMPC, or Dungeon Master's Player Character, has earned this name because it is in many ways similar if not identical to the PCs. The concept, whether it is named DMPC or no, is the following: it is a character built like a PC, traveling with or often traveling with the PCs, probably gaining XP and treasure like the PCs, and which the DM regards as 'his' character, more than his other NPCs." (thank you to Pippa)
From my experience running and playing campaigns, the usage of a DMPC in any campaign, for any reason, both as a concept and as a tool, represents a completely incompetent DM.
As the arguments against the dangers of favoritism have already been addressed by all and sundry, I feel comfortable safely ignoring them. However, several arguments in favor of DMPCs have been put forward, that i feel need to be refuted.
1. The party has no ***
What's your point? Like I stated above, I have run games consisting of 7 fighter types, with not a spell level between them. This is an easy fix with the right magic items.
No Priest? Easy fix. Use an alternative rules package for magic potions. Effectively, items of less then 1000gp value are "mundane". Then tweak the magic item table so that a given item level (minor, medium, major) is equal to 1d4 of the next level down (1 minor = 1d4 mundane). yes, this stands the potential of the party ending up with 64 potions after defeating the elder dragon, but they just hacked an elder dragon to death. They're gonna need them.
No Arcane? Again, the intelligent distribution of magic items can easily remedy this. Necklaces of fire balls, boots of flying, hats of disguise, mildly tweaked rods of negation, all of these can over come the lack of an arcane spell caster.
No Thief? The Chime of Opening is a 3000 gp magic item. By 4th level, the party should have one. Or three. Or maybe five. As to the traps? Well, just tone them down a bit. Instead of burning hands or lightning bolt, try glitter dust, alarm or stinking cloud. Make the mechanical traps consistently ecl-3. Design the traps knowing the party is simply going to walk into them.
The final point here is this; Leadership is a 6th level feat. By 6th level, your all fighter party should have been roasted, blinded, cursed, drained, poisoned, dazed, charmed, and flat out pin cushioned so many times they are practically begging for cohorts.
As a rule, i let my players run their cohorts (followers to, usually). This is because it is the characters who are supposed to be giving them orders, so as long as the appropriate melee actions are used up, and the orders are those the followers would follow, no problems.
But I Need A Plot Device!
Riderless Carts, Arrow filled Gnomes, Desperate Merchants, any of these will work as a plot starter. As for guidance, the tracks are in mud, the treasure hunter has a map, the news is all over town, a hundred other devices are equally usable, and far less imposing. The DMPC as a valid plot guidance tool is kind of like the box canyon as a guidance tool. Invariably, its only purpose is to tell the PCs what they “should” be doing. In the end, you are still leading them around. This is where random encounters come in. You know the one thing I added to all my self designed encounter tables. Accelerating Frequency. That’s right, a chart that says the longer you wander around aimlessly, the more likely it is you will run into something bigger and meaner then you are. Go ahead, wander all over the place, the hill giants will find you sooner or later.
An important part of DMing is teaching the PC to use their own brains, rather then just their characters. Going into the nicely planned dungeon means you will probably be facing creatures you can beat. Traipsing all over creation like Bonzo the clown means you will probably run into something you can't beat. It may take some players a few characters to learn this. Trust me, it’s necessary, they'll thank you.
3. Training
I presume we are talking about role training, not rule training. Teaching the rules to someone is no harder then handing them the book and telling them to read. Teaching them to play well is anther matter. Noob training is absolutely the worst time you could use something like a DMPC. To role play well, you need to get in the habit of thinking independently. Is the troll an illusion? Why is the artifact just sitting there? What does the Duke want with that Talisman of the Sphere? These are things any good player knows to ask, because they know the consequences if they just charge in. These consequences are what you have to teach the noobs. Not by prodding and poking with a hyped up NPC, but by allowing them to walk into the fire ball traps, attack the wand wielding goblin, fight the mirror images, and hand the Rod of Rulership to the chaotic evil lord. In time, they will learn to look a little closer at what is going on.
With a DMPC, they learn only to take orders, or at best, clues. They come to rely on the experienced (DM run) character to tell them what to do, and stop thinking. Retraining them at this point becomes utter hell.
4. Immersion?
This is possibly the most absurd of the arguments presented. The characters are supposed to be immersed, not you. You have other things to do then compensate for the parties lack of charisma based skills and/or back story. Ask them to type up a back story between games, put them in situation the have no choice but to talk their way through (I love contract negotiations). Don't do it for them.
At best, I feel DMPCs are the reluctant DMs out. The person is question does not want to be DMing, so they make a character to run. I consider this completely inappropriate. If you don't want to DM, don't. You will not have the heart to do a good job of it, and even if the players tell you its a wonderful game, you know your not giving them your all. Wander up to your local college and ask for the game club. Ask your local game store to post a DM's list. Find someone who wants to do it.
At worst, it's the ultimate symptom of the lazy DM. The DMPC is there to handle all that nasty work of building a plot line, creating player interest, creating original NPCs, getting the players moving, compensating for the parties weaknesses, forcing the players to compensate for them, and generally getting the party from point A to point Z. Skilled DMs use multiple and variant methods of accomplishing these things, because it keeps the players on their toes. Using the same device over and over, um, yeah.
I will thus be using the definition of
"1. The DMPC, or Dungeon Master's Player Character, has earned this name because it is in many ways similar if not identical to the PCs. The concept, whether it is named DMPC or no, is the following: it is a character built like a PC, traveling with or often traveling with the PCs, probably gaining XP and treasure like the PCs, and which the DM regards as 'his' character, more than his other NPCs." (thank you to Pippa)
Emphasis mine, of course.
IMHO, if a DM regards an NPC as 'his' character--whether it's a BBEG, a NPC, or whatever else--we have an issue. Or, to state it more accurately, if the DM thinks of the DMPC as more 'his' character than all the other creations the DM must come up with. If, however, he's simply created a tool then there's no inherent problem with it.
The rest of the argument, however, seems to be stemming from a perceived NEED for a DMPC, and it's hard to tell whether you mean the specific version you quote or one of the many variants that are mentioned on this board that the DM is not unusually attached to. And in that argument, there seems to be a heavy emphasis on the fact that there are often 'other' alternatives. While this is true, this does not mean that the existence of 'other' alternatives should preclude a DM from using one of his tools. In fact, I consider that a very flawed argument.
In every case, there are alternatives to one of the many variants of the DMPC. This is not, however, a duel of some sort where the DM must choose between two alternatives. If the DM is not using a DMPC that includes the BOLDED component I emphasized in your initial post, then most of the arguments given become irrelevant, as if the DM is using multiple tools intelligently and is enhancing the game experience for the players and not disrupting it, then there is nothing to fault.
As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, it is a mistake to merge bad usage of a tool and the tool itself. If you take away the bad usage generally the tool becomes completely viable and useful if implemented intelligently.
No, "football" means a ball that you kick with your foot and "goldfish" means a fish that is golden in color, the same way that DMPC means a Dungeon Master”s Player Character.
And to quote one of the wisest nonexistent entities in 80s cinema, “And that is why you fail.” A football is not “”a ball that you kick with your foot,” it is the name of two sports (the one Americans know as Soccer and the one Europeans know as American Football). It is also the name of the balls used in both of these sports. It does not mean, however, that rubber ball you kick in “kickball” despite the fact that it is frequently kicked with your foot, far more so than in American Football. In fact, if you ask an Aussie and a Texan what “football” is or a “football” is and they will sincerely describe different things--and both be correct.
Similarly, a goldfish is not a “fish that is golden in color”, rather it is a specific form of domesticated carp, many forms of which have an orangeish color. It does not encompass the set of all “fish that are golden in color”, nor are all of its members” golden in color. They are, however, always fish.
Unless they’re a cracker.
The DMPC also has a multitude of meanings depending on who you speak with. There is no point in arguing based on literalistic definition, that’s akin to arguing over who would win in a game of football, David Beckham or Peyton Manning. Without clarification you don’t even know which “football” is being played.
There should be no linguistic argument about “DMPC”, only arguments based on effective and ineffective usages of the tools that are part of the DMPC “field” so to speak.
And to quote one of the wisest nonexistent entities in 80s cinema, “And that is why you fail.” A football is not “”a ball that you kick with your foot,” it is the name of two sports (the one Americans know as Soccer and the one Europeans know as American Football). It is also the name of the balls used in both of these sports. It does not mean, however, that rubber ball you kick in “kickball” despite the fact that it is frequently kicked with your foot, far more so than in American Football. In fact, if you ask an Aussie and a Texan what “football” is or a “football” is and they will sincerely describe different things--and both be correct.
Despite the refute, you have instead proved my point. "Football" is indeed a "ball that you kick with your foot" and the fact that later the same name was used for an American football does not change the original definition one bit.
Similarly, a goldfish is not a “fish that is golden in color”, rather it is a specific form of domesticated carp, many forms of which have an orangeish color. It does not encompass the set of all “fish that are golden in color”, nor are all of its members” golden in color. They are, however, always fish.
"Goldfish" does indeed mean "a fish that is golden in color", they did and still do happen to be carp and the original breed has expanded and now includes many non-golden carp but that does not change the original definition of "goldfish."
The DMPC also has a multitude of meanings depending on who you speak with. There is no point in arguing based on literalistic definition, that’s akin to arguing over who would win in a game of football, David Beckham or Peyton Manning. Without clarification you don’t even know which “football” is being played.
There should be no linguistic argument about “DMPC”, only arguments based on effective and ineffective usages of the tools that are part of the DMPC “field” so to speak.
DMPC has one meaning and one meaning only, arguments to the contrary are the desire of the poster to paint the effects of a DMPC in a different light. DMPC means Dungeon Masters Player Character and no amount of denial will change that fact.
I currently run a campaign with a friend where I have a DMPC in addition to the regular work of the DM. What I have found is that it can totally make our game more fun. Sure I can see how some DMs could use it to railroad, or force their character to be seen as the "best", but in our campaign, we both (yes there are only 2 of us) share the weight of the adventures. Also it gives the other player a lot more support to make decisions he wants to, since we do a lot of our stuff somewhat on the fly, I don’t try to lean either way with a decision. But in my opinion/experience having a DMPC will really help the team seem more cohesive both at the table, and away from it.
Except that one member of the "team" is the person who designed and controls every obstacle you face...
Despite the refute, you have instead proved my point. "Football" is indeed a "ball that you kick with your foot" and the fact that later the same name was used for an American football does not change the original definition one bit.
"Goldfish" does indeed mean "a fish that is golden in color", they did and still do happen to be carp and the original breed has expanded and now includes many non-golden carp but that does not change the original definition of "goldfish."
You win my point, thank you very much.
Football is the name of a game in which a round ball is often kicked, and it's also the name of a game in which an ovoid ball is rarely kicked.
A football is also a briefcase that contains nuclear launch codes.
A football is also something that is tossed around roughly as a 'hot potato' in corporate and political lingo.
The word has all these meanings despite the fact that the only literal definition would encompass an entity that is both foot and ball, even ‘a ball that is kicked with a foot' is not a literal definition, but rather one that's assumed based on social knowledge and context.
Similarly, a DMPC can be. . .
A PC that's run as an NPC by the DM in a multi-DM rotating campaign.
A NPC that's of special importance as a plot hook and is a recurring NPC Ally.
An NPC that travels with the party and functions much as a PC does in that it gains it's own experience and functions much as a PC does.
An NPC that travels with the party but does not actually participate in most combat scenarios, a non-combatant character of importance to the campaign.
All of these are valid interpretations, as the word is not owned by the most literal definition.
Just as the briefcase with launch codes can be called the football, and the American game of football can be called (and contain) the same despite a dearth of ball-foot contact.
DMPC has one meaning and one meaning only, arguments to the contrary are the desire of the poster to paint the effects of a DMPC in a different light. DMPC means Dungeon Masters Player Character and no amount of denial will change that fact.
No, the DMPC has several meanings, and just as a goldfish can be a cracker or a fish that hardly has a golden color and just as a football can be a briefcase or a bit of business slang, so can a DMPC be all of these meanings.
There is no logical argument to the contrary. The amount of words and phrases that contain multiple meanings greatly outweighs the number that only have one.
So, let's get to what they ARE and what they DO, not some silly legalistic discussion on made up definitions of a made up slang phrase.
So, let's get to what they ARE and what they DO, not some silly legalistic discussion on made up definitions of a made up slang phrase.
Let's do none of that. I refer to KJW's original post to point out the intention of this thread, and its rules.
Then the term "DMPC" grows to include any NPC who occurs more than once. DM spends time defining the NPC's stats and attitude; metagaming PCs spot the difference between DM's Pets versus Blobs and Red-shirts.
A Paranoid DM conceives tricks and fancies so that evil PCs cannot immediately distinguish Pets versus Blobs at which point, meta-gaming PCs insist that their Characters all have the Detect NPC spell and decide to wage war on everybody in the World.
1.1) An over mighty Ally is bad for gaming, the Party just sit back and watch the Ally do heroic stuff. A mighty NPC who turns up now and again might work, but too much of that is Deus ex Machina.
12) An Ally favoured by the DM is bad. They must roll dice like everyone else.
1.3) The Ally must not know the details of the Dungeon, they only know what they know in game.
1.4) It is bad if the Ally dominates the proceedings, if the Ally stays at the back all the time then they are a servobot, not a person. The Ally needs a personal agenda which is relevant occasionally.
If PCs are successful and acquire a reputation, then NPCs will want to join. That's logical Captain.
Irellock lists ways to solve problems without using NPCs. His solutions seem complex; NPCs are simple. PCs want a Universe with no other people but that is an unrealistic Game World.
I would also like to point out that if any NPC is ruining the game they should probably die, leave in a huff, be recalled by the King for " more important missions", or be vaporized by a blue bolt from the sky since that NPC is now making it more difficult for the Players and the GM to work together to create a great story.
If the players leave--game over. Likewise, if the GM leaves--game over. The only expendable asset is the NPC or, in this discussion, DMPC.
On the other hand, our GM has several times introduced an NPC that through Player interest has hung around, or recurred, or gotten involved one way or another. The huge difference in this particular instance is that we chose that NPC because it was interesting, and the GM really got into playing it because we interacted with it. Since it was the most interactive of the NPCs we met, we as players included it, but always felt free to treat it just as we treated each other. "So that one great artifact is perfect for your character and everyone else gets scraps...fine sell the lot and divide evenly. Too bad, you're outvoted buddy!"
We also felt obligated to save that NPC when the chips were down, just like we'd expect it to save us too. The minute it isn't reciprocal he's likely to get midnight watch alone, know what I mean.
I see no real problem with a DMPC as long as the players choose to accept it, but how many of us in real life would hang out with someone who made us feel stupid or incompetent all the time. Or someone who always acted selfishly and expected the best of everything? I mean it's called role playing, but there should be a certain resemblance to reality in the Players and the NPCs reactions to things or you completely lose your suspension of disbelief.
A DMPC is not just an NPC who hangs around a lot. He has to be something more. He should be in most ways equivalent to any of the other characters, except that he's controlled by the DM.I can think of a number of reasons why such a situation would arise.
- The DM has made the sacrifice of giving up on being a player, and doesn't want to miss out
- A regular player has left - temporarily or permanently - and his character should still be part of the party. Or there are just too few players available.
- The party aren't sure how to roleplay, and need an example from an experienced player.
These seem to be perfectly valid reasons and it seems reasonable to play a DMPC in those circumstances. The possibilities for abuse still remain. The DM needs to balance the wish to play his character as well as possible with the handicap of knowing everything that's happening behind the scenes. It may be that if a DM knows he's going to be playing a DMPC, he should design his encounters accordingly. If the Wizard is going to zap the first character who begins a sentence with a vowel, the DMPC is going to be at a big advantage.
I repeat the obvious message: a bad DM will be bad with or without a DMPC. A good DM will still be good. But an OK DM might spoil an otherwise OK dungeon if handled wrong.
No, "football" means a ball that you kick with your foot
While a ball is kicked with a foot in many different sports, the term "football" denotes any game (and object of that game) that is played on foot, rather than on horseback like polo. That is why so many different sports are referred to by the same term. But that is just needless nitpicking over the history and meaning of a term.
This is similar to the way the DMPC debate has endured. In the strictest since, a DMPC is just another term for a NPC. In other words, a PC run by the DM. Some reserve the term for a NPC that the DM regards as his PC. It may be the same PC that the DM uses when not the DM, or a PC that the DM has used as a PC in other games, or just a NPC that the DM favors over NPCs as if it was his own PC.
None of that is inherently bad; however, it is a conflict of interest that could jeopardize the enjoyment of everyone else. The DM is supposed to be an impartial judge. He creates the world and judges the actions of the PCs in it. A PC having the same knowledge of the world as the DM means that the PCs are not equals anymore. Nobody wants to feel that their characters are insignificant. Ultimately, the game could become dull and the DM could lose his players.
Some DMs can pull this off. They play a character right along with the PCs, even using the same character when someone else DMs. It could and has worked. Most of the time it doesn't. Humans have an infinite capacity for bias and self-deception. That is why the same attorney is not allowed to argue both for the prosecution and the defense. Sure it could work. But would you feel like you got a fair trial?
Definition: An NPC ally or protector who is not otherwise specifically treated as a follower, cohort, or hireling and whose actions are determined by the DM. The term DMPC is hard for some to swallow, simply because it is itself an oxymoron. In many ways, however, it is the oxymoron quality of the term which most characterizes it to the users and has gained popularity.
Implications: DMPCs do not seem bad on paper. What could go wrong with an NPC ally?! In practice, any of these DM controlled and developed NPCs (read DMPC) are treated with undue favoritism, help railroad the players, steal the spotlight, take treasure, disrupt the party, or any combination of those things. Favoritism in any fashion by the DM makes for sour play.
History: They've been around for decades. Independently created by many DMs, no book teaches DMs to game in this particular manor. Instead, it derives from the DM’s desire to get in on the action, a DM's ego, or simply misguided attempt to move the story along.
Solution: While nobody can dictate what you choose to do at your own gaming table, I would like to strongly recommend not falling in to the trap of running an NPC that is or MAY BE INTERPRETED BY THE PLAYERS as a favored DMPC. If you wish for an ally to accompany the players, let them control it like a standard follower including the ability for them to refuse the ally. Especially shy away from long-term big brother/protector NPCs.
Also, even if the DM in question does feel this way, it is important to note that they will never be able to get a "player’s experience” while being the DM so that reason for running a DMPC is quite illogical.
DMPC is a term that refers to a Dungeon Master Player Character. The term is an oxymoron. There are Players and there is a Dungeon Master. Players role-play personas referred to as Player Characters (PC). The Dungeon Master handles everything else. Any other character in the game that players interact with is a non-Player Character (NPC); meaning a character run by the DM.
The term DMPC is loosely applied to mean any NPC that has more stakes in the parties fun than a hireling, apprentice or other shmuck tag along character that is adventuring with the players. Some DMs swear up and down that they are separating their character's interests from their DM knowledge (basically their omnipotence/omniscience of the game world). They devise elaborate ways to determine if their DMPC would know something beneficial to the party, if they know something misleading for the party, or if they know nothing at all of benefit to the party. The problem with this mentality is that this is exactly what every DM does already for all NPCs. A DM can invest just as much into an NPC as a player does into a PC. It’s easier to refer to characters in the traditional sense; players run PCs, DMs run NPCs.
The object for the DM is to put the PCs into the spotlight more than the NPCs. The DM has enough of the spotlight by running adventures and creating integral storyarcs for the players to interact with, as well as creating significant NPCs that the players have a desire to interact with on a regular basis in an ongoing campaign. Any of the DMs attention that is diverted from running the campaign (i.e., running a full fledged PC - or DMPC) is attention removed from creating a fun gaming environment for the players.
The term has been loosely applied to characters run by DMs who alternate sitting in the DMs seat (2 or more alternate DMs for one campaign). This is a more logical fit for a DMPC. When the DM is running, their 'PC' becomes an NPC and the other player's characters are in the spotlight. When it’s not their turn to DM, they become a PC sharing in the PC spotlight with the normal player's characters.