Does anyone feel that NPCs take away from the player's experience? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Does anyone feel that NPCs take away from the player's experience?

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
fridaynightdnd
Feb 28, 2010 10:15:57 I'm not sure if this is the right forum or not for this sort of question, but regardless I want to get an idea on how everyone feels about this. Does anyone feel that having NPCs in the group serves as a distraction for the DM and a determent from the players experiences.

I understand that a lot of groups out there are lacking with players and ocassionally, if not most of the time, the DM needs to have a character in the group fill a role up in order to help out the players themselves. I know this is unavoidable, however, shouldn't the NPC be a support role such as a Warlord or a Cleric? I feel that Strikers take away from the players experience as an NPC and hog up too much of the spotlight.

I know when I DM I never control an NPC because I like to focus on DMing and making the players the center of attention. I feel running the NPC is a huge distraction and can all in all take away from the game rather than balancing it out.

Any opinions or feelings on the matter?
#2
Janx_14
Feb 28, 2010 10:21:39 The DMG2 has rules for 'companion characters' that can be added to the party. They are basic PC's who are meant to be easy for players to control as a second character of sorts. They represent stuff like squires and students and sidekicks.

While I have a character of my own in the party when I DM, I do make sure the spotlight is on the party 90% of the time, and always ask to make sure my character is no hogging it.
#3
truefan
Feb 28, 2010 10:56:04
I'm not sure if this is the right forum or not for this sort of question, but regardless I want to get an idea on how everyone feels about this. Does anyone feel that having NPCs in the group serves as a distraction for the DM and a determent from the players experiences.

I understand that a lot of groups out there are lacking with players and ocassionally, if not most of the time, the DM needs to have a character in the group fill a role up in order to help out the players themselves. I know this is unavoidable, however, shouldn't the NPC be a support role such as a Warlord or a Cleric? I feel that Strikers take away from the players experience as an NPC and hog up too much of the spotlight.

I know when I DM I never control an NPC because I like to focus on DMing and making the players the center of attention. I feel running the NPC is a huge distraction and can all in all take away from the game rather than balancing it out.

Any opinions or feelings on the matter?

it depends on how the DM is using the NPC really, if the NPC is just there to fill space in order to prevent an easy TPK he should focus more on the players and the world then the NPC. the DM has to remeber he isn't playing the Character, he's playing the world.

if this is too much for the DM, he should be prepared to lower certain aspects of encounters just a tad to better suit the number in the party.

alternatively i have used in party NPCs as an internal plot device, a strong piece of the campaign hooks and internal story. this of course means that (within reason) the DM can use his focus on the NPC to guide the story, interact with the PCs (role playing), and reveal plot hooks

so really it could easily bog down the gameplay if the DM isn't too careful
#4
dragonsblood
Feb 28, 2010 13:16:33 They're also called DMPCs. Generally DMPCs are frowned upon around here for all the reasons you listed.
#5
shadow_viper
Feb 28, 2010 19:10:47 Not all DMPCs are bad. they can work out perfectly fine if done right.
#6
phytoon
Feb 28, 2010 19:26:53 My group is kinda small, and three of us take turns DMing, so we just have our characters as DMPCs when we're DMing. It usually works out pretty well, except with traps and puzzles, but I usually just have my character standing by and let the players solve stuff, unless they get stuck.
#7
brassbaboon
Feb 28, 2010 19:54:13 In general I only use DMPCs to fill a glaring hole in the party. Usually that's a result of a player leaving the game for some reason (job in a new city, just had a baby, etc.)

The DMPC never takes the spotlight. Almost universally the DMPC ends up being the party healer. In my regular group we tend to have DMPCs be a level or two (at least) below the PCs to ensure that they can't really steal the show.

I have played in groups where DMPCs have been higher level and who have had to "save our butts" when the encounter turned out to be more difficult than the DM expected. That almost always makes the players feel like crap. I would almost rather TPK than have the DMPC save the party. But that's just me.
#8
MadcatX
Feb 28, 2010 23:03:14
I have played in groups where DMPCs have been higher level and who have had to "save our butts" when the encounter turned out to be more difficult than the DM expected. That almost always makes the players feel like crap. I would almost rather TPK than have the DMPC save the party. But that's just me.

I've been there... often. However it's somewhat unique in my case, because the term DMPC is quite literal: The DM plays other players PC's when they are not there (some because they started playing but have gone to school and come back occasionally, others because they don't show up often). To his credit, he's quite good at knowing our PC's and how they would act. Also, he doesn't involve them in combat most of the time, he will not allow another player's PC to die when he's playing them.

The "save our butts" took place a few weeks ago, by a DMPC monk. A few months before, I spent 3 sessions as a fighter being escorted (i.e. doing absolutly nothing) by a DMPC exalted cleric in a city full of undead, which made the final fight against an aspect of Orcus very anti-climactic. The worst case was when he was DMPC'ing an evil Duskblade which inadverdently caused a PvP TPK (the group had evil, neutral and good characters, we got along, the DMPC started the infighting, it's a long story.)

So yea, I'm against DMPC's as well.
#9
palomon
Mar 01, 2010 8:41:38 I'll preface my reply by saying that everyone has very valid points for and against DMPCs so far, so I will just post my feelings on it, and you feel free to take or leave my advice as you please. Also, I'm assuming you're using 4E rules, so any books I state will be 4th edition.

Firstly, Janx_14 said mentioned companion characters. In addition, the DM Guide 2 discusses "support characters" (forgive me for not listing a page, but my book is not near me at this time). Essentially, these support characters are very similar to the monsters that you fight in how they are built, but the DM controls them as part of your party. What this does is it makes it easier for the DM to play these characters (so that he/she doesn't have to keep track of several powers, a list of skills, and countless stats) and they are not overpowered so they don't steal the show from the PCs. THIS IS (in my opinion) THE MOST BALANCED VERSION OF THE DMPC, AND IT IS MY MOST RECOMMENDED WAY TO ADD AN EXTRA PARTY MEMBER.

Secondly, if the DM is not going to use a support character, I generally do not like DMPCs. This is based in past experiences. My first campaign DMing, I decided in one adventure that the PCs would be sent to rescue an NPC rogue. Then, my creative juices started flowing. I decided that I'd put the PCs in a TPK scenerio, but since they had the NPC with them, I'd have her save them. Well, after we played this adventure, I looked at it at a different angle and it was less of the NPC saving them and more of me killing all the monsters I just threw at them. Incidentally, most of my players quit after this session.

Now, I realize that some DMs can play DMPCs in a good way. But the important thing to realize is that it is easy to let it get out of hand. It's not necessarily because the DMs want to steal the show. However, if when a DM decides to get creative, it is easy to invest a lot in a character and make them overpowered, which is not what we want. DMs already play several characters: every enemy of the party and every NPC. While it might be nice to send in a DMPC to help out the party, the DM should also consider make the encounters slightly easier. This can be as easy as lowering the level of one of the monsters, or replacing one monster with two minions. Get creative! Think of other ways to help out a small party!
#10
bayonetpriest
Mar 01, 2010 14:05:50
Our 3.5 game has a DMPC Dwarf cleric because none of us wanted to play a healer. Our wizard player actually runs most of the dwarf's actions in combat, the DM only steps in when he wants the cleric to do something specific.

We've had no trouble with him, the poor, neglected dwarf doesn't even have a single magic item and here we are at level 8.
#11
itsme4eva1
Mar 01, 2010 19:36:03 If you are going to have a DMPC then you really want to make it something that will not be all that involved in the battle or in problems that the characters must overcome. It is for this reason that it is complicated for a DM to do this. I have a very good example of a bad DMPC.

The group was supposed to get go to a bandit camp and kill the leader. First one player climbs a tree to see if he can see the camp but the DM says it is to dark. When they get up to the camp torches are lit (if you think thats bad still not the worst) the group then says they will burn the tents but the DM wants all the credit so he says no you have to get the map out. They say they were never told to get a map but the DM expects them to follow his rules. So they get the map then the group tries to burn down the tents but the DM jumps from tent to tent and burns them all even though he does not have enough spells to do so. He also adds charges to each of his spells even though a caster is only allowed 3 charges a day he adds it to all of his spells (about 25). The party knew nothing of these charges but after the game 1 member looks to see that he is only allowed 3 charges. The DM after burning all the tents just starts laughing meniacly (his character is LG). So you can tell the DM went a bit over board.
#12
brassbaboon
Mar 01, 2010 23:10:39

Our 3.5 game has a DMPC Dwarf cleric because none of us wanted to play a healer. Our wizard player actually runs most of the dwarf's actions in combat, the DM only steps in when he wants the cleric to do something specific.

We've had no trouble with him, the poor, neglected dwarf doesn't even have a single magic item and here we are at level 8.

This is yet another reason I don't like DMPCs. If the dwarf is supposed to be an equal member of the party, then shafting him on magic items and treasure is definitely not "good" behavior. But it makes no sense for the non-PC to get good stuff so this creates an unhealthy tension in the game.

In the game I am in where we have a DMPC (I am a player) we treat the DMPC like an equal. That means if a magic item turns up that makes sense for him to have, he gets it.

Now, we also take turns playing the DMPC unless the DM wants something special to happen. So the players do get the advantage of using the cool stuff he has. But even if that weren't the case, my character would definitely defend the DMPC's right to equal pay for equal risk. How is my character supposed to know that his comrade in arms is a DMPC?
#13
razzanor
Mar 02, 2010 18:57:09 I'd like to direct you to this thread, which I suggest you read all the way through if you're serious about this problem. If you've got a keen eye, you'll notice it was started by me a long time ago, back when I was facing this exact same problem from the other side of things. I used DMPCs frequently, and not in the good way.

All done reading that thread yet? No? It's alright, I'll wait.

Done yet?

.....

Alright, good. Fast-forward to our present day, and I still use DMPCs, but I use them in a good way. They aren't nearly as complex as fully fleshed-out characters, and even though they fight alongside the party for story reasons, they never take the spotlight. I don't make encounters so obviously more difficult because of the presence of the DMPC, and most importantly, I don't care if the DMPC dies.

Now, your DM doesn't seem to have passed the hurdle of understanding the difference between a good DMPC and a bad DMPC, but that doesn't mean you have to rush in and tell him about how wrong he is. Most DMs who use DMPCs - myself included - go through this transition period.

My advice to you: try and ditch the DMPC in-character. Complete this current story arch, fulfill whatever goal the DMPC has in mind, and just naturally move on with your core party, leaving the DMPC to do his business. If your DM refuses to let the DMPC separate from you, it might be necessary to approach him out-of-character about this.
#14
itsme4eva1
Mar 03, 2010 20:15:46 If the DM is only going to use him when something specific needs to happen he can do something such as (name) comes running in and sees you. He looks at you and then does (said action) runs through and does (other said action). Just stuff like that or in a battle where the group really needs the help such as a BBEG who is to hard for the group.
#15
cazra
Mar 03, 2010 23:46:24 In my experiences in running DMPCs, one or more of the following happens:

-combat is slowed down when I have to switch from monster notes to character notes
-the character tends to be a spotlight hog if used as an exposition fairy
-the character wastes time by doing silly things
-it's tempting to use it to nudge the players onto a railroad
-they're generally the butt of jokes among the PCs, no matter how badass they are
-noncombat skill encounters are slowed down when it's their turn to climb up the cliff/sneak past the guards/etc.
-Passive Familiar Syndrome: they are forgotten about and seemingly not there, but then reappear when they're actually needed for something
-bad things happen when they roll natural 1's on anything
-rocks fall;everyone dies

Then again, most of the problems might have been that my group already had 5 characters in the party. It just didn't work out well in my previous campaign.
#16
Psikerlord
Mar 05, 2010 18:21:20 In my experience as both a player and DM, NPCs joining the party are generally a bad idea, unless they are of a definite side-kick lower power variety. If they are of equal or greater power than the PCs they are just a headache - add time to combats and take the heroics away from the players, which is the number one no-no. If you feel the need to bolster the party against an upcoming foe, just reduce the foe's power instead, or give them some bigger magic items. But short lived side kicks can be great fun.

#17
FrozenWastes
Mar 05, 2010 23:11:21 The few times I've needed to add a character to the party, I've made it a companion character and gave it to whichever player was the quickest and doing their turns. The companion characters have less options and if you give it to someone who already gets through their turn pretty quickly, it won't bog things down for there to be two characters for that person.

It was also made clear story wise that the companion character was subordinate to the other characters and only talked when the players purposely brought him forward to speak.
#18
brassbaboon
Mar 05, 2010 23:40:07 One thing our DM did with an "extra" player was roll him up using the monster manual guidelines. That made him very easy to play, so we just took turns playing him. A side benefit is that using the monster manual guidelines ended up de-emphasizing him quite a bit, so he never really overshadowed the group.
#19
dmdrolkrad
Mar 06, 2010 9:18:48 I think NPCs and "companion" characters are like any other tool a DM can use. He can either use it effectively or ruin everyone's fun.

In our gaming experience DM NPCs were common, usually in a supporting role.

Never the best fighter, wizard, rogue, etc. Usually slightly lower level. And they would come and go as the players requested it.

I.e. , in the current campaign the NPC is a elven cleric of Titania with a scholarly background. He actually hired the group to investigate an abnormal prevalence of snakes in the forest. They asked him if he wanted to come along so he did.

He answers questions about local history (he rolls his checks like everybody else) tossess a healing word on occassion, and when the players yell out in battle "Hey Luminos, go shut that door and lock it" he does. As a cleric, yes he has saved a characters life with his spells, but they expect that he would after all.

A DM NPC does allow the DM to have a voice other than "SPEAKING FROM THE CLOUDS".

And he has a personality, making the world seem...immersive.

And usually the DM NPC gets along with one of the PCs (shares scholarly interests) so that player normally moves the mini around as needed, with the DM doing the personality.

In summation, like many other things, either a DM is effective at it or not. I don't think that in and of themselves NPCs are bad.
#20
umruk
Mar 06, 2010 10:19:01 If you are frequently being accompanied by a DMPC, and not just by NPC cohorts or other characters that are involved for a good reason, perhaps this is a sign that your DM needs a break. Someone else could take a turn being the DM and run a purchased, ready-to-go single module. Play it through to the end and let your DM get back to business, hopefully without the DMPC.
#21
laurainthesky
Mar 06, 2010 15:18:54 Our characters have spouses and children =). The world is so vast that NPCs may come and go and give the PCs missions. We rarely ever have one travel and fight with the party. Having relationships with others in the world really opens up roleplaying and makes the game feel more rich than just a party fighting monsters.
#22
grumpycelt
Mar 06, 2010 22:13:03 In my experience it depends entirely on how they are used.
#23
oldguygaming
Mar 07, 2010 17:15:15 Occassionally, I have seen an npc used to fill out a party that was needing some role filled. So long as the npc was no more powerful than any other member of the party, that seemed to work out just fine.

But a number of times I have seen a powerful npc join a party to "help out". In every case the npc took over. This took control away from the players and left them watching the DM play with himself.

Only once have I had a powerful npc join a party like that but it was handled a little differently. The npc had reasons of his own for going to a dungeon that the party was going to anyway. He joined and promptly took over. He let little clues slip out from time to time. While they travelled he had a habit of flipping a small gem and muttering the same phrase over and over. Inside the dungeon, they started to cross a stone bridge spanning a deep chasm with the brave npc leading the way. Suddenly, the npc fell through an illusionary section of floor in the middle of the bridge and disappeared screaming into the depths. The characters found themselves alone with nothing of the npc left but his gem laying on the ground and various clues he left them during their travels.

Clearly the players had settled in to the idea of simply following this guy and being led around for a few hours. Their expressions were priceless as they realized that he wasn't coming back. : )

Aside from giving me immense pleasure, the npc: hurried them through random encounters on the way that would have done nothing but slow the session down, gave out some wonderful game hooks, set them on a mini quest to determine the use for the gem and the strange phrase he was always repeating, put them on guard by showing them a character-ending trap without having to end a character, and all this without deflecting the party from heading to the dungeon that they were going to already before having met him.

That's the most use I've ever gotten out of an npc. I need more like him!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 fridaynightdnd Feb 28, 2010 10:15:57	I'm not sure if this is the right forum or not for this sort of question, but regardless I want to get an idea on how everyone feels about this. Does anyone feel that having NPCs in the group serves as a distraction for the DM and a determent from the players experiences. I understand that a lot of groups out there are lacking with players and ocassionally, if not most of the time, the DM needs to have a character in the group fill a role up in order to help out the players themselves. I know this is unavoidable, however, shouldn't the NPC be a support role such as a Warlord or a Cleric? I feel that Strikers take away from the players experience as an NPC and hog up too much of the spotlight. I know when I DM I never control an NPC because I like to focus on DMing and making the players the center of attention. I feel running the NPC is a huge distraction and can all in all take away from the game rather than balancing it out. Any opinions or feelings on the matter?
#2 Janx_14 Feb 28, 2010 10:21:39	The DMG2 has rules for 'companion characters' that can be added to the party. They are basic PC's who are meant to be easy for players to control as a second character of sorts. They represent stuff like squires and students and sidekicks. While I have a character of my own in the party when I DM, I do make sure the spotlight is on the party 90% of the time, and always ask to make sure my character is no hogging it.
#3 truefan Feb 28, 2010 10:56:04	I'm not sure if this is the right forum or not for this sort of question, but regardless I want to get an idea on how everyone feels about this. Does anyone feel that having NPCs in the group serves as a distraction for the DM and a determent from the players experiences. I understand that a lot of groups out there are lacking with players and ocassionally, if not most of the time, the DM needs to have a character in the group fill a role up in order to help out the players themselves. I know this is unavoidable, however, shouldn't the NPC be a support role such as a Warlord or a Cleric? I feel that Strikers take away from the players experience as an NPC and hog up too much of the spotlight. I know when I DM I never control an NPC because I like to focus on DMing and making the players the center of attention. I feel running the NPC is a huge distraction and can all in all take away from the game rather than balancing it out. Any opinions or feelings on the matter? it depends on how the DM is using the NPC really, if the NPC is just there to fill space in order to prevent an easy TPK he should focus more on the players and the world then the NPC. the DM has to remeber he isn't playing the Character, he's playing the world. if this is too much for the DM, he should be prepared to lower certain aspects of encounters just a tad to better suit the number in the party. alternatively i have used in party NPCs as an internal plot device, a strong piece of the campaign hooks and internal story. this of course means that (within reason) the DM can use his focus on the NPC to guide the story, interact with the PCs (role playing), and reveal plot hooks so really it could easily bog down the gameplay if the DM isn't too careful
#4 dragonsblood Feb 28, 2010 13:16:33	They're also called DMPCs. Generally DMPCs are frowned upon around here for all the reasons you listed.
#5 shadow_viper Feb 28, 2010 19:10:47	Not all DMPCs are bad. they can work out perfectly fine if done right.
#6 phytoon Feb 28, 2010 19:26:53	My group is kinda small, and three of us take turns DMing, so we just have our characters as DMPCs when we're DMing. It usually works out pretty well, except with traps and puzzles, but I usually just have my character standing by and let the players solve stuff, unless they get stuck.
#7 brassbaboon Feb 28, 2010 19:54:13	In general I only use DMPCs to fill a glaring hole in the party. Usually that's a result of a player leaving the game for some reason (job in a new city, just had a baby, etc.) The DMPC never takes the spotlight. Almost universally the DMPC ends up being the party healer. In my regular group we tend to have DMPCs be a level or two (at least) below the PCs to ensure that they can't really steal the show. I have played in groups where DMPCs have been higher level and who have had to "save our butts" when the encounter turned out to be more difficult than the DM expected. That almost always makes the players feel like crap. I would almost rather TPK than have the DMPC save the party. But that's just me.
#8 MadcatX Feb 28, 2010 23:03:14	I have played in groups where DMPCs have been higher level and who have had to "save our butts" when the encounter turned out to be more difficult than the DM expected. That almost always makes the players feel like crap. I would almost rather TPK than have the DMPC save the party. But that's just me. I've been there... often. However it's somewhat unique in my case, because the term DMPC is quite literal: The DM plays other players PC's when they are not there (some because they started playing but have gone to school and come back occasionally, others because they don't show up often). To his credit, he's quite good at knowing our PC's and how they would act. Also, he doesn't involve them in combat most of the time, he will not allow another player's PC to die when he's playing them. The "save our butts" took place a few weeks ago, by a DMPC monk. A few months before, I spent 3 sessions as a fighter being escorted (i.e. doing absolutly nothing) by a DMPC exalted cleric in a city full of undead, which made the final fight against an aspect of Orcus very anti-climactic. The worst case was when he was DMPC'ing an evil Duskblade which inadverdently caused a PvP TPK (the group had evil, neutral and good characters, we got along, the DMPC started the infighting, it's a long story.) So yea, I'm against DMPC's as well.
#9 palomon Mar 01, 2010 8:41:38	I'll preface my reply by saying that everyone has very valid points for and against DMPCs so far, so I will just post my feelings on it, and you feel free to take or leave my advice as you please. Also, I'm assuming you're using 4E rules, so any books I state will be 4th edition. Firstly, Janx_14 said mentioned companion characters. In addition, the DM Guide 2 discusses "support characters" (forgive me for not listing a page, but my book is not near me at this time). Essentially, these support characters are very similar to the monsters that you fight in how they are built, but the DM controls them as part of your party. What this does is it makes it easier for the DM to play these characters (so that he/she doesn't have to keep track of several powers, a list of skills, and countless stats) and they are not overpowered so they don't steal the show from the PCs. THIS IS (in my opinion) THE MOST BALANCED VERSION OF THE DMPC, AND IT IS MY MOST RECOMMENDED WAY TO ADD AN EXTRA PARTY MEMBER. Secondly, if the DM is not going to use a support character, I generally do not like DMPCs. This is based in past experiences. My first campaign DMing, I decided in one adventure that the PCs would be sent to rescue an NPC rogue. Then, my creative juices started flowing. I decided that I'd put the PCs in a TPK scenerio, but since they had the NPC with them, I'd have her save them. Well, after we played this adventure, I looked at it at a different angle and it was less of the NPC saving them and more of me killing all the monsters I just threw at them. Incidentally, most of my players quit after this session. Now, I realize that some DMs can play DMPCs in a good way. But the important thing to realize is that it is easy to let it get out of hand. It's not necessarily because the DMs want to steal the show. However, if when a DM decides to get creative, it is easy to invest a lot in a character and make them overpowered, which is not what we want. DMs already play several characters: every enemy of the party and every NPC. While it might be nice to send in a DMPC to help out the party, the DM should also consider make the encounters slightly easier. This can be as easy as lowering the level of one of the monsters, or replacing one monster with two minions. Get creative! Think of other ways to help out a small party!
#10 bayonetpriest Mar 01, 2010 14:05:50	Our 3.5 game has a DMPC Dwarf cleric because none of us wanted to play a healer. Our wizard player actually runs most of the dwarf's actions in combat, the DM only steps in when he wants the cleric to do something specific. We've had no trouble with him, the poor, neglected dwarf doesn't even have a single magic item and here we are at level 8.
#11 itsme4eva1 Mar 01, 2010 19:36:03	If you are going to have a DMPC then you really want to make it something that will not be all that involved in the battle or in problems that the characters must overcome. It is for this reason that it is complicated for a DM to do this. I have a very good example of a bad DMPC. The group was supposed to get go to a bandit camp and kill the leader. First one player climbs a tree to see if he can see the camp but the DM says it is to dark. When they get up to the camp torches are lit (if you think thats bad still not the worst) the group then says they will burn the tents but the DM wants all the credit so he says no you have to get the map out. They say they were never told to get a map but the DM expects them to follow his rules. So they get the map then the group tries to burn down the tents but the DM jumps from tent to tent and burns them all even though he does not have enough spells to do so. He also adds charges to each of his spells even though a caster is only allowed 3 charges a day he adds it to all of his spells (about 25). The party knew nothing of these charges but after the game 1 member looks to see that he is only allowed 3 charges. The DM after burning all the tents just starts laughing meniacly (his character is LG). So you can tell the DM went a bit over board.
#12 brassbaboon Mar 01, 2010 23:10:39	Our 3.5 game has a DMPC Dwarf cleric because none of us wanted to play a healer. Our wizard player actually runs most of the dwarf's actions in combat, the DM only steps in when he wants the cleric to do something specific. We've had no trouble with him, the poor, neglected dwarf doesn't even have a single magic item and here we are at level 8. This is yet another reason I don't like DMPCs. If the dwarf is supposed to be an equal member of the party, then shafting him on magic items and treasure is definitely not "good" behavior. But it makes no sense for the non-PC to get good stuff so this creates an unhealthy tension in the game. In the game I am in where we have a DMPC (I am a player) we treat the DMPC like an equal. That means if a magic item turns up that makes sense for him to have, he gets it. Now, we also take turns playing the DMPC unless the DM wants something special to happen. So the players do get the advantage of using the cool stuff he has. But even if that weren't the case, my character would definitely defend the DMPC's right to equal pay for equal risk. How is my character supposed to know that his comrade in arms is a DMPC?
#13 razzanor Mar 02, 2010 18:57:09	I'd like to direct you to this thread, which I suggest you read all the way through if you're serious about this problem. If you've got a keen eye, you'll notice it was started by me a long time ago, back when I was facing this exact same problem from the other side of things. I used DMPCs frequently, and not in the good way. All done reading that thread yet? No? It's alright, I'll wait. Done yet? ..... Alright, good. Fast-forward to our present day, and I still use DMPCs, but I use them in a good way. They aren't nearly as complex as fully fleshed-out characters, and even though they fight alongside the party for story reasons, they never take the spotlight. I don't make encounters so obviously more difficult because of the presence of the DMPC, and most importantly, I don't care if the DMPC dies. Now, your DM doesn't seem to have passed the hurdle of understanding the difference between a good DMPC and a bad DMPC, but that doesn't mean you have to rush in and tell him about how wrong he is. Most DMs who use DMPCs - myself included - go through this transition period. My advice to you: try and ditch the DMPC in-character. Complete this current story arch, fulfill whatever goal the DMPC has in mind, and just naturally move on with your core party, leaving the DMPC to do his business. If your DM refuses to let the DMPC separate from you, it might be necessary to approach him out-of-character about this.
#14 itsme4eva1 Mar 03, 2010 20:15:46	If the DM is only going to use him when something specific needs to happen he can do something such as (name) comes running in and sees you. He looks at you and then does (said action) runs through and does (other said action). Just stuff like that or in a battle where the group really needs the help such as a BBEG who is to hard for the group.
#15 cazra Mar 03, 2010 23:46:24	In my experiences in running DMPCs, one or more of the following happens: -combat is slowed down when I have to switch from monster notes to character notes -the character tends to be a spotlight hog if used as an exposition fairy -the character wastes time by doing silly things -it's tempting to use it to nudge the players onto a railroad -they're generally the butt of jokes among the PCs, no matter how badass they are -noncombat skill encounters are slowed down when it's their turn to climb up the cliff/sneak past the guards/etc. -Passive Familiar Syndrome: they are forgotten about and seemingly not there, but then reappear when they're actually needed for something -bad things happen when they roll natural 1's on anything -rocks fall;everyone dies Then again, most of the problems might have been that my group already had 5 characters in the party. It just didn't work out well in my previous campaign.
#16 Psikerlord Mar 05, 2010 18:21:20	In my experience as both a player and DM, NPCs joining the party are generally a bad idea, unless they are of a definite side-kick lower power variety. If they are of equal or greater power than the PCs they are just a headache - add time to combats and take the heroics away from the players, which is the number one no-no. If you feel the need to bolster the party against an upcoming foe, just reduce the foe's power instead, or give them some bigger magic items. But short lived side kicks can be great fun.
#17 FrozenWastes Mar 05, 2010 23:11:21	The few times I've needed to add a character to the party, I've made it a companion character and gave it to whichever player was the quickest and doing their turns. The companion characters have less options and if you give it to someone who already gets through their turn pretty quickly, it won't bog things down for there to be two characters for that person. It was also made clear story wise that the companion character was subordinate to the other characters and only talked when the players purposely brought him forward to speak.
#18 brassbaboon Mar 05, 2010 23:40:07	One thing our DM did with an "extra" player was roll him up using the monster manual guidelines. That made him very easy to play, so we just took turns playing him. A side benefit is that using the monster manual guidelines ended up de-emphasizing him quite a bit, so he never really overshadowed the group.
#19 dmdrolkrad Mar 06, 2010 9:18:48	I think NPCs and "companion" characters are like any other tool a DM can use. He can either use it effectively or ruin everyone's fun. In our gaming experience DM NPCs were common, usually in a supporting role. Never the best fighter, wizard, rogue, etc. Usually slightly lower level. And they would come and go as the players requested it. I.e. , in the current campaign the NPC is a elven cleric of Titania with a scholarly background. He actually hired the group to investigate an abnormal prevalence of snakes in the forest. They asked him if he wanted to come along so he did. He answers questions about local history (he rolls his checks like everybody else) tossess a healing word on occassion, and when the players yell out in battle "Hey Luminos, go shut that door and lock it" he does. As a cleric, yes he has saved a characters life with his spells, but they expect that he would after all. A DM NPC does allow the DM to have a voice other than "SPEAKING FROM THE CLOUDS". And he has a personality, making the world seem...immersive. And usually the DM NPC gets along with one of the PCs (shares scholarly interests) so that player normally moves the mini around as needed, with the DM doing the personality. In summation, like many other things, either a DM is effective at it or not. I don't think that in and of themselves NPCs are bad.
#20 umruk Mar 06, 2010 10:19:01	If you are frequently being accompanied by a DMPC, and not just by NPC cohorts or other characters that are involved for a good reason, perhaps this is a sign that your DM needs a break. Someone else could take a turn being the DM and run a purchased, ready-to-go single module. Play it through to the end and let your DM get back to business, hopefully without the DMPC.
#21 laurainthesky Mar 06, 2010 15:18:54	Our characters have spouses and children =). The world is so vast that NPCs may come and go and give the PCs missions. We rarely ever have one travel and fight with the party. Having relationships with others in the world really opens up roleplaying and makes the game feel more rich than just a party fighting monsters.
#22 grumpycelt Mar 06, 2010 22:13:03	In my experience it depends entirely on how they are used.
#23 oldguygaming Mar 07, 2010 17:15:15	Occassionally, I have seen an npc used to fill out a party that was needing some role filled. So long as the npc was no more powerful than any other member of the party, that seemed to work out just fine. But a number of times I have seen a powerful npc join a party to "help out". In every case the npc took over. This took control away from the players and left them watching the DM play with himself. Only once have I had a powerful npc join a party like that but it was handled a little differently. The npc had reasons of his own for going to a dungeon that the party was going to anyway. He joined and promptly took over. He let little clues slip out from time to time. While they travelled he had a habit of flipping a small gem and muttering the same phrase over and over. Inside the dungeon, they started to cross a stone bridge spanning a deep chasm with the brave npc leading the way. Suddenly, the npc fell through an illusionary section of floor in the middle of the bridge and disappeared screaming into the depths. The characters found themselves alone with nothing of the npc left but his gem laying on the ground and various clues he left them during their travels. Clearly the players had settled in to the idea of simply following this guy and being led around for a few hours. Their expressions were priceless as they realized that he wasn't coming back. : ) Aside from giving me immense pleasure, the npc: hurried them through random encounters on the way that would have done nothing but slow the session down, gave out some wonderful game hooks, set them on a mini quest to determine the use for the gem and the strange phrase he was always repeating, put them on guard by showing them a character-ending trap without having to end a character, and all this without deflecting the party from heading to the dungeon that they were going to already before having met him. That's the most use I've ever gotten out of an npc. I need more like him!