Stories, suggestions, warnings, etc.
Is it ever okay? I'm about to DM for a group and due to not being able to find many people for the game, we're down to three for sure players with a fourth possible who may end up dropping out, so I'm rolling a DMPC to fill a lacking combat roll and provide support in a way no one else is.
My plan is to have this character only participate in non-combat stuff when needed, I've already got plans for everyone to receive special treatment in different ways so this character won't be speshul snowflake or anything.
However, all I've heard is horror stories about DMPCs where they were the focus of the games' plot and were complete speshul snowflake material and I want to avoid that at all costs (optimal situation being not rolling one but with a lack of players that might not be possible). Can it be done, /tg/? Is it ever appropriate or well done?
Is this that thread again where we call recurring NPCs in games DMPCs?
You'd be better off focusing on adjusting your challenges to meet the players who do show up than trying to boost them up with an NPC.
http://suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com/archive/22116071/
>>44326587
A good DMPC is a quiet support or healslut, that way they are useful without being annoying.
>>44326720
That's exactly what my potential DMPC is going to be.
>>44326587
>Is it ever appropriate or well done?
No.
If you're starved for interaction, remind the PCs they can hire hirelings, and RP one of those.
However don't make them anywhere near as powerful as the PCs, don't make them any more survivable than any other NPC, and be both prepared and happy to kill them where appropriate.
There's no better use of an NPC than to eat a Sniper Bullet or to get eaten by some beast hiding in the darkness.
It both sets the tone, ensures the PC know they're dealing with a potentially deadly threat, and avoids crippling a PC before they get a chance to act.
I also did that once in my game with a red herring DMPC. Everyone thought I'd gone off the deep end for about half an hour, but when he got brutally savaged and eaten alive by a Werewolf, it was excellent.
DMPC is a loaded term that is pretty much exclusively used for characters that are used by the DM to play in his own game, and usually to dominate it entirely.
Maybe if you go by the definition of a character used by the DM to play his own game, but not automatically in an obnoxious way. Plenty of parties run with an NPC healbot, or have NPC allies join them temporarily.
>>44326587
If you basically treat it like a more statistically developed NPC you'll be fine. The key is staying out of the players' way. Make the character a natural observer or something that makes them inclined not to say much.
>>44326642
Yeah, seriously. A "DMPC" done right is not a DMPC, it's an NPC. Because that's what you call any character that's run by the DM instead of a Player: a Non-Player Character.
Dungeon Maaster Player Character is a contradiction in terms. A thing that shouldn't exist, like a square circle. Its only proper use is for the case where shit has gone wrong and the DM is playing with himself.
Step 0: Recognize that, as the GM, you are not the player. You have a myriad number of NPCs to play as, and you should do so. Instead of thinking of this character as your own Player Character, think of it as the party's companion character or PCC for short.
Step 1: Never force the PCC on the players. Give them an NPC that could partner up with them for a time and let them keep the character around if they so wish. A friendly character from one of the PC's backgrounds (family member, old wisened mentor, friend, etc) is a perfect candidate for the PCC spot, if you choose to have that.
Step 2: Never have the PCC steal the spotlight from the players. Give the PCC a reason to exist like
>You guys saved my life!
>The king wants me to help you guys out!
or something similar. If you opted to use a PC's background character as the PCC, this is already done for you.
Mechanically speaking, a PCC should either be a support role (healslut cleric, guy with knowledge skills in an applicable system, etc) or take on a role that nobody else in the party wants to take (though never to the competence of a player character, should a player change their mind later).
Step 3: Do not give the PCC special treatment. If it makes sense for the PCC to get attacked by an enemy, the enemy should attack the PCC - even if this would kill the character.
>>44327078
Step 4: Make the PCC likeable. This will vary from group to group - a bro-tier character may work for some, but not for others. A cutesy fairy may make the players squeal with delight and want to hug her, but others may get annoyed. Simply find out what kinds of characters your players like and, if that kind of character fits the tone of your game, insert the character.
>>44327078
This is all solid advice, though I'm not sure I care for coining a new term, PCC, when we already have "henchman," "hireling," "companion," and "cohort" as existing terms to describe various types of party-allied NPCs.
>>44327078
Man, I've been planning my first campaign and this is super reassuring. Apparently I've been planning it right all along. All of this applies to a character I've been planning down to the smallest detail.
>>44327169
Fair enough. The main reason I made up the term is because I didn't want to keep writing "companion" or something similar.
>>44326587
Define DMPC.
Anything the DM has to play? Isn't that ALL NPCs?
Anything the DM has to play that happens to travel with the party for any length of time? Doesn't that include every random merchant who hires an escort, or noble who hires the party as bodyguards?
Anyone who appears at multiple points in the campaign? Isn't that all BBEGs, and all recurring characters?
I mean, come on.
>>44327327
DMPC: What happens when the separation between DM and Player breaks down, and the players find themselves sidelined as mere spectators while the DM plays his own game.
>is it ever okay
No, it's the mark of a shit tier DM.
1) You already control the entire damn game world, why do you need to have your own Mary Sue in the party?
2) Conflict of interest. Any time the DMPC goes along with the party, he should not solve problems or otherwise do things for the players. That's called retarded railroading, shit tier storytelling, and hand holding. So why have him if he won't be a useful addition to the party?
3) It sends up a million red flags that you as the facilitator of a game apparently won't need to invest yourself in running the game so much and will be able to spend time running your speshul NPC.
If there's even a whiff of "DMPC" near a game, I wouldn't touch it or that GM with a 10 foot pole.
>>44326587
DMPCs can't be done right.
NPCs can.
Anything a DMPC can do, a NPC can do. The difference is the DM doesn't get to add his mary sue. You're a pretty shitty DM if you need to have your PC tell everyone what to do
>>44327908
I've already stated it'll be just a healslut that won't outshine the party in any way, but going off of what everyone else has said, sounds more like I'm adding an NPC than a real DMPC.
>>44326587
Depends a lot on your gaming style.
If you are playing a solo player game then DMPC makes more sense as long as you make sure the PCs mesh well and don't go too overwhelming.
When you start hitting 5-6 PCs though it starts just being too complex to really make work anymore other then a weak healer like support role or as a really strong but background support role.
Though this just depends on what a DMPC even means. Most of the time I would say just playing a NPC very well would be the ideal.
I like my DM's PC. He's a good fighter but a coward so we have to be the one to drag him into fights and order him around. He really won't act unless we threaten him, which adds a lot of comic relief. He provides useful information on important people for rp purposes, but doesn't take an active role in interacting with these people beyond that.
>>44327673
>Conflict of interest. Any time the DMPC goes along with the party, he should not solve problems or otherwise do things for the players.
Depends on the role you have designed for the NPC. Obviously if the players invite a lore-master to an ancient ruin he should probably do more then stand around scratching his ass if they ask him about what the architecture and runes on the door there means.
>>44327078
Had a DM who was a roleplaying junkie who'd constantly saddle us with a revolving door cast of NPCs. He stayed roughly within this framework so we never minded them. Solid work, anon.
>>44327064
>shit has gone wrong and the DM is playing with himself.
Oh /tg/ you make me giggle.
>>44327595
No, it's never okay.
Are we done?
>>44326587
This is the DMPC for my Edge of the Empire game. Mostly he just runs around being fairly useless at everything other than mechanics and computers checks.
Every time the players get annoyed, I remind them that the face told him that he could come with them, and that they all repeatedly failed the checks to spot him sneaking onto their ship.
>>44330830
great memes, friend
>>44326587
DMPC is a narrative device, not a character you roll up.
It would be a nice inversion though: just make a PC centered around a combat role, and fluff them out with being as uninvolved and oblivious when it comes to the story as possible. That would be a character you could actually play as the DM.
But trust me, you won't have the time.
I did a DMPC that the party of PC's meet now and then, but rarely team up with. Like when they get into a new area/country etc. they might meet him and he could give them advice/info on this new place and even give them a quest or two since he's busy elsewhere.
I mostly just plan to have him be a recurring NPC that slowly goes from a nobody to a well-known Hero to eventually become a Fallen hero and someone the PC's must defeat before the BBEG. I'm happily ready to have him killed off at any time though. If it happens, it happens.
>>44326587
>>44326642
Yeah, that's a regular olde NPC, not a DMPC.
As long as you are mindful of the deep end give to you by the horror stories, you'll be fine.
>Dungeon Maaster Player Character is a contradiction in terms. A thing that shouldn't exist, like a square circle. Its only proper use is for the case where shit has gone wrong and the DM is playing with himself.
That said, I have seen it work. Once.
It was a huge play by post forum game, with nearly every player having several characters acting in separate teams (including BBEG's crew). So the GM in addition to regular NPCs had one that was openly his main character, with main "protagonist" group. It was open and everybody agreed with it happening and the guy was not in charge or overpowered.
Still, this is a very specific circumstance, supported by a lot of past trial and error experience (several people that were players in this game have failed doing the same in their own games)
Only time I used a DMPC was in a D&D 4e game.
I just built a Lazylord companion for the group, and all he ever did was keep giving the rest of the party extra attacks.
They didn't mind, since essentially he was just there to make them better look better.
>>44326587
>down to 3 for-sure
That's great. I'm always DM and I always get at least 7 people wanting the fuck in my games. Is terrible.
DMPC is, acceptable, but have you considered structuring encounters to fill the void inherently? Put holes in the enemy’s defenses best exploited by the lopsided nature of the party.
>special treatment
This could be good or very, very bad. Like spotlight back story days? Elaborate plox, may helprevent disaster.
I think you should just have a sideline companion NPC who will fight for the party and, largely, go with the flow of the party--not obey commands of 1 player but never move against the consensus, even if he warns of hidden danger.
Also, this
>>44326642
>>44326587
I had a DMPC once. Was basically the party's mentor. Harrowed gunslinger. Totally buff stats. Played an active role in combat and roleplaying. For some reason group liked him, whole point was to just shoe case he was better than them in the first couple sessions. Guy had five grit. Tough as nails. Faster than lightning. Shit all over them mechanics-wise, but was genuinely likable apparently. That made it even better when Stone turned up and shot him dead like he wasn't shit. Whole purpose was to demonstrate that Stone wasn't somebody to fuck with but it also served to motivate the players and their characters. Whole campaign became about killing Stone.
>>44326587
> Can it be done, /tg/?
When it does, it is highly circumstantial and best downplayed as much as possible. Put shortly, it shouldn't be imposed, but suggested.
For example, in a SW Saga game I DM, there's two groups competing for the same artefacts. One group was missing a player for quite a while, so I rolled up a character and played with them. A droid without a vocabulator (thus unable to speak) which traded all its combat proficiency for skills the players were lacking. Mostly Treat Injury, Knowledge, etc. While it would roleplay a bit, it's inability to communicate effectively with the rest of the crew while unplugged of a datapad or holoprojector meant the PCs couldn't rely on him for RP / Puzzle-solving. They could boss him around easily and send him on side-objectives so he took very little spotlight while making sure the group still was at full-strength.
>>44326587
If it's done for the party, it usually works.
If it's done for the DM... here there be demons.
I need a little advice /tg/ on the NPC/DMPC accompanying the party on their noble quest.
He is mostly there to be interesting to the characters trying to work out the multiple levels of secrecy and deception to his character, and because this quest is a personal matter for him, but he could be overpowered if I play it wrong.
He's an adorable little kobold training as a wizard apprentice. Except not because he's actually a polymorphed dragon using the party to find his lost love. Mostly I want to keep him out of dangerous situations, not use him to fight to much and mostly there to present interesting situations and dialogue and let me do some fun roleplaying with the group.
>>44327078
I feel like a lot of this is good advice a lot of the time, and mostly my objections are in the vein of "yeah, but" and semantics, but here they are anyway:
Firstly, and the most pedantically, I take issue with the statement that the GM is not the player. I don't disagree with what you're saying, just how you're saying it. The GM is a player with a different set of rules--rules which usually include the stuff you go onto mention.
In that vein, I'm using a completely different term (I didn't make this one up though, it sees some use--mostly in indie games), "GMC". GM Character. The reason is simple: To stop walling the GM behind the "you're not a player" barrier, because I'm a feel-good hipster like that. It just means NPC, but I feel less dirty saying it.
(Continued)
(Continued) >>44338950
Anyway, to talk about the substance of your post, I think thinking of your GMCs as "party companion characters" is a mindset that can be dangerous. This leads into a couple of your other pieces of advice that I want to talk about:
>Never stealing the spotlight
I think this might be better phrased as "remember that the PCs are the protagonists," because they are. This is true in just about every tabletop RPG there is. It's something that's easy to forget when you're building a world full of intrigue and plots going on in the background, but it's true, and allowing the players to be the driving force in a game is extremely important. That being said, for every Frodo and Aragorn, there's a Treebeard or a Gollum. Someone who never usurps the "main characters" importance, but have a lasting impact on the world.
GMs shouldn't be afraid to let their characters do interesting things--hell, in my experience moments like that are the ones that cement the players in the world, that make them really care about it. They love them. Let the random-name-generated soldier they picked up turn the tide of a battle. Just don't make it a habit. It's not that you should never let your GMCs shine, it's that you can't have them going around shining all of the time. Otherwise the players start to feel like Gollum.
(Continued)
(Contined) >>44338962
>Never force one on the players
Again, this isn't bad advice. I think I just have a problem with speaking in absolutes. The players have to rescue a princess and she turns out to be a horrible snob and causes problems the whole way back. The players are trying to smuggle themselves into a blockaded port, and in doing so are forced to trust a smuggler of questionable scruples to get them in. Situations like these can run the gamut from tense to silly, and it's not necessarily a bad thing to smoosh the PCs in with a GMC to see what happens (to the extent that you can force players to do anything, anyways).
Like anything else, it's tiring if you do it too much, and you don't want to lose sight of the fact that this is a chapter in the player's story, not a novella about your GMC, but I don't think it should be outright avoided.
Lastly, the one I absolutely disagree with in every way, ever.
>Make them likeable
Fuck that! Scoundrels are the best.
If there's one thing I might add myself, it would be this: Whoever they are, make them temporary. They don't have to be one-session chumps, but try to find a reason for them to leave at some point (or stay, if the players are leaving). If you're down a player, adjust fights accordingly instead of adding a hanger-on. I'm firmly of the opinion that "companion-type characters" should exist for plot reasons, not mechanical ones. They're not there because the party has no damage-dealers. They're there because the party needed someone in the Sneaky Syndicate to vet them before joining the cabal. I don't know if I can call that universal after picking apart your perfectly good advice, but there it is.
I know a lot of what I'm describing falls under "well that's not a DMPC anyway, that's an NPC", which I guess is true, but it's a fuzzy term to begin with and I guess the takeaway is that I don't want GMs to be gunshy about making interesting characters for fear of creating the dreaded DMPC.
>>44338916
>actually a polymorphed dragon using the party
Thats some thin ice there dude, and you are in a dump truck.
How about it really IS a kobold, trying to find his dragon master's lost love while the dragon himself is being emo in his cave?
>>44326587
>Can it be done, /tg/? Is it ever appropriate or well done?
By definition no, because a "good DMPC" is actually just another NPC with a player's stat sheet. Anything that starts out as "I want to DM but also have a character," aka a DMPC, is fundamentally flawed. The whole idea of a game-runner being a player too is self-contradictory and why those characters generally turn out to be awful experiences; you can't really play both sides of the board and one or both will suffer for it.
Never make a DMPC. Just make NPCs.
>>44338980
Maybe, though that removes the levels of mystery that I think make the character more interesting, because he's trying to hide his true nature and intentions from the party for personal reasons.
Maybe some curse is keeping him stuck in his polymorphed form and he can't access his powers.
>>44339038
>Maybe some curse is keeping him stuck in his polymorphed form and he can't access his powers.
Still hella red flaggy.
Kobold polymorphed into a more acceptable humanoid perhaps? Halfling or gnome, or maybe a human or elf so he'd be strangely unaccustomed to being tall?
(Oh and by red flaggy I mean that it looks like a typical bad dmpc thing to do. I don't know you or your players, I don't know how good you'll run the character or how paranoid your group is, but just that for general populace those traits would cause suspicion and tension.)
>>44339032
>you can't really play both sides of the board
Well, you can, but only if it's a solo game. It's like playing chess -- setting up a board and playing both sides yourself to while away an afternoon can be fun way to hone your skills and get a little practice in, but if you invite your friend over to play chess, don't you dare start making moves for him.
>>44339079
Well I've already introduced the character as a kobold and they love him, it was mostly their idea to bring him along on their quest since he just offered to accompany them if they wanted and they all said he should come along, having him tag along with the PCs constantly wasn't my initial idea, but it's what they wanted.
In general my party does a lot of 'red flag' things that work out well, they're a really fun bunch of roleplayers who constantly surprise me in good ways.
>>44339198
Alright then, with this context, your dragon idea should work out fine.
my group had the DM insert his own character to the party and pretty much used to to negate or shift the outcome of our choices so we were railroaded to his story. We got so frustrated that we let him die. The game ended shortly after that and a few months later we started a new campaign with him.
Session 1 he tried to introduce a childhood friend character linked to all of our PCs when we tried to leave the town on the first adventure, trying to get it to tag along. We left them behind and slipped out during the night. Then session 2 we "randomly encountered" his next character. The ranger in the group shot him on sight under the impression that he was allied with the goblin warband we had been avoiding for the past week while we slipped through the forest.
Haven't played that game since that session ended but i wouldn't be surprised if a new character pops up the second we hit the next town.
>>44338538
I was planning something similar for an up coming game, basically as a way of get all the characters together as a party and introducing their players to the setting. Then killing him off after 3 or 4 sessions. Anyone have any advice, thoughts? I'm hesitant because people seem to hate dmpc's so much, but I feel like it would be cool if I did pull it off.
>>44326587
If you need to point it out as DMPC rather than NPC, it's wrong.
>>44343173
Since you're killing him anyway it should be fine.
