What are your guys opinion on DMPCs?
"DMPC" is a term for something inherently negative. A good GM makes charismatic and powerful antagonists that stand appropriately against the PCs; and allied NPCs that the audience (which is actually the PCs) can connect to. A DMPC is a character that constantly steals the PCs' share of focus. It basically exists as a way for the DM to say, "Hey look at this awesome character I made," and get a kind of reflected glow of weird false pride. They are, in every important sense, a Mary Sue, representing a very basic kind of mistake people make in writing or in planning campaigns. Wish fulfillment at the expense of an interesting story (much more obvious in a game, because in a work of writing, there's always the chance they tried to make wish fulfillment in service of interest, like many pulp stories).
>>46660442
They're okay as long as they don't outshine the players or take advantage of meta knowledge.
>>46660442
They're bad. Very bad. Honestly one of the worst habits that some DMs have.
The issue is that they essentially steal the spotlight and relegate the PCs (who are meant to be the protagonists) to support roles or muscle at best. Essentially the DM is just playing out their own power fantasy, showing off how 'awesome' their character is, even though that character is only powerful is because the person playing them is also in complete control of the rules.
Another issue is that the DM already knows the solution to all of their own problems, the location of all the traps, and the weaknesses of every enemy.
One of the biggest responsibilities of a DM is to be impartial and play by the rules, but they can't when their own PC is in the game.
It should be noted that this doesn't mean that NPCs can't accompany the party, they just shouldn't ever be the focus of the story, and shouldn't join the party permanently. Ideally they'd also be unable/unwilling to fight, or only able to give basic support (like healing, mild buffs or small amounts of damage), leaving plenty of room for the PCs to shine.
If a member of the party decides to take on a hireling, what's a good way to play them without making them a DMPC?
>>46661720
Mercenary attitude, sure they might know the solution to something but that costs extra.
If they're not a combat hireling, then make them cowardly.
Keeping them below the power level of the party, e.g. for D&D 2 levels below as per a cohort character. Though most hireling can easily be level 1.
>>46660442
If by DMPC, you mean a character built for the DM to powergame and outshine everyone else, then I hate them. If it just means an npc built like a character who's purely under the control of the GM, then I don't mind them. I've created a bunch of DMPC's in the past for games I've run, but I've always been strict with myself to not break or abuse the rules when making them, that I only make them to fill a gap in the party, and to never let them hog the spotlight.
Personally I find it to be a rather useful way of guiding the PC's towards a particular point or making in-character suggestions while avoiding the word-of-god or divine intervention thing.
Like for a Dark Heresy game, none of the party was particularly tough or well-armoured, so I made a sororitas to fulfill the role of combat heavy, while the three players served as the actual investigators of the group.
>>46660442
I played a game for a girl I was dating and there was not only a DMPC but a PARTY of them. I only recall the specifics of two, one was a vampire who wouldn't be subtle about wanting my dick in the dirty hole and the other was a secret silver dragon.
I want to say all of them ended up dead because of our shenanigans and some of my design. Explosives tend to do that.
>>46661720
Use a basic stat block, not a fully fleshed out character sheet. This decreases your attachment to them.
Make them somewhat good at what the PCs hired them for, and everything they need to be good with, but otherwise assume they kind of suck at it. For example, a mercenary should be reasonably good with a sword, but he'll almost always fuck up a disguise check.
>>46661818 has the right idea, they shouldn't give any fucks about the party more so than any other group that's hired them before.
>>46660442
its ok as long as 1. there a side character/antagonist (it doesn't matter if there op if they don't show up in combat/rolling scenarios) or better yet there the characters employers don't make them a party member/hang on
2. they not "now everything characters" a dmpc actually interacting is a sign that you done fucked up the setting "hay lets rob a elderly man even though I'm lawful good" is a good example or basically having a 40k characters life be all sunshine and sprinkles
>>46660442
Every neckbeard who goes on about DMPC's being cancer have obviously been exposed to only to cancerous DM's/DMPC's. A DM who never loses sight of their role can have a DMPC and not actually detract from the experience at all, provided they have the moral character to be truly impartial and are extremely conscious about not metagaming.
The only good DMPC
>>46660442
If you use them as an automaton to fill out a party role that may be missing (Usually the cleric as very few want to be a walking medkit) then they're good.
Anytime I use them the party controls whether or not they stay (More party members means less experience.) and the combat actions that they make to an extent.
The moment they start using them as sacrificial lambs or as bait for bullshit this is when I give them that basic sense of self preservation.
As other anons have said, they can be good characters so long you don't steal the spotlight but I don't possess the faculties to manage the game and a NPC.
>>46662392
This. All DMPCs should in some form or another be Jeremus.
>>46660442
Useful.
I dm for a party of two old mates. One an illusionist the other a druid.
I have a couple of dmpcs that cover off skills / do shit they don't want to do. The first one a rogue cleric heals / opens doors as required (or trise to anyway) in the campaign he is the illusionists servant. The other a shit fighter that they meet and saved from a polymorph acts as the wagon minder / night shift guard (is currently a kobold) so that they can get shit done without having to be all I tie up the horses ... etc.
Dmpcs are only poison if you try to a) take over the story, or b) have a dmpcs who fills a niche that a pc wants to fill. Other than that they are their to support tg he party and give hints / help when they are stumped.
>>46660442
I use DMPC's to lead my parties, primarily because I need them half the time to make sure shit doesn't go complete batshit. However I prefer to keep them as distanced and separated characters from the main party, like "the boss" who only actually participates in combat if shit has gone really south, and most of the time just hands out quests.
For example for an RP I have planned, the DMPC will be a Princeling assembling knights loyal to him to abandon his kingdom on a suicide quest with a shot in the dark to save humanity from encroaching annihilation. The general plan (if everything goes to plan) to balance out the nature of the DMPC is to make him a tragic hero since that tends to work out well. The idea is that the party will fail the impossible task and that only divine intervention in the form of resurrecting all human dead temporarily into a single great host to fight the demonic forces rallied against all the free peoples.
This act of necromancy is incredibly heretical and blasphemous, and results with the DMPC getting a fairly subtle curse. Victory seems ensured and humanity to forever more live under a golden age under his rule, only for the angry death god to smite the shit out of him suddenly in the middle of his reign, with squabbling sons and daughters tearing apart the continent in a century of war and breakdown of civilization into individual counties.
>>46662392
This. Though I would make an exception for a somewhat silly campaign, like a pink mowhawk Shadowrun campaign. It's okay for the DMPC to take copious amounts of drugs and push the story forward by being crazy.
>>46660442
The term DMPC describes a favoured NPC with negative elements. So by definition, there cannot be a good DMPC.
>>46660442
I'm a ForeverGm, and I use what I call the "Jeeves Principle".
It's okay for an npc to be smart, charming, skillful, well-equipped, etc... but he must always serve the players first. They're the stars. The most capable npc who spends time with the players regularly should be a side-kick, not a hero. And I avoid letting them fight at all, generally. Jeeves will bring you your gear, have good suggestions on where to go next if you're stumped, will patch you up when you're hurt, and, in the direst of circumstances, *might* bust you out of a jail cell, but he will never fight your battles for you or outshine your skills. Jeeves is there to help you and make you look good, he's not there to do your job for you. He can also get possessed/kidnapped/murdered to motivate the players, if you feel inclined. But again, Jeeves and his fate is NEVER more important than what the players do.
>>46664037
This, mah nigga.
>>46660663
>this.jpg
>>46660442
DMPCs are fine as long as they weren't intended to be that. every once and a while when one of my friends DMs a character comes along that we all (as players) really like and we find some way to get him to tag along if we can. He inevitably becomes an integral part of our party, not stealing the spotlight often but he gets his moments.
If a DM throws in a character and thinks "he's gonna join the party so i can be a player too!" than it'll probably be a problem
>>46663191
I don't want to be a dick, but what you described is the exact problem with DMPCs. They make the story about them, not the players and if you need a DMPC to keep your players from doing stupid shit for the fuck of it, then you've probably failed to engage them.
Rather than writing a story for the players to watch happen to some one else, you should write a series of challenges for the players to overcome. You need to force (at least some of) your players to go through character arcs.
>>46662261
If JoJo was a campaign I don't think he'd be a DMPC at all, most of his contribution comes from the Speedwagon Foundation, of which most benefit is reaped from after his death.
I myself don't like using them in my campaigns, but I have seen DMPCs that weren't terrible. They were basically just meatshields there to take damage for us until we got more people to join our games.
everyones already said it, but DMPCs that are created because the DM says "I want to be a PC too!" are pure cancer and will just shit up the game (though any DM who does this will probably have a shit game in the first place)
DMPCs that exist out of necessity (IE a story-important NPC who needs to stick with the party for a time before leaving) are probably fine. It's best when they are not good at combat or any skills besides something the party may not have that is important (IE a scholar type npc that sticks with the party as they escort him to another city who is good at arcana/history checks)
a DMPC should never be with a party for more than a couple sessions and should not be played as an actual PC; give them a basic stat block and call it good.
>>46664037
>>46664056
Yeah I agree. Any dmpcs is always in a role subservient to the party, doesn't make decisions but on occasion gives help/ does the drudgery.
>>46664243
Well the thing is that it's also a bit of a prequel to future RP's. I figure it would be more fun for the players to go through the gritty start to the setting I'm forging rather than just have it as background nobody participated in. Especially when it's fairly extensive as a background and really sets up the setting so to speak.
>>46660442
I may be too against them. The last and only 'GMPC' I used turned out to be an air elemental the party wizard controlled to bolster their numbers.
>>46660442
In a mystery dungeon themed game our GM included a mawile as a GMPC. Mostly stayed out of combat and were in charge of maintaining our social obligations whenever we went out on a long expedition. They were mix of quest hook generator, property manager, and hireling.
I liked her well enough.
Having NPCs in a party is good as long as all players wanted it. And if they want it, then said NPC should not overshadow the party. If the party wants a stronger ally NPC to go with them, the DM should not let them, as a stronger NPC should have other matters to attend to.
Friendly NPCs can be stronger than the party, it's rare that the main characters are the strongest people out there (for most of the story anyways), but they shouldn't be given the spotlight.
The term "DMPC", though, never refers to said NPCs, but to the obvious "look how cool I am" DM pet. For example, with my first DM we were asking about his cool NPCs to join all the time, and while they sometimes did, they never felt more important than the actual PCs. And then, when we played another game with That Guy as DM, he took his previous character, made him an NPC, and he was the main character doing all glorious shit, while we were glorified bodyguards. The former are not DMPCs, the latter is
>>46662209
>>46664037
>>46665850
These all offer great examples of proper ways to have a dmpc/NPC that is involved with the party but not in a shitty, fun killing way.
For me, I consider an NPC, a DMPC if he/she is heavily involved with the party- which requires me to roleplay as them and make a fair number of rolls, beyond the simple one off conversations etc. But regardless any DMPC, when done properly should be no more than an assist to the party.
In my current DH2e game which is set on a feudal world, the "retired" Interrogator is a DMPC. He's old as hell, slightly wonky upstairs, provides the party with leads to investigate and can offer useful info or help get things for the party. He's been in combat with the party once against some mutants, and he did jack shit because his combat skills are pretty terrible. Equally, I don't use him to railroad the party. While he has very set and defined views he allows the party to go about their business in the way they are comfortable with. When they get stumped on an issue/riddle/leads that go nowhere he may offer some useful hints, but he doesn't have all of the answers. Finally he offers a springboard for character development for the party, he's like a mentor/guidance counselor. He'll help the characters better define themselves, but on their terms. And if he does give them a lead to check out and they go the other direction so be it, what is he gonna do about it, fight the 5 people helping him because they found something else of interest?
Overall, if you have a DMPC, don't make him a hero, or a mary sue, just make him a character building tool for the actual party, but in natural and real way.
>>46660663
>Cherry-picking factoids to get his point done
You've lost any credibility the moment you stated "inherently negative". And that's in the first sentence.
>>46660442
Here is the only answer for this question
DMPCs are fine if used well, but terrible if used poorly. Unfortunately, they're very hard to use well, and very easy to use poorly. I won't say "don't do it," just that maybe you should consider another solution.
>>46660442
He has to be completely useless in combat and be used only for exposition and to explain things the character should know about the setting but the players couldn't have known in an easier/straightforward manner.
>>46661720
Well if we're talking hirelings in a traditional sense of classes npcs then you can just characterize them as disposable chumps. After all they're inherently inferior to the PCs, but also they're WORKING for the PCs which is the most important distinction. They should for the most part just do what the PC who pays them tells them, and the DM can act on that command in the most intuitive way.
Henchmen (classed followers) are basically the same since there also subservient to the PC. That being said you can typically characterize them as more competent than a hireling. As long as you don't go to absurd levels of "look at muh cool guy" competence can actually somewhat rewarding to the players as a henchman is somewhat of a pupil to the PC.
>>46662209
My character's love interest is actually a DMPC. It works perfectly cause the DMPC is a quiet vampire that helps the party in combat cause our party is not very combat oriented.
>>46660753
This.
>NPC does more than just give a quest and fuck off.
>Grognards immediately call it a GMPC.
This is what every one of these threads comes down to. People just don't fucking know what a DMPC is.
>>46660442
Depends on the definition of DMPC.
People tend to call any NPC that follows the party a DMPC these days. Those are fine. They may help once in a while, perhaps fill in for the squads healer, etc.
Now, a fucking NPC that the DM is using because he doesn't want to stay out of his game that gets all the goodies and never has something wrong happen to him? Now, that is absolute shit and whoever is doing it needs to deepthroat their own legs.
>>46660442
In the twice I've DMed one-shots, I only used a DMPC once.
And I'd barely call it that. He was an NPC who happened to be in the same place as the PCs, looking for a treasure unrelated to the reason they were there.
He spent most of the time taking other routes than the PCs, and only took place in one fight, and that was because it was more of a puzzle fight and I was using him as an in-character way to demonstrate the fight's gimmick.
Then he found the treasure he wanted, got possessed by it, and got killed by the party afterwards.
Good times
>>46667773
Thing is, that the characters the GM plays are the NPCs. Some of these are DMPCs. You can't have a DM without NPCs but definitely can have one without DMPCs
>>46668208
That's NPC, you fucking idiot
>>46671646
... and?
This doesn't change the simple fact it depends on fuckload of factors if DMPC is good or not. Without taking them all into account, there is no fucking way to openly say "Yeah, DMPC is inherently negative".
Or you simply don't understand what "inherently" or "negative" means
I'm sick and tired with people at RPG that treat everything either as 1 or 0. It's semi-acceptable when I'm running game for teens at local youth-centre, because they don't know better, being teens.
But when I'm among adults? Fuck no.
>>46661720
A: Ask the player. "You find a mercenary who agrees to work for two gold pieces per day. What are they like?"
B: Roll for it. D&D 5E in particular has great tables for random NPCs. Randomness keeps it fresh for both you and the players, don't be tempted to pick things (or else you might head into DMPC territory).
>>46660442
>>46660442
You mean NPCs?
I find them pretty integral. Unless we were playing a Revelations RPG, I suppose.
>NPC with established personality and skillset
>Players want them to tag along with them
How do you handle this, besides having them say "no"?
My group loves NPC companions. We generally don't have any campaigns that aren't full of them. I honestly don't understand how someone can run a game without creating non hostile elements of the world that the players can regularly interact with. It just seems so autistic the way people sperg out so hard whenever a friendly recurring NPC is introduced to a game. I love that shit and I think games without them are boring.
Actual GMPCs that are treated like player characters are obviously shit, but there's literally nothing wrong with having a reliable friendly NPC tagging along on your adventures, especially if they have their own optional subplot that interested PCs can get involved in.
>>46673122
If the character has reason to follow the party then just let them follow the party? You're missing out on a ton of opportunities by defaulting to "no." Sure, every NPC shouldn't be recruitable, but you should leave the option for it to happen sometimes instead of automatically denying it.
Depends. I'm going to intentionally make a overpowered NPC in a superhero game that does nothing but go on with his normal life. Like, he is completely invulnerable, has infinite strength, nigh-impossible to outrun, and would be considered omnipotent, but he's depressed and never does anything of note except defend himself. How could I do that well?
