Overpowered DMPC Controls The Party, Violence Ensues
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 มิ.ย. 2024
- Check out these awesome D&D maps! / czepeku
Thanks to u/RaikuKawisa on r/critcrab and snarkycyst via critcrabsubmissions@gmail.com
Join the Discord! / discord
Submit Your Story! / critcrab
join the CRUSTACEAN LEGION / @critcrab
Follow me on Twitter! / crabcrit
MERCH! teespring.com/stores/critcrab...
0:00 Intro
0:40 Sponsor
1:43 The Superman Incident
13:20 The Vampire Incident
28:20 Outro
![[Pathfinder 2e] How to pick a class - A Quick Look at All Classes in PF2](/img/n.gif)
"If you're going to make Superman, also make Kryptonite."
That's an important lesson that a lot of DM and players in these stories don't seem to want to learn. Well spoken!
Meh just don't have the DMPC do anything, not be "useless" but meaning not a bother as to not fk up things as that is why they had the adventures do what they do why would they do it themselves if they have a million other things to look after as a Guld Mascot and "Entertainment". I get the risks but come on you don't find Oil without mining for it nor undermining a company without them being in the way of your company first. If not broken don't fix, also don't break what is not needed to be broken. Ever see Midna do anything undue?! NO, and she's freaking Twilight Princess. I think people are missing the point they see risk and they think it can't be done. FATILIST, go feel bad for yourself and do better next time. Stop discouraging YOURSELF. There is no risk without reward unless it is Nutmeg. Don't do nutmeg to get fly. I think people refuse to even give it a try and "better safe than sorry" but make it like Happy (fking) Fun land in that one Fairly OddParents Movie about the Clown turned Corpo. Pad everything like some freaking padded cell for players that do not need straigh jackets. THAT is what discourages people from even giving the notion of having no DMPCs in the game in the first place. Assholes ruin everything, the same sheeple that consoom everything Hollywood is making. Which is crap BTW, "The Message" for "The Modern Audience" yeah fat arsed Reddit/Discord mods and whatnot that think it's deep because they are activists and do not understand writing. Why Hollywood makes crap, Activists in the chairs of writers that can actually do the job at hand and not make some half-baked political thing about and self-entries, or "why to do better" No. They need to do better, not us. I think people are missing what they need because it is being covered up and lied about.
@@BlackMoonHowls what?!
I think a good use for a DMPC is to be a placeholder for combat in case a player has to leave mid session due to an emergency or you're just down a player but still have enough players to proceed with the session. That said, a DMPC should never be more than just filler or support imo
@@BlackMoonHowls Please for the love of god use paragraph breaks
Thank you!
"That would be barbaric" - The Barbarian
My first thought lmao
@@Pundae lol
My thoughts exactly
Had a dmnpc. She was a tabaxi with suspicious dark magic that healed the party when the healer was out. She also was mute and illiterate. Had a wealth of knowledge that the group had to interpret through charades. She was fun.
Technically everything in the campgain is a DMNPC. From every minor creature to the very cosmos of the DM's campagain itself.
Congratz on writing a nice DMNPC though. I bet she was a cute, helpful catgirl Waifu. 😉😁
@@LawfulBasedew
That definitely feels like taking advantage of someone who cannot say no
@@gradygillis274Wdym?? The dmnpc did that by themselves, its not like they can say yeah either 💀
@@LawfulBased the difference is that DMPC is basically forced into the party because DM also wants to play his own game. But he's also DM so he ends up making his character stupidly OP in comparison to the rest of the party.
As terrible as DMPCs can be in games, its hard to deny its entertaining reading stories about bad DMPCs
True
Amen to that
Fr
I have a DMPC rooster, that all party made just for fun. When we rolled stats for this silly guy, we died from fact that the rooster is smartest and most charismatic in the party. He's level 2 warlock by now
And yea, thats not a some kind of bird-like race warlock, that's literally a rooster-warlock
“Was it a mistake to save these villagers?”
*Superman appears*
“Apparently it was”
Snyderverse Pa Kent appears "Maybe you should have let those kids die"
@@opinionpaladin6007 "You see, that village is 'over there.' and 'over there' has to take care of itself!"
You should always have a vague plan for if your players decide they hate your DMPC.
For instance: my first ever DMPC was the BBEG aged down by a powerful wizard. Since the players would eventually need to find that wizard, of course the tiny BBEG would want to tag along with the party to get his true power back. He was set up to act as a goody-two-shoes cleric if the party wanted him, _or_ a sneaky stalker that would set up favorable circumstances for them in the background if they decided to kick him to the curb for any reason.
In their first ever combat with him on their team they threw him at the enemy goblins as a distraction and booked it to the goal. Another time they just straight up forgot about and abandoned him in a burning inn while they all woke each other and fled. It was great! And it made for an even funnier reveal and a _very_ indignant villain monologue later down the line.
I could imagine a DMPC becoming a villain over the course of a campaign due to the party trying to rid themselves of them.
The anvil head guy from the shadow fandub
Now I'm imagining a DMPC that the players ditch (prolly for good reason) only to become a Syndrome type villain later on.
@Redd7206 you mean the one that was a trying to get Shadow to be middle manager of hell?
were. were you playing dimple from mob psycho
In my year in DnD, I have only encountered DMPC once so far, and I was incredibly lucky that the master approached it responsibly. It was a goblin named "Teeth". Initially, he was just a random goblin whom we freed from orc slavery. Since then, he has traveled with us, dreaming of one day becoming the goblin king and ending the orcish tyranny. And the master managed to very organically weave the “Teeth” arc into the main story. He never drew attention to him, he did not become a super-powerful destroyer of everything. He was simply a comik relief, who more often than not was even a burden in battle. And everyone loved it! Moreover, when Dm forgot about Teeth, someone always asked, “Hey, what is Teeth doing now?” It was a good campaign...
P.S: I apologize if I wrote something unclear. I don't write English very well.
what happened to teeth
@@fujinfromwarrobots1130 Alas, we ended the campaign just as the development of the personal plot “Teeth” began. Dm wrote to us that he was tired and burned out from this game, and that if we don’t mind, he would like to start a new one. We were sad, but we supported him.
@@user-vl7gg3km6p damn
#WhereWasBalnor
@@darrienjones8917 ?
The first story feels like it's the back half of a murderhobo story
I wouldn't be surprised if the DM was expecting this, and built the job so that every evil action just made the final boss fight more powerful
I wouldn't be surprised if there was another story on the same forum that details the DMs "revenge on a bad party" story
something about this one seems off, like OP was leaving out some details, while also basically admitting that they were just picking the easy route on a game that expressed it was going to be about moral choices.
however DM shouldn't have sent a god-like DMPC down, but maybe instead have the town boo and hate them and refuse to help the party that more evil they did.
@@iluvyurbles it doesn't seem like doing evil, if you lose in both choices there's no point. It should have been at least possible to do both even if it was way harder
This is why you reward good and punish evil
For example use karma so that way your rolls become easier the more more you act and harder the eviler you become
Or you can give the characters increased stats by let's say the town teaching them new methods we're giving them secret artifacts that they would never give otherwise
@@lucky6961 Agreed but OP doesn't really clarify if they tried that route. It would have to be a terribly inept DM that didn't put an alternative in and, instead, said, "take the morally corrupt path or you can't finish the game." It feels like OP isn't telling us the whole story about the moral choice system but rather making excuses for the party murderhobing simply because it's the easier option.
@@belstone1370 yeah. I guess the lack of creativity of the party was an issue and the DM is pretty much vilanized. But with the amount of insanity I heard about how some campaign's go this case doesn't seem so unreal
Honestly the best way to do DMPC is to just have an NPC join the party that goes along with whatever they do and just joins for combat seeing as the DM knows all the stuff I feel thats the best way to play with the party while also DMing (yes the NPC can have a personality and motivations but they wouldnt make suggestions or decisions that guide the party)
Exactly I agree and it's what I do, sometimes I do it to convey info that that NPC might have or it's from a players backstory so there is a reason these people would travel (for a very limited time) with the party.
This is how an old DM of mine did it. He called the character his PC, but ran it more as an NPC. And he would give up control to me as I hopped in and out of the game as my work schedule allowed (often, maybe once a month at best)
I diasgree with the "make no suggestions" but on the contrary suggestions should be plentiful, sometimes make sense, most time but flawed and always following their agenda (no need to only have 1 of them either). BUT it should never comes at the cost of PC roleplay => either NPC can rejuvenate the idea pool of the group, or be in contradiction with them, but a YES-man npc is the most boring thing one should want by his side (except in New Vegas) : it's the DM admitting straight that fudging the rolls, adjusting the values on the fly and creating the scene is still not enough to provide a decent yet possible challenge.
NPC should rarely make decisions for the players, that I agree, although I can foresee some specific cases where it can be great : not because PCs are doing poorly (or great) but to turn a "good guy" into an antagonist (maybe he is "too good" or just obnoxious, they can always leave him and he might return to be a mild antagonist), or because they hired an "hot blooded orc" in front of a martial challenge (help him or let him be in it elbow deep? choice is theirs)
I DM'd a short one-shot for the homies for their first D&D experience, and I put in what I called a DMPC, an NPC that tags-along with the party and tries to be helpful, and not what most people seem to complain about, which I call a DM/PC, a "DM-Player Character".
10 in all stats, gave him like, 20 ish health, and I think it was 2 uses a short rest of Shape Earth, and the cantrip Mold Earth, and just had him create cover for the party, and difficult terrain for the enemy, along with having a back-pack and generic adventuring gear, and the party was happy for having a pack-mule+ .
Never had him speak during "cut-scenes" where the focus was on player decision; sometimes he'd give opinions if asked for one, but I never had him "feed the party answers". He was dumb as all heck, and was limited to having "useful common sense" in respect to (game mechanics), and would suggest actions making use of them to the party, so that *they* could further the scene and story, pass or fail.
They had fun, and asked if instead of a One-Shot, I could make them one or two more "adventures" to go on - really it was more like a Guild-assigned Mission, but I digress.
They got levels, and my DMPC would get 1 use of Shape Earth, and I think 1d8 hp increased.
It easily got to the point where my players basically bullied a member into suggesting that my DMPC should, "find a way to leave the party - we don't want him to die..."
I flipping loved that.
I asked him to tell the other players all they need to do, is during the next session, have their characters tell him exactly that.
After a bit of talking, my players agreed to ask my DMPC this:
players: hey man, we're really happy you're always there for us, even when it risks your life.. but we don't want you to die, so how about this : you start working on making us a Guild Hall with Shape Earth? After this mission, we want to buy a plot of land and have you run it. Of course, we'll pay you; what do you say?
Useful enough to help each of them "be a main character", but with 0 real power and a single attack (that was never used) : unarmed attack: to hit 1d20+str (0) / damage 1.
@@lecoutcritique8854 Giving the NPC some sort of agenda and making it clear that the suggestions aren't you as the DM creating expectations on the players is probably the best way to handle it. The issue with suggestions is that a lot of groups with DMPCs end up falling into a trap of the DMPC being basically the DM's in-universe spokeperson and a soft railroading tool. As long as the DM is careful not to go for that, I'd say an opinionated DMPC can be an incredible addition to the game.
Honestly, it's a mismatch of expectations. A conversation is the best way to resolve this, whether it's through compromise and cooperation or through the decision to part ways. (Story 1)
The weird part to me is why would you add morally grey decisions if you want the players to take the heroic route?
@@danielmbgI believe the GM might have been trying to go for a "will you pick short or long term gains. Going for the villagers sounds bad if your goal is to catch up to the bad guy, but going for it might be helpful later on.
It also was probably the GMs attempt to slow down the party. But evil PCs will not help unless they have clear benefit.
Personally as long as there is not major disharmony among my party, I am fine if they are heroic or villainous. I even have different final bosses planned depending on what side they take in the end.
@@danielmbg because the players ignored anything not related the final bad guy. They had to have their hands held to interact with the world. Then they complain about railroading, give the freedom of choice, and they ignore the lore/world for mechanical benefits, add in a character to try and convince them using role play, they hate him and try to kill him after repeated warnings.
My first ever DnD one shot had a DMPC I honestly really liked.
The plot was that we were mercenaries hired by a magic school to explore old dungeons and bring back magic items to study.
The DMPC was a professor at the Academy who came with us to basically magic the plot along if we got stuck, but had a running gag where any time we got into combat she would nervously mumble that 'academy guidelines stop me from getting involved' and turn herself invisible.
Shame they can't all be like that.
Currently running my first campaign, and I went into it determined not to make a DMPC. Then my players took a goblin hostage that I had intended have betray them within the next one or two sessions--but then their choices made that betrayal very hard to play out mechanically, and everyone grew very attached to the goblin as his chances for betraying them slipped away. Now he's got his own character sheet and has become a cleric under the trickster domain so that they have a healer and their favorite pet goblin is less likely to die in combat, but I've been very careful to keep him a level lower than the PCs, and his input on story direction when asked is usually based on a dice roll. When the focus does wind up on him (since everyone loves him so much and want to help in his personal life whenever a hint is dropped), I play it so that the party is helping HIM make the right choices. It's been a lot of fun!
That's honestly the best way to have a DMPC join the party.
Reminds me of a tabletop version of a bg3 companion. Sounds well handled!
Yep, DMPCs should always be underpowered and indecisive.
The best is when the party wants to help the DMPC achieve his/her/its goal because the DMPC is to weak to do it. Warms the heart.
...so, I'm actually glad you brought up how there is a sense of pity for the DM. He definetly didn't seem to be well fitted to the Party, as it seemed he was really wanting them to make hard decisions on morality he didn't care for.
Do I think he should've TPK'd them with an Overpowered PC? No, absolutely not, but I also think that the Players and DM should've had a conversation out of game rather than them holding resentment for his DMPC, or him making one in the first place to try and solve this problem. I see a lot of problems all around tbh.
Also love your vids CritCrab!
The only thing that I don't get is why was he running his game in a way that allowed, and even encouraged, morally dubious characters if he wanted morally upstanding paragons.
Like he was giving them all these complex moral choices when he absolutely did not have to. If you don't want your players killing an innocent man, don't make the only way they can get a vital item be killing said man. Make them have to kill an evil man, or a dragon, or pass a series of puzzles and trials. But if you're campaign is about making hard choices, you have to kind of follow through on the choices otherwise what's the point
@@jonahbardwell551I don’t think he wanted them to be moral righteous, I think he just wanted them to give a little more consideration. To care more about what they had to do. Imo the party are kinda assholes for understanding the dm wants them to make hard choices but then just choosing the selfish option all the time, refusing to play along with what the dm was giving them. Now should the dm have tpk’d them? Absolutely not, but I understand the sense of frustration that built up.
Thankfully my ttrpg system is designed to allow the author to play as an actor along with the other narrators, so everyone gets to play and everyone gets to shape the story.
@jonahbardwell551 With how apathetic the players sounded about the world, i wouldn't be surprised if the GM did have consequences, and the players just ignored them and didn't care
@@scorch2155 I agree, the OP even said during the “save the city” choice that the players were only discussing purely mechanical reasons to stay and fight. It’s the same as making a dialogue choice in, say, Baldur’s Gate 3 or Mass Effect, not because that’s the kind of playthrough you’re doing, or what *you’d* do in that position, but simply because you want the shiny thing that has bigger damage numbers - that works fine in a single player game, but in this case, the DM probably felt like the world he made was being flat out ignored in favor of just pushing the game forward as quickly as possible
EDIT: What the DM did was wrong, but the reasons behind it where at least understandable
For that first one, I think I give that an "everyone sucks". The DM shouldn't have done all that, but the players sounded like borderline murderhobos. Communication completely broke down, and everyone suffered for it.
No they weren't murderhobos at all according the the story.
The DM kept putting them in a "be murder hobos or fail the quest" situations, it never sounded like they liked it or sought it out, which are core parts of being a murder hobo.
OP smacks of unreliable/bias narrator a little bit though @@Kiwipai
@@Kiwipai It didn't seem to be "be murder hobos or fail the quest" it was "be incredibly selfish amoral assholes or let the villain gain ground this one time" and they chose the second option every time, just because they didn't give a shit. DM handled it horribly though, he should have just said he's not having fun and ended the campaign and found a better group.
@@beganfish again, being apathetic to the GMs suggestion to kill generic NPCs they have no relationship with other than randomly generated names, or get punished for not doing so, doesn't make them murder hobos. A murder hobo WANTS to go around murdering NPCs, it should be obvious the difference is way more than pedantry.
If you want to criticize the players you could say they decided to check out and never bothered to communicate that they're not interested in that kind of gameplay.
@@Kiwipai I think that players not caring about the lives of innocent NPCs and being willing to kill them pretty squarely makes them murder hobos. Being a murder hobo doesn't have to be going out of your way to kill people, it can also be killing anyone who gets in your way no matter who they are, or killing people when there would be a benefit to you, again, no matter who they are. This group was clearly filled with murder hobos.
To me, the first story reads like a bunch of chaotic neutral murder hobos vs a dm trying to do something somewhat interesting. That being said, the dm did the wrong thing to counter it at every turn
Sounded more like a game that's supposed to be about hard choices just devolving into "be stupid or mean". The fact the party chose to defend a village they saw as a homebase throws a wrench in the murderhobo argument.
He should have added npcs to avenge the destroyed villages
Or given them a reason to defend others. Like when they decided to stay I immediately thought "okay so all you have to do is build an attachment to the people you want them to help".
Alternatively, have two plot hooks going at the same time that would both hinder the bad guy. For one of ours we had 4 cities that were protecting magic items the bbeg needed, and we basically had to create safeguards that would defend each even when we weren't there by cooperating with the guard
Would’ve been a better option for sure. The op mentions their stuff being at risk - make the choice more relevant to them seeing as how they don’t care about the morality choices the dm seems to be so invested in
Assuming the villages were being destroyed by the bbeg's forces you could also just say the bbeg advanced their own plans by destroying the village. Whether they found something of use their or undermined supply chains or morale or something really simple and obvious like raising the town as undead to bolster their forces.
The problem in the first game was the DM and the players, at a fundamental level, where playing different games. The overpowered DMPC aside (it sounds like the DM added them out of frustration) neither side was in the wrong (or the right), they were just incompatible.
I don't think they were incompatible, because DM and the players don't have to agree on wether they are doing goody two-shoes run or a morally grey run with doing evil for "greater good"
I'd say the biggest to blame is the DM for handling the players poorly. because if he wanted the players to think on their choices, he shoul've simply show them negative consequences of their actions.
for example:
if the players commited some evil deeds in a village in order to progress their goals, then suprise suprise, they are now treated with distrust or hostility in all nearby villages by all NPCs
Exactly, but I think the DM ultimately handled the situation extremely poorly.
@@ofal5124yes, they do have to agree. The DM can try to show them the consequences of their actions to push them to a more virtuous path but he can't force them to take this path. The DM should control the game with the objective of letting the players have fun the way they want. That's why there should be some form of session 0 where the DM and players agree on their expectations for the game. That's at this point that it shoumd be decided whether the game will be morally grey, full good or full evil.
If the DM and players don't agree, then they are not playing the same game, which will inevitably lead to frustrations on both sides. In this case, the players clearly didn't care to be morally good, were focused on their objectives and if anything liked having morally grey choices. While it was clear that the DM wanted to push them to be morally good. So they're not playing the same game as the DM is actively pushing the players to do things they don't want to ald the players push back. This leads the players to resist the DM's ideas and the DM to implement even more ideas to force the players to behave the way he wants.
In the end the DM and players have to be on the same side to build a game that satisfies everyone
@@ofal5124 the players dont care about that though, thats the thing. The players are ignoring literally everything to just rush the story and get stronger and said multiple times, they dont care. I bet if the DM did your suggestion or took away what the characters loved most, (items and their home base) they wouldve added that to the story and you guys would be like "The DM is just mad that he cant railroad the players and handled that poorly by taking away what makes the game fun for them."
Damned if you do, damned if you dont. But the DM did nothing wrong. He just made rocks fall with a character they were planning on killing anyway
I'd blame the dm, they weren't being bad in a situation where they could have been kind, they were put in situations where they had to commit evil deeds otherwise the bbeg would get away. In either situation they are at loss in short and long term
I rarely have DMPCs, but when I do:
- I let players control or guide them during combat.
- I don't have them make decisions for the party.
- I keep them as pre-generated characters for guests.
- I mainly use them to supplement roles like tanks, damage or healers the party lacks
- Or to keep knowledge/secrets for exposition.
- Or better than all of that; they're mentors or rivals to the party that show up and disappear at a whim.
(Like, Gandalf or Zuko)
I think this is the best way to go, you hit the nail on the head. Usually I go with DMPCs when I don't have a lot of players (I often play with only 2-3 people) and their party makeup is unbalanced. Like "hey, we are all playing squishy casters!". Maybe that is when you throw in a fighter. But there are many ways to narratively justify the DMPC not taking charge. Maybe they are just...kind of shy, or don't care as much. You know, not leader material. Or maybe they are somehow tied to a party member, their vassal, apprentice, childhood friend etc and are prone to deffer to the players for decisions.
@ProfiteerProphet Historically, my DMPCs have been too Brave, Dumb, Crazy, Shy or Untrustworthy to take a leadership role.
The rivals sometimes appear as enemies, sometimes as temporary or redeemed allies.
The mentors, nature guides or more experienced or leader-like DMPCs respect that the Party has a more personal reason to achieve victory than they do.
ngl, the first OP came off, to me, like a cross between an edge lord and a min maxxer - personal preference but if I'm at a table where the players openly admit they give 0 shits about what happens to the npcs around them I'm... just not gonna play with them
Min maxxer sure, but I doubt edge Lord. Its clear that the entire party had the same approach as him- if the DM had a problem, they should have mentioned it instead of just trying to manoeuvre them into his own image
To me it depends on the characters' alignments. If none of them were good or very lawful, then it makes sense. They're focused on the objective, and as the crab guy mentioned, they prolly believe ends justify the means. It doesn't seem like they fully took delight in it, or went out of their way to ignore those who needed help. Idk, just my 2 cents
"THATS BARBARIC" says the barbarian
Funny thing, my cat's name is Halo. Every time Crab says Halo, the first thing that comes to my mind is a large human-like version of my three-legged cat DM-ing. 😂
Three-legged? What happened to the little dude?
@@Tabletopcloud20probably amputated for medical reasons 😔
In the first story, the DM calling DMPC "well designed" gives me a feeling they might not have listened, but they might have just thought the players were lashing out over their deaths because the DM didn't know how long the hatred had been brewing and how horrible an army of the character they hate sounded. Could be just yet another DMPC story or a situation of lack of communication kills. (pun not intended)
Second story... I can't say anything other than rolling my eyes, facepalming, and laughing
man... that story took me back! To answer your question of why we didn't stop farming the phoenix is because it was honestly hilarious. The DM was trying his best to not to "smite" as we had a mutual agreement in our group that we wouldn't do that. We always held sessions starting in the evening after we got done with classes for the day (we were all in college) and the sessions ran well into the following early mornings. Both the Phoenix fight and the DM vs Samurai fight took place near the end of the sessions at between 1 AM to 4 AM. I personally don't recall a lot of the final session other than what the OP mentioned as I was fading in and out of sleep for about half the session anyways.
Great video!! We all learned a lot that night about how to DM and I hope more DMs can learn from this video too!!
I think the best way for a DM to run a DMP -type character is to have a small collection of returning npc's. They never stick around long enough to shape the course of the adventure, and theyre always secretly a few levels weaker than the rest of the party so as to not steal the spotlight by being "too strong." They're mostly there for utility and narrative devices.
Thats my take though. Ive never tried to run a DMPC, except in the occasion where a party kidnapp- I mean, _adopted_ an npc during a one-shot.
Back when I was playing 3.5 D&D my DM always had a a DMPC with us.
He always handled them really well, it's also worth nothing that we were a group of three including the DM. So it was more needed in that case.
It should never be used in a situation with a fully group though unless it only closes a gap in the party that's needed.
Yup, I've played in multiple campaigns with a dmpc. But that's because in those campaigns it was just me and one other player. Both of us were new to dnd and a little shy (more being me) so it helped a lot progressing through and in battles
@@randomweeb9179 In cases like yours they can work really well.
That said, the DM/GM has to handle them well too. Which doesn't always happen sadly.
DMNPCs are an interesting, later development to the very common use of hirelings in old school D&D games. DMNPCs are a result of ignoring many of the Charisma rules in D&D, AD&D, and 2e, creating a problem as a solution that was already resolved.
@@anthonybird546 Yes, and no. It depends on how they're handled.
Like I said, my DM did the job really well. Unfortunately, many do not.
@@marybdrake1472 there are definite differences in the way that power levels can be different, and I think the other key being that the DMPC's share of treasure, experience, goals, and attachments to the party are different. Old school hirelings also served up as back up PCs when the players' characters died, whereas DMPCs are only ever going to stay in the DM's control.
For the first story I get where you're coming by saying that the DM should have just fugured out why they protected the city and use more reasoning like that for future stuff, but the players had blatantly said the sole reason they protected the town was for mechanical reason, not any roleplay reason. And also on the topic of the players with the moral choices while it wasn't said that it was discussed they were supposed to be morally good, it was blatantly obvious that the DM wasn't happy with running an 'evil' game
Then the DM should talk to his players outside of game, and don't punish them the first time they do what you wanted them to do.
I just tought this DM could've so easily show the players the less obvious consequences of their actions.
If the guy wanted to aim for a more good oriented campagin whit clear moral tone, he should've shown the negative consequences of taking an easy route, while not caring for harm they are causing.
Things like making NPCs distrusting, even hostile, since they know the PCs won't think twice about killing them if it would help their goals.
Have them be hated or despised by commoners, or even testing their judgment of what attrocities they are willing to commit for their own convinience.
and even if after that the party decides to take the cold calculating approach, the DM after ending the campagin could sit down and say.
"You defeated the BBEG and saved the world, however, the cities are in chaos and villages are raided by bandits on a daily basis, people are too busy fighting for their life to celebrate your glorious victory... Let's hope it was worth it."
They liked the characters in there and it was their headquarters, that's not mechanical reasons. The DM wanted one game and the players wanted a different game. This is an issue that should have been clarified on session zero. Inserting a mary sue DMPC and making the game awkward for everyone isn't a good way to handle it, they should have just talked it out (as is the actual solution for 99% of these stories). If they came to the conclusion that the players and the DM are incompatible, they could have simply ended the campaign more gracefully and parted ways without burning bridges instead of dragging it into a mess and getting everyone involved frustrated.
My DM has a PC, basically a peasant with a voice like mickey mouse that follows the party in the background and only exists in the scene when directly observed or asked a question. He gets used as a distraction a lot but mostly stays out of the way. I think any more DMPC involvement than that wouldn't be fun
Eh, using a DMPC to set up the plot works well too.
From the outside looking in it might be that the DM wanted to perhaps make a sandbox where the party could choose their morality and it might not be that the Superman character wasn't intended to be railroading them but perhaps attempting to give them a final boss for if they choose to play an evil campaign. He more or less says, "It's impossible to beat the BBEG without this plan that you're trying to throw out" so when they say, "Don't care," three times in a row, even after being directly told, "This character you have directly witnessed is extremely powerful, beyond what your party is currently capable of handling, will do what is necessary to get this," the reasonable assumption would be to pivot the campaign since it's made apparent they aren't interested in beating the established BBEG - at least, not as much as they're interested in antagonizing the Superman character.
They talk about the guy lecturing and browbeating them but in the story the DM choosing to give them tough moral choices with very clear points of asking, "Are you sure?" and, "Actions do have consequences" multiple times yet letting them make the final decision and not immediately punishing them for it - seems like that was very likely the intent. A lot of people don't like to play evil campaigns so giving them a TON of leeway until they're locked into that path sounds like a good idea.
They might have thought he was annoying and it's very much possible it was just the DM trying to force them to play a non-evil campaign but the level of agency the DM gave them, even in the story attempting to make it look like he was the bad guy, makes me think there was more going on.
If that's the case then it was very poorly communicated, or he tried to be too subtle for the kinda group he has
A good DMPC should never be the main cool guy
Honestly that entire group jist needs a few lessons on how to communicate
When it’s come to DMPC’s for my campaign I’ve been in, most of the time it’s just been temporary allies that disappear after 2-3 combat encounters for the story we’re in. So I can’t say I’ve had bad experiences with them and think it’s actually pretty cool
DMPC: "the end doesn't justify the means!"
*Repeat ad nauseam.*
DMPC: "I'm sorry, party. The end justifies the means!"
“Superman” should have had an arc where he himself is thrown into the moral dilemmas the party is shoved into. It’s to criticize the party when he’s not the one making the decisions. Makes me wish this DM was just a little more aware.
"See how *you* like it. You like how that feels?"
Putting Jiren in the thumbnail makes me imagine this is just a really bad day for the Pride Troopers.
DM Jiren goes crazy with power during the Pride Tooper game night.
He got replaced by Injustice Superman
@@diogod2347 He doesn't understand that he's not supposed to be the strongest this time, whoops.
@@ConnorTheUndying Now Superman's been replaced by Jiren again. FP Jiren to be precise.
Look, I'm not excusing the DMPC behaviour here but in a game where there's literally a spell called Zone of Truth that effectively makes it almost impossible to lie, the party was WAY too quick in resorting to torture
The longest running campaign I ever played(3 years exactly) had a DMPC. But he didn't start that way because originally someone else ran the game. It only came about later that he had to take over when the first DM hit a mental block that had him take the story in a weird direction(it included space travel and lightsabers, and was quickly retconned by the second DM). While the DM still controlled the character through RP and decision making, he left it to the players(usually me) to make the rolls for the character. I think this might be the fairest way to handle a DMPC.
I think the first story is a lesson where communication could have helped both parties a lot. Maybe even saved the game before it fell apart.
Heavy suspicion that DM and Group were just incompatable to begin with, with what they expected out of the game on both parts and what kind of play style the players wanted to use.
To me there absolutely should have been a "consequence comes from choosing these actions", but not in the way the DM handled it- almost sounded like a frustration attempt gone horribly wrong as them basically choosing "end goal only/only what directly affects us matters & screw the rest because it doesn't matter/only holds us back or slows us up anyway" attitudes COULD have been taken as a total diss to his world building possibly!
Now that I write these thoughts I realize there's a lot of missing information as we only have a very one sided view... However that view openly admits how they didn't care about his towns, didn't care about the populations in them, didn't care about the "meaningless" NPCs... And Halo could have possibly put a lot of heart into all those things and that would have been a BIG bummer! Especially if those places and the world were build up and meant a lot ... Making him possibly push those ethical and moral questions because it meant a lot to HALO and wanting them to mean more to his players.
Yeah Halo handled it wrong with the preachy NPC and everything that spiraled from it was bad... But I think that it all is just to show that communication is so very important between a DM and Party- what both sides want out of this, and how both sides are feeling with what's happening.
That's just my take on it all for story one, at least.
Superman: don’t you get that good warm feeling inside when you help people.
Party: I don’t like to feel good I like to feel evil
The main thing you MUST remember if you are a DM running a DMPC is that they are NOT the main character and MUST remain in the background as much as possible. In my campaign I actually started with 3 because I only had 2 players and needed to fill out the squad, one of them was tagged out after I got more players (Because she was injured in battle, the other two have so far survived). If we weren't nearly 2 years into the campaign and at the final chapter I would have dropped at least one more since I now have more than enough players to fill out a squad.
Remember, the DM makes the world but the PLAYERS make the story. It is their tale, not yours. You set it up, but things will always break away from your script. My campaign started as a normal Gundam based one, now we have a Crab God who talks like Macho Man helping us fight an Arch Dracolich who is using time/space manipulation magic to bring in Imperial Star Destroyers, Dragons, Saiyan Oozarus, Zoids, and eventually maybe even Godzilla (At the very least Mecha-Godzilla). The transition between a standard One Year War setting to Macho Crab vs Arch Dracolich was shockingly organic.
In relation to the story, the DMPC absolutely should not be stronger than the party. They should be exactly the same as a player character, no bullcrap buffs (One of my DMPCs is arguably the strongest of the group and would easily handle most of the squad, but would have a hard time with the melee monsters).
The DMPC in my campaign was meant to die a noble death in battle, but my players have stacked multiple healers or healers style builds and refused to let him die.
So the party doesn’t want to do good because the big bad escaped, so the dm keeps letting the big bad escape when they cave and do good? Yeah, that’s a fool right there.
If you want them to play the way you want, you have to discuss it or incentivize it by giving them what they want or giving good loot.
Hearing about nightmare DMPCs makes me really grateful for how patient my (regular) players are. I've made a few DMPCs, and learned that the only ones that really work are the ones that act as support; not a moral compass, not an OP "mentor," but just a character to share the adventure with.
12:16 this was a potential campaign saving moment. Have the guy defeat you and take the font, and have the players realize that "Oh, he was never our friend! He's the actual bad guy and was using us this entire time! And now he stole our stuff!" Because if you want your players to go after a character, have that character steal from them. It would've been awesome.
The argument of the dragon being too proud to allow a rider was adressed by Shadiversity, and he suggested an alternative: "Go ahead and ride me in battle if you want, but you don't get to command me and I don't care if you fall off and die". Also works with centaurs and other sapient creatures potentially usable as mounts.
Was this before or after the anti-woke brain rot set in?
I'm running a DMPC which is a Unicorn. One of the players is a Cavalier. The Unicorn is willing to let the player ride him but reminds him that he is a passenger & not a rider.
I've never played without dmpcs. Because all our games are just two players (me and my wife). I'm not going to just solve the puzzles for her, that'd be no fun for either of us. So my dmpcs are usually the less proactive members of the team.
It's hard to make it work with just two players, but we both make two characters each, and I play all the npcs and we still have a good time!
A lot of dmpc nightmare stories tend to sound like just bad dms to begin with.
whenever my group had the dm play as a dmnpc it was whenever they knew we where heading into a dangerous area missing most of the party and we never saw the same dmnpc after they left us until the very end of the campaign during the epilogue as a checking in on them if we bonded well to them
I like watching these as it helps me learn how to be a good DM. What’s important is to never over shadow the players, it’s their game and if you have a character that’s meant to be stronger than them you need to be careful with how you use them.
What I’ve learned from playing in a DMnpc who was overpowered, but they played them correctly:The DM used the character in ways that didn’t belittle or annoy us, they had fun interactions with other players, and during the final fight despite being much stronger they didn’t over shower us. Instead a player asked them if they had a “sword of dragon slaying” or something (we were facing a white dragon, so the character just took out a bag of holding and rummaged through several powerful magic items until they found exactly that. Taking several turns to do so, it was a comedic interaction that allowed the players to be the center of the combat and enjoy the encounter. When time was running short and the DM had to leave soon, they had them get the weapon give to the player, cast dominate creature in the dragon sending it prone.
All players then got to unleash their best attack with guaranteed crits to deal massive damage and win the fight.
I had exactly one dmpc named Greg, a skeleton they gave sentience and he decided to follow them around
They cheered Greg on whenever he did combat and they actually cried when he died
1st story feels incredibly one-sided and I think is missing too much information to say for certain who is at fault, and honestly they all kinda raise some flags, so I'm gonna chalk it up to lack of proper communication on both sides: the DM wasn't clear about what kind of campaign they wanted to run and the players weren't clear about what kind characters they wanted to play, and the fact that no session 0 was mentioned (unless I missed something) kinda enforces my opinion. Halo definitely went overboard with the DMPC though, I think, but there's not enough information to put the blame entirely on them
2nd story is really something. You could argue that the players were wrong for exploiting the broken experience system and farming the phoenix, but if the DM really did plan for their DMPC to benefit from it with the intention of turning on a clearly unbalanced party, they just set themselves up for failure
Yeah, Tbh the amount of "we don't care" in story 1 raises some red flags to me, the dmpc born out of frustration was clearly the wrong way to go about it but I can see why the Dm would be pissed
I've never played dnd before but i really like these videos honestly (i'm starting to look into trying dnd at some point) I also use these videos as ways to learn how to play dnd (more-so stuff that's like a red flag with a player or how to see if a dm isn't the right fit)
me too brother
@@ofal5124 it's nice to meet another person here who doesn't play dnd lol
@@Cinnamonraisin_Bagel so... wanna make a group?
jk ofc
@@ofal5124 I mean 👀 /j
I use a dmpc. It is just a life domain cleric quandrix student. The only purpose is healing with goodberries.Remember that is 4 hp a berry,40hp a spell,3 per long rest(1 free casting and 2 spell slots). I named him Jerry due to being insignificant and only existing to be a lackey for the party. The offensive version would be Terry(Terrorist Jerry). Try using Jerries in your game for 120 hp of healing over 3 minutes.
Due to a thing in the campaign people can have multiple of the same class and subclass due to a diamond so Jerry got life domain cleric 2 more times.Plot points make them the backup character for when others are the DM. So now 100hp a minute,600 hp with all spell slots.(6 1st level spell slots)
My current DM had a few DMPCs at different times, but they were always temporary and only ever lended their aid to skill checks via help actions or when we specifically requested it. Outside of skill checks, they were extra stats in combat, but the main outcome was still determined by the party. Our current DMPC was a former PC's character, as the player is currently busy with life, but is planning to return. Our DM handles them really well and was more pf a boon than not to the story.
Superman with a _blue_ cape? It must be *Project A-ko* set in the magnificent far-off year of 2016. Birdman casually glances at the calendar.
the thumbnail should have been the god emperor of mankind saying ''IM NOT A GOD''
Closest I ever came to running DMPCs was 3 situations. I made 3 helper NPCs for different scenarios. 2 were a duo of a Tiefling and a Goliath, there to provide extra aid in a potentially lethal area for a party that was level 2 or 3 at the time. These two were around on occasion in the background after that, often reached out to when needing someone to deliver messages (as one was a monk and the other was a former newspaper writer, so they could deliver messages efficiently) while busy rushing to some other goal. The 3rd npc I made was actually just flavor and diversity I gave to a group of enemies (duergar. I varried their stats a bit and gave a couple class levels. This one was a ranger). He was in my notes Compliant with demands, and it led to him becoming a guide for the party for a while. And he was a Crit Machine in fights without even trying.
The last one I ran was also a part of the module, but literally As Written. Basically there to ask for the oarty to help fund things, and would either keep working with them, or if goals became separated, betray the party. I was dropping hints to the betrayal for a while, but the moment the party found out via the hints, they took time to use Level 10 genie warlock ability for a 10 minute short rest, and ambushed her, tying her up to be taken to the law. It was kinda epic cuz I even had a failsafe of her having a Time Stop scroll (only for emergencies). The warlock JUST BARELY rolled high enoufh to Counterspell it, and took her out.
The second one is literally how every anime big bad fights go. “I have this super crazy ability that no one can copy/bypass ha ha ha!” Then protagonist either completely recreates/uses the same move and one shot them or use the power of friendship.
DMPCs are easy. Find some skills your party doesn't have, like a rogue or healer, and have them fade into the background. They know general information and will answer questions but should always be a wallflower. It's the PCs job to shine.
So much stood out to me in the first story that I kinda feel like I have to comment one of these videos for the first time. There was definitely a disconnect of expectations between the dm and the party but if op is to be trusted the whole morality thing seems terribly thought out or implemented. Every good decision only seems to let the bbeg get away again and it seems the party doesn’t have a reason to believe that morally good decisions will help them get closer to the end goal. It feels like the opposite in fact. So in response they take the easy, if morally gray/bankrupt, routes because what other choice do they have? Plus there doesn’t seem to be any immediate consequences for their choices so good acts aren’t reinforced (like say getting some help from npcs in tracking the bbeg) and bad decisions are rewarded. Mechanically the party is being led down a dark path that the dm doesn’t seem to want them to go down to begin with.
Story wise it doesn’t seem like the party cares a bit about what happens to the npcs around them. It could be the disconnect in expectations as the party wants a more mechanics focused game instead of a bundle of trolley problems or that the dm has either made no effort to or has failed to make the party care about the world around them. If the party gets invested in a village and the people that inhabit it (maybe they sleep in an inn and the inkeeper has a family that’s naturally introduced or one of the party members has a background connection to an npc or the village as a whole) then even if there’s no clear mechanical reward for making the right choice (such as saving the village from a raid) it will still emotionally sting to make the bad choice (these actions would likely need to also have some other consequences besides this). Basically both choices need to have upsides and downsides whether they be mechanical or emotional.
And then Superman hits the fan destroying any potential enjoyment the campaign might have. Ah yes I’d love a lecturing, railroading, and all powerful dmpc in my game about moral quandaries. At this point the only thing that can save the game is a mature conversation which…evidently doesn’t happen. If the dm wanted the party to be good he should’ve opened a dialogue about his discontent instead of effectively forcing his will upon the party through his gold knight of the gods as I think the party’s frustration with the dmpc’s taking (more like stealing) of the wheel mixed with the dm’s clear frustration by becoming so directly involved in the first place ensures no potentially game saving conversation and the decline of the campaign.
There are two types of DMs: those who want to make a game for the players, and those who want to make a game for themselves.
I’ve had this idea rattling around in my head for a story where it’s the “chosen one” (hold your hatred, I’m getting to the important part) and the pcs meet him and begin their adventure slightly in his shadow. The whole thing is that they start thinking that I’m going in a “this is the awesome main character who was chosen to be the one who blah blah blah…” then I kill him. Brutally. Unforgivingly. The chosen one is dead, and the prophesy has fallen apart. And they have to fulfill the prophecy to the best of their abilities despite the rest of the world telling them not to because it’s impossible.
Think of it like if King Arthur was suddenly shot by an assassin right after he pulled the sword from the stone, and they have to pick it up.
Both groups in the first story seems like they are in the wrong yes it was 100% wrong for the DM to do what he did to the party however the party was pissing on the DMs world without care for how much effort and time the DM put into the world. you are 100% correct they arent compatible as a group which simple communication on what everyone wanted from the game could have avoided that conflict. in these rpg horror stories the subjects always seem to be allergic to communication most issues could be solved easily if one or more of the parties werent dumb and actually discussed the problem with the others.
yeah, the thing about the first story is, options that he gave are just that, a choice.
If you style of campaign, you need to set expectations and tell them what tone of characters you want. in this case, players and there characters were self-interested, only caring about their immediate goal, and their allies. this is an out of game problem, and both parties should have communicated about the expectations of the session. like "Guys, this is a heroic campaign and i'm uncomfortable with toture, so please don't do that". I can get the gm's frustration. if you as player want to play moraly ambigious character, please make sure it's okay with your dm.
However, if you offer an choice, you have to accept the choice that the player makes. it's kinda like the idea of if you don't want a player with a certain class/subclass or ability, don't give them the option to pick it.
I get that you can't always can do that for roleplay (sometimes players are set on a plan you didn't think about), but if you give players choices, and they choice the path you didn't intend for them, don't give them that option.
instead of saying, "Either follow the bbeg or defend the city", make the plot of the go towards defending the city. Like the clues to track the bbeg are in the city, and if it get ransacked, these clues would get lost, so the players want to defend the city instead. same for the well of power. if you want the powersource into an army, then don't make it that the players can absorb it (or at least only a tiny fraction), and it needs to be channeled into something else to work otherwise. these guy are mostly incentive driven, so given them incentives to do the good things can be a good way to get the story towards where you want it to go.
Aside from the overpowered dmpc, it's not that the dm was all that bad, his vision of the campaign just didn't match the players, and he didn't know how to deal with it. communication is the real campaign killer here.
Thanks for the video crab, it's always pleasant on a Saturday
I haven't ever played D&D but I really like listening to CritCrab read the stories.
The first story is just a group of murderhobos combined with a poor DM. The players should probably consider respecting their future DMs settings and NPCs while the DM needs to be a lot less ham fisted in dealing with players when adding consequences to their games. Edit: The line "When games were done we would privately complain to each other about how much we despised him (DMPC)". That's where I lose most sympathy for the players. No DM is ever going to improve or change their game for the players if you DON'T TELL THEM WHAT'S WRONG!
I've had a few DMPCs in my games before, but i never had them around for longer than ONE encounter, or for a pivotal story plot point. Like if its for an encounter it was as a last ditch effort to save the party after a series of REALLY bad rolls. or if its for plot reasons, it was to kill them off or to establish the danger of the BBEG or tone for the story going forward. NOT to lord of my players.
Eeey! This is the first video since I've discovered your channel that I'm early to, I'm excited for this!
"We weren't glad to be doing this" meanwhile my party waterboards pirates with shape water, spare the dying and uses weapons from a hexblade's pact weapon summoning.
By (my) definition a DMPC is always an issue, if the character is not an issue then it's just an NPC. It's the presence of the issue(s) that turn a NPC into a DMPC.
I actually had a similar experience with my party in a moral campaign I’m running. I’ve learned that creating one npc that they learn to love and having them react to the horror that party has created is usually enough to get them talking
"DnD 3.5E is a perfectly balanced game with zero exploits. Now, I hope your're all nice and comfy with a delicious, warm cup of tea in hand; while I set off on the jouney of the gestalt, ancestrally gem dragon-blooded, combat rogue, barbarian, psionic thaumaturge named 'Todd""
I'mma be honest...in story 1 this party sounds absolutely awful. The DM clearly wanted to give them a chance to grow as players by making them make hard choices that force them to see the world as alive. Instead, they're playing it like a board game. I would have quit this game in heartbeat due to the players, not the GM.
I think it's the age old problem not having a productive session 0.
Not being on the same page doesn't make the players, DMs, or your fun wrong, but it leaves DM odd manout.
I'm in agreement, if the party can't be bothered with narrative and roleplay why should I care as a dm just play a board game or crpg then that being said the dm should of been able to show consequences for the actions the party takes that isn't superman trying to pigeon hold them I don't think the issue is their choices but the reason for their choices which feels like them just metagaming
Idk. The DM was definitely the problem here. You can’t really blame the players for not playing the way you wanted them to. If you’re gonna give the players “hard choices”, they need to actually be hard choices. You can’t expect them to care about your random NPC’s just because you made them. You need to put something that the players might care about on the line, not just go “a random village is gonna get attacked if you don’t do this thing.”
Comically evil moral choices are immersion breaking. Don't blame the players for not engaging with moral conundrums when you only give them two choices: failure or evil.
I did an overpowered DMPC once - the gimmick being, she was actually a big bad, only around for two sessions, and the goal was to show off her bag of tricks + make it sensible for her to be tricky and manipulative out of combat from getting to know everyone, be very smart in combat, as a part of her toolset.
I realized she was pretty impossible to prepare for otherwise - being with the party it became sensible for her to fully know and prepare for them, but the reverse where the party could prepare for her was a much more valuable info-trade. She was a tiny-sized pixie with full arcane and divine casting, liked to wild shape into a "fine" sized tiny fey bug and blast spells while being nigh-impossible to hit, among other things. It was 3.5 so shennanigans all over.
Ended up working out great and she made for a memorable penultimate main antagonist.
One time I was a DM on Discord. I made a DM PC because we didn’t have any healers. He was a tiny fluffy axolotl who would heal people and sleep in their pockets. I think the party and the players actually really liked pockets. He was a sassy queen, and he shall never be forgotten lol.
In every game I've played be it D&D or Pathfinder there has always been DMPCs. Most were fine. Some most certainly were not. The ones that were fine were always made and balanced around the input of the other players at the table to make sure everything was on the table and balanced with everyone else for the most part unless the setting/situation justified them to be either slightly stronger or weaker than the party.
For an example of either think of like an adventuring mentor teaching a new group of adventurers or on the other side of things some newbie adventurer our party saved. Generally speaking in the games where it worked out they just felt like another character playing either at or near our own level. Not carrying us. Not being a burden.
A general rule of thumb was no more than 2 levels above or below the party average and stats were determined the same as the rest of the party. Usually some kind of point-buy system as that's usually our preferred method.
That being said most of these well done DMPCs are because most of the people I play with have one person in mind who did basically every horror story trope for DMPCs so aggressively that any hint of a potentially bad DMPC has been burned into our brains.
Our campaign has a DMPC in the form of Erky Timbers who some may know as an NPC from the sunless citadel module, he joined our party after we rescued him and generally just acts as a healer as we didn't particularly have one and every now and then serves as a way to naturally offer hints in game by being a knowledge domain cleric
the whole superman story would have me asking superman flat out if he was working for the big bad the first time we did what he told us to and then we lost progress on our quest to destroy the big bad.
one of the few times I played dnd, there was a sentient item dnpc who didnt do anything,, but had one usage, but couldnt be used on any bosses or the BBEG
it was like a bfg only for certain scenarios and that campaign was really fun
I love all Crit Crab videos!!
DM put himself into a hero position
Thethans D&D manifesto:
Rule 1: you are not as good a DM as you think you are
Rule 5: let the players take the reins, and their characters will write the story
Rule 6: your players secretly hate your quirky DMPCs.
Rule 21: no friendly NPC should be more powerful than the PCs.
Where can I read the whole thing?
I've seen short-term DMPCs done well before. The key is to 1: not make them the main character, and 2: have them passively fill a specific role and nothing else. As an example, if a DMPC paladin needs an escort to a specific location, the path to which is known for having lots of bandits, it would make sense to hire a few bodyguards. It would also alleviate some worry from the party about the person they are escorting being shanked by some goblin with a sharp stick. The paladin could engage in battle, but he would need to be at BEST on par with the other characters, or at worst, weaker by some margin (though not enough to be killed too easily.) They also would not be the first to engage anything, and would mostly sit back and let the party itself decide how to handle an encounter (hence the passive part) and if it came to a fight, not rush into the thick of it, but stick to their role in a way that nobody would say "Hey, you stole our thunder." It would make sense for our aforementioned, hypothetical paladin to take the front line and heal wounded characters, but it would not make sense for them to win the fight all by themselves. To that end, the DM would need to scale the fight up to keep it at a relatively similar difficulty to a fight without them. it's a very narrow path to walk, but with a competent DM who knows how not to be a spotlight hog, it can be done in a way that will not make the party groan or hate them for it.
So In my first campaign I've ever played , DM had multiple DMPCs. He was pretty chill about it and made them more like NPCs that tagged along our party. When I joined he let my character shine a bit. We were originally headed to Avernus but the DM was so captivated by my PC's story that we are now in my PC's kingdom of samurai dragonborn fighting Arkhan and 4 more champions of Taimat. Dude even bought Fizban's and did a whole reveal that I was a sapphire dragonborn.
Other than that our DM let us bring a few characters from our one shots to the main campaign too.
from my experience as both a player and DM, i've found that DMPCs can work if they're only there to fill a slot a PC normally would. nobody in the party wants to play a healer? the local priest decides to help out with a couple of missions! not everyone can make it to today's session? a mercenary travels into town willing to assist the party, for a price. a couple of PCs already died in the middle of a dungeon crawl? the party discovers recently captured prisoners who are eager to get revenge on their jailers. there's plenty of good ways to run DMPCs that don't hog the spotlight from the actual players. just remember that if you're forever a DM, you can turn your cool character concepts into plot important NPCs
My DM in my current VtM campaign is running something of a *psuedo*DMPC, a member of our court (after we were given control of a princedom), who's a member of our "inner circle" and the NPC closest to the PCs, and also the most active
He *is* however still an NPC, he drives the plot, generates intrigue, and while he helps guide us he is does *notz solve our problems.
So far this has worked pretty wonderfully tbh, to the point where I made my new PC (after retiring my old one as he sorta just... Finished his character development) his sister
Hopping in to say I'm in a pokemon-themed campaign and my DM has a pair of DMPCs - they're built slightly differently from each other, and have a skill that no one in the party has (that is absolutely *not* required to progress). The option to have them join us is there if we feel we want the help or if we want to interact with the characters over the course of an entire quest. He offers us the choice as to whether or not we bring one of them along with us, so it's never forced.
We enjoy having these artificer rattatas join our party from time to time. In combat, they tend to either stay clear entirely, or offer buffs for the PCs instead of doing direct damage. This way, combat isn't taken away from the players, and we still get another party member to interact with.
The one time I had a dmpc in a game, he was a level or 2 lower than the party, was a healer cleric, and stood in the back of the party, ready to pop a heal when needed. His name was Jimmy and he was a kobold.
One of the campaigns I am in, we have a dmpc. They are played as support character and a call to action to pull us through the plot. It's a cleric fighter, but it also tends to get kidnapped by the bbeg and others. They were also dying of horrible disease.
Most of the time, the dmpc tags along and can be a funny moment of relief. So my dm handles a dmpc very well. Which we enjoy having our dm with us.
I had a DMPC, his name was Benny, and he was a Sorlock. I didn't know how to play and DM at the same time, so I wasn't a really good player. My players would also just want me to solve the puzzles, but my DMPC being lawful evil would cause more problems than necessary. I also made him all powerful, but limited my attacks to more support-based things like I would use telekinesis or that flying disc spell to give my shifter fighter some cool combo moves, making a giant ice shield to protect against a dragon's fire. One time they were fighting a Medusa on top of a morphing Aztec temple that turned into a tower that I had the Medusa wrap around and crush the tower, causing it to fall, and Benny the Sorlock launched ribbons from his arms to hold the tower suspended in air as it's now in the air at an angle. My fighter parkoured his way down to the first floor to protect the incapacitated ally to shield them from the falling tower. I feel like if you are using a DMPC you need to play the support or against the archetype that you would actually have. You have all the knowledge as the DM so make your player character as the DM chaotic in a good way. I think
Only time I ever used a DMNPC, it wasn't even supposed to be a DMNPC. The party had no healing magic whatsoever, so I introduced a Hex Channeler witch with Brew Potion (Pathfinder 1e). She offered to be the party's camp steward, looking after their stuff while they did dungeons, giving healing between rests, and making cheap potions for them.
The party, however, was lacking in other areas too. They had no rogue for trapfinding, no Knowledges for indentifying things, and limited arcane potential. So they got beat up, and insisted the witch join them in dungeons to heal them up between rooms. She quickly ran out of resources and being basically a heal bot had nothing left to contribute. The party also made her solve puzzles for them, because she had a couple knowledges. Not at all how I intended her to be used. But it's what the party wanted.
one case of a DMPC I feel was handled well is in a campaign I watched a few years ago. The whole story centered around two royal sisters with the classic case of good sibling vs evil sibling & the good one recruiting the party after they meet by chance. Said good sibling is the DMPC where she has reasonable shortcomings while still holding her own. Hell the case of the DM taking the kid gloves off was when she got killed by a super high level monster when the party royally fucked up in a dungeon that had a magic well that let them revive her, but with clear consequences in the psyche of every character involved in the not outright said but very much implied notion of "that well was your last freebie".
I often play a DMPC. Its almost always a bard who is there to record the deeds of the heroes. Establishing that early on as a thing in the setting makes it easy to include.
The cool thing about bards are that they are a super-easy way to introduce lore and exposition from a source the PCs trust.
The other cool thing is that because hes there to record the heroics, he doesn't do many heroics himself. He hangs out in the back, tossing out some inspiration and healing occasionally.
I've had one DM pc and it was handled as a guide style NPC like Navi (from LOZ OOT ) or that one cat from Magical Girl Madoka. It let us have conversations and still get DM info but he couldn't really provide much in the way of out of combat interactions other then conversations with the party.
So it was pretty annoying but luckily didn't get in the way of the players having fun, as he would only help out when we were completely lost.
At the beginning of my home campaign I introduced a DMPC when there were only 2 players. He was a cleric, the same level as the PCs and focused on support as there was no healing PCs. Once we were up to 4 players he became committed to serving in his gods temple and remained as a true npc, not participating in the adventures.
I use a DMPC in my module game I’m running. He’s a human shadow sorcerer whose main goal aligns with the party for now. Mostly use him to help the party continue, as the party typically has 3 members ready to play whenever we do have sessions, and I always let the party choose what they want to do.
Funnily, two campaigns I’ve been a part of had DMPCs but they only came along after we recruited our favorite NPCs and the DM wanted to make them competent in a fight.
i only have two players right now in my pathfinder campaign. I'm using the organization system, which gives the players a growing "organization" of non-combatant followers, with a couple of 'lieutenants' that, while nowhere near the party's power level, can still be brought along to serve as an add for the players, with each one being skilled in certain areas. at the start, i've given them two lieutenants who mostly serve as advisors, ways for me to suggest directions and objectives without outright railroading my people (its an open-world campaign). i have plans for loyalty-mission-style quests to do for the lieutenants, giving them certain one-time power boosts, but they are ALWAYS intended to be second-fiddle to the players, the gods-touched heroes of the story. also, the more the organization grows, the more oversight the followers will need, so it will always be the case where only one lieutenant can be brought along at a time, with the other(s) watching the civvies.
I thought you had a million subs, I looked at your sub count and BLINKED. These videos are genuinely good!
I'll always remember the DMPC in my first D&D game. He was Gnome bard, and he wasn't a part of our party, rather he would always show up when the party needed some help.The character never out right won us any scenario we were in, but he would give us that extra few moments we need to either win a fight or find a way out of a life & death puzzle. Once things were good the Gnome would leave us once more. Only to show again after 2 or more sessions.
i only ever run a DMPC when i know the party is going to need a support character. At that point, the DMPC functions as a mentor who is happy to sit back and watch unless the party needs him.
I have done dmpcs in the past. The last 3.5 campaign I dm'd I added a human fighter to the party, but I roleplayed him as quiet and not particularly bright, basically he was little more than a battle-bot to balance out the fact that none of the players wanted to play a tanky melee character.
Also, in a sci-fi indie ttrpg I dm'd I added as dmpc a pilot/technician of a sentient synthetic species common within the setting, with crap combat and social skills, because none of the players wanted to play a pilot/technician but that role would have been really important in that campaign; any time this pilot was consulted on his opinion I roleplayd him as having a dry and logical point of view, breaking down the issue as objectively as possible, but since he wasn't emotionally invested in the answer he wouldn't get mad if the other characters chose to do things differently from what he advised.
Basically, I use dmpcs as a way to fill in roles that the players aren't interested in making, but I write their personality in such a way that they wouldn't be disruptive for players taking the spotlight and making important decisions
I ran a DMPC - Ezdek the dwarf ranger - up to level 5, and then he left. Ezdek knew the relatively new homebrew world and helped them navigate it a bit. He didn't tell them where to go, but he knew things about the places they did and some of the unique bits about them. For example, when one of the PCs was petrified by a basilisk, he knew that if you rubbed the basilisk's stomach acid on the PCs that it would reverse the petrification, something I'd not seen done in other games but made sense to me.
There was no ego in this character. He was a great help in exploration, helped a little in combat, was virtually invisible during social encounters. There are definitely reasons not to run a DMPC, and more than a few DMs who should probably never do it, but anyone telling me what I can and cannot do in my game is simply out of bounds.
Our DM usually makes DMPC's out of NPC's we take a liking to. If we like them enough and invite them to join us, they get a proper character sheet in the next session and travel with us until the DM gets bored by them, and they die or part ways for one reason or another.