What exactly is a "DMPC"?

[Thrudd]

I would agree, though I would put on certain conditions such as certain mechanics and such. For example, a player could have sole control on his wizard's familiar, that doesn't make the familiar a PC. Likewise, a player may have sole control of his character's, with the leadership feat, cohort. Again that doesn't make the cohort a PC.



As well as some possibly player controlled characters (familiars, cohorts, mounts, etc.).



Similarly if a player used inappropriate knowledge for the benefit of their PC, that would be also a problem. This is a game play problem, not a character problem.



And I would argue that a player that knows the rules perhaps better than a DM and does the same thing is a huge problem as well. A people involved in the game should probably equally invested in the honestly of the game.



Why is this a "bad sign"? Claims like this are stated as if they are self-evident. Honestly, it often seems in these discussions that people believe players are suppose to cheat and lie and do whatever they can to get their characters to "win" and it is the DM's responsibility to stop them. Thus if a DM is playing an effective "PC", they are obviously going to cheat and not stop themselves. Again, this doesn't seem a very flattering view of players.

How well someone knows the rules and whether or not they are cheating is not relevant to the topic. Your point about henchmen and familiars is completely besides the point as well, and you know it. Those are basically extensions of the PC's abilities. This is not about honesty in the players or the DM, it is about the very different role that the DM occupies in the game relative to the players. A DM's relationship to the NPCs is entirely different from the PC's relationship to their characters.

The DM literally designs the game that the players are playing - they create all the challenges and know what potentially lies around every corner. The players do not. The DM controls the monsters and enemies which are the primary obstacles for the players. The DM's role is to provide a challenging and exciting environment for play. It is pointless for a DM to pretend that they are facing the same challenges as the players, a DM that has NPCs play a major role in solving the game's challenges is depriving the players of the purpose for playing at all.

So, a DM's view of their NPCs is relevant. A DM cannot play in the same way the players do, it is impossible by the design of the game. They can't possess characters in the same way the players do. A DM can have NPCs be "effective" in the sense that they are competent in their abilities, they can role play personalities and motives, but there must always be the awareness that in order for the game to be a game, the players' decisions must be relevant, their choices having ultimate consequence. Having a great NPC ally that is always helping the players overcome challenges whenever they have trouble is as bad as having monsters that are always too tough for the players to defeat or having rocks fall and kill people whenever you don't like what is happening.

Before introducing an NPC ally, its effect on the players' decision making and upcoming challenges must be considered. The DM must carefully ensure no information is revealed through the character that would alter the players' decision making processes - make sure that during battles the character doesn't have too great an effect or obviate the players' tactics and strategies. Players, on the other hand, should be trying their best (obviously not to the point of lying and cheating) to defeat the obstacles and solve the problems and see their character survive to achieve their goals. The DM must play the NPCs and enemies with an even hand - with verisimilitude in mind and without overwhelming the players with impossible odds. A DM doesn't single-mindedly pursue the goals of the NPCs the way players do - they allow the denizens of the world to react according to rolls of the dice or according to pre-planned behavior patterns. They remain impartial, allowing the dice to tell them that an NPC is scared enough to flee from battle, even if the DM can see that it might not be the most tactically sound thing to do - or to tell them that an NPC accepts a proposition from the players that might obviously (to the DM) not be in that NPC's best interest.

[pres_man]

Exactly. And the person running a PC should care if the PC runs into the trap. I certainly care whether my PC walks into the trap.

When playing I certain "care" if I am role-playing well, whether I am following the rules correctly (roll-playing well), making the game enjoyable for myself and the other players, and developing the story along with the other players. I am not overly concerned with the particular existence of my PC, it is a fictional character and I am not about to set my ethics to the side to keep such a character in play. I have no strong emotional investment in the character. If it falls in a trap, I might feel that it sucks, but I will toss the character sheet and roll up a new character. I am more likely to feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules, then about actual death of the character. That is an issue of game play to me, not about the character.

Does that mean I don't "care" about the character? Possibly, by some people's definitions. I care just as much about playing and running the character well as I do for ogre barbarian #3.

That's what's wrong with the DM treating one specific NPC as his own PC. Either he treats the DMPC as a PC, by caring very much if he falls into the trap), or it's not a DMPC at all; it's a standard NPC, and the DM doesn't care if the NPC walks into the trap or not.

So we come again to your claim that if he treats it as a PC that is a problem, but you don't define what you mean by "treat it as a PC". You depend upon assumptions that the reader is suppose to have. The only reference you have given is "caring" about the character. So when I said:
"So if I am a player and I have a character that I am playing and I don't have the same level of emotional investment than someone else has in their character, then my character is not actually a PC?"

I was referencing your phrase to "treat it as a PC" to be based on caring (i.e. emotional investment).

I believe how much someone cares about a character is a poor way to define if a character is being "treated as a PC" or not, because there is no way to define that in a way that would describe how every player feels about their character.

A DM cannot play in the same way the players do, it is impossible by the design of the game. They can't possess characters in the same way the players do.

To be clear, I would never argue the experience that a GM running a Party Ally has is the same as the experience that a non-GM running a PC. Of course, the experience a veteran player has is going to be different from the experience a novice is going to have, so I don't think the actual experience needs to be the same. I don't define a "GMPC" based on the emotional or subjective experience of the person controlling it, merely on its mechanics and function within the game setting.

Again, I am talking about how characters are run, not on the subjective experience of the people playing the game.

[Thrudd]

I also want to point out that the very term DMPC makes no sense. A Dungeon Master Player Character cannot exist. If you are the Dungeon Master, you cannot simultaneously be a Player, a character is either a Dungeon/Game Master Character (aka Non-Player Character), or it is a Player Character.

The use of the acronym DMPC implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how these games work, and reveals a potential conflict of interest in the DM that presages a game potentially lacking in player agency. As the DM, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Commit to being the DM, or be a player and let someone else be the DM.

People seem to be using the term to mean an NPC that is allied with the PCs and accompanies them as a companion. But the term "dungeon master player character" doesn't actually mean that, it is an oxymoron. It's like saying my pet is a dogcat. That is an impossibility (this isn't the isle of dr moreau). it's a dog or it's a cat. or a parakeet. but it can't be all of those things at once.

A better term might be "non-player companion character" NPCC, or "dungeon master ally character" DMAC, if you insist on using a different term for an NPC that hangs around with the party. Or something similar that actually has an appropriate, non-self-contradictory meaning.

[The Insanity]

DMs are players too tho.

[ImNotTrevor]

DMs are players too tho.

Only in the sense that they are also playing the game. There is small-p player, which describes everyone participating in the game.

This is talking about big-P Player, which is a specific subset of game participants that excludes the GM.

[ErebusVonMori]

And, even if the DM is perfect, the players might not be. A lot of players are resentful of DMPCs and see DM favoritism even when it isn't there. And just one player with a suspicious attitude can turn the entire group toxic.

Very much this, when you DM a game you're also playing with all the neurosis previous DMs left them with. I know a player who's first action entering a room is to always check the ceiling. Me, I kill DMPCs, it's one reason I play evil characters so I can justify killing a DMPC at the first opportunity, that probably says bad things about me, but it says just as much about the DMs that left me with that quirk.

That a DMPC has given me a game so bad that I now build into every character the option to kill it with minimal cognitive dissonance.

And that's one reason DMPCs are bad, cause bad DMing leads to bad (paranoid) players.

Now that's not actually because DMPCs are bad, but because they're usually paired with railroading, and killing the DMPC is an easy way to smash the rails (in my experience)

[Elderand]

It occurs to me, slightly humorously, that any character accompanying the party that is portrayed by the DM lives in a kind of quantum state
The wavefunction collapses into a DMPC if it's observed to be problematic, if not then it's just a helpful NPC

[Jay R]

I have said that DMPCs are character that a DM treats like a PC. Pres_man keeps trying to take that somewhere I didn't take tit, to claim I said or implied things I did not say or imply.

When playing I certain "care" if I am role-playing well, whether I am following the rules correctly (roll-playing well), making the game enjoyable for myself and the other players, and developing the story along with the other players. I am not overly concerned with the particular existence of my PC, it is a fictional character and I am not about to set my ethics to the side to keep such a character in play. I have no strong emotional investment in the character. If it falls in a trap, I might feel that it sucks, but I will toss the character sheet and roll up a new character. I am more likely to feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules, then about actual death of the character. That is an issue of game play to me, not about the character.

And in your example above, you clearly care about your PC, in a way you do not care about an NPC. If a random NPC falls into the trap, you will not "feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules".

The presence of the word "I" in that quote is exactly what I mean. If a NPC fell into the trap, you might the think DM was wrong, but you would not worry "if I was not given proper chances based on the rules" (emphasis added).

Does that mean I don't "care" about the character? Possibly, by some people's definitions.

Not by mine. Nothing I wrote or implied says that.

So we come again to your claim that if he treats it as a PC that is a problem, but you don't define what you mean by "treat it as a PC". You depend upon assumptions that the reader is suppose to have.

Yes. Yes, I do. I assume all readers in this thread have played the game, and know how they treat their PCs.

I specifically and exactly depend upon the readers' experiences.

I believe how much someone cares about a character is a poor way to define if a character is being "treated as a PC" or not, because there is no way to define that in a way that would describe how every player feels about their character.

Meanwhile, back in my discussion, how the DM cares about a character is still the best way to define the difference between a DMPC and a NPC.

And it's not "how much" someone cares. It's the way someone cares. The DM may have more interest in a really well-developed NPC. As long as she doesn't identify with the character, the way most people identify with their PCs, it's not a problem. But when something bad happens to the character, she should not think about is as "I", the way you did in the quote above.

I agree with your statement that different players treat their PCs differently. In fact, I never denied it. But still, identifying with a single character, and treating how that character does as the measure of how well you have done in the game, is correct behavior for PCs, and a conflict of interest for DMs.

[Tanarii]

Me, I kill DMPCs, it's one reason I play evil characters so I can justify killing a DMPC at the first opportunity, that probably says bad things about me,

Nah. It says all sorts of good things about you.

And that's one reason DMPCs are bad, cause bad DMing leads to bad (paranoid) players.

Disagree. Paranoid players are the best players. And it takes very good DMing to get them there. That player that always checks the ceiling has learned gygaxian 'player skill', and it took a very good DM to instill it in him. And all of this is True ... as long as you're playing in a gygaxian style game.

of course, if he goes into a non-gygaxian style game that doesn't require gygaxian player skill, he's just slowing down the game. Different styles of game require different 'Good DM' skills and different 'player skill' skills.

[Jay R]

DMs are players too tho.

Yes, the word "player", like most English words, can be used in many different ways, depending on context. In the context of the term "player-character", defined in the 3.5e rules as a character not run by the Dungeon Master, and the term "non-player character", meaning a character who is played by the Dungeon Master, the word "player" clearly and unambiguously means somebody other than the DM.

But I don't care if we use the word "player" or not. Since it's either confusing you or bothering you, let's get rid of it. Let's call the person running the game a "Woozle", and everybody who is playing a single character in the game as "Heffalumps".

In that case, a "Heffalump Character" is a character run by one of the Heffalumps, and a "Non-Heffalump Character" is a character played by the Woozle.

And therefore a Woozle Heffalump Character is a contradiction in terms. That was Thrudd's point.

[pres_man]

And in your example above, you clearly care about your PC, in a way you do not care about an NPC. If a random NPC falls into the trap, you will not "feel upset with the DM if I was not given proper chances based on the rules".

The presence of the word "I" in that quote is exactly what I mean. If a NPC fell into the trap, you might the think DM was wrong, but you would not worry "if I was not given proper chances based on the rules" (emphasis added).

LOL. Seriously, how am I suppose to talk about playing a character and avoid using the word "I". If I happened to be responsible for running the NPC in question (perhaps the DM is not interested in running a follower for example), I would also word it in the same way. Because the character doesn't make rolls, the person running the character does. And if that person running it is me, then of course I am going to say "...I was not given ...". You're stretching here.

I also want to point out that the very term DMPC makes no sense. A Dungeon Master Player Character cannot exist. If you are the Dungeon Master, you cannot simultaneously be a Player, a character is either a Dungeon/Game Master Character (aka Non-Player Character), or it is a Player Character.

I agree, in a purely technical sense the phrase doesn't make sense, like Jumbo Shrimp and other oxymoronic phrases.

The use of the acronym DMPC implies a fundamental misunderstanding of how these games work, and reveals a potential conflict of interest in the DM that presages a game potentially lacking in player agency. As the DM, you cannot have your cake and eat it, too. Commit to being the DM, or be a player and let someone else be the DM.

People seem to be using the term to mean an NPC that is allied with the PCs and accompanies them as a companion. But the term "dungeon master player character" doesn't actually mean that, it is an oxymoron.

Well just like how you CAN have jumbo shrimp, the phrase can have meaning. Oxymoronic phrases are still valid phrases, they just don't make sense in a technical or superficial sense. I tend to use DMPC as short hand for "A DM run character that is a member of an adventuring party and functions within the party in an equivalent fashion as player run PCs. This is a special type of NPC ally." I hope you see how this greatly reduced the amount that needs to be said, hence the entire point of acronyms.

A better term might be "non-player companion character" NPCC, or "dungeon master ally character" DMAC, if you insist on using a different term for an NPC that hangs around with the party. Or something similar that actually has an appropriate, non-self-contradictory meaning.

Generally if people get too frustrated with the term I just go with "party ally".

[Max_Killjoy]

As a GM, I've never used "I" when speaking of an NPC's actions, decisions, etc. NPCs aren't really first-person, they're third person.

[pres_man]

As a GM, I've never used "I" when speaking of an NPC's actions, decisions, etc. NPCs aren't really first-person, they're third person.

Right, but have you ever used it when describing your actions as the person running the NPCs. "I rolled behind the screen", for example?

[Max_Killjoy]

Right, but have you ever used it when describing your actions as the person running the NPCs. "I rolled behind the screen", for example?

Not really the same thing, as it's a reference to the actions taken by the GM as a person taking part in the game -- not the actions taken by the character as described and played out during the game -- and at least for your example it's not something that would often be said during the game; if it were said, it would be said in past-tense, in talking about the game afterwards. As a GM, I'd always use the latter to describe the actions of an NPC.

"I rolled the dice" is not the same as "I tried to shoot the thief before he could get away".

As far as I can tell, what Jay R is talking about is the difference between "I try to stab you", and "Rodolfo tries to stab you". Note that he uses the word "identify". In general, players tend to identify with their PCs in a way that GMs don't tend identify with NPCs -- when a GM starts to identify with a particular NPC in the way that players tend to identify with their PCs, that's when you get the GMPC. They take the success and failure of that character personally, in the way that players tend to take the success and failure of their PC personally.

(As an aside, this touches on one of the reasons I can't get into some other RPG approaches... I can't treat my PC as a plastic playing piece to be replaced with another piece, and I can't treat my PCs as story contrivances that exist to tell a particular story or fill a narrative role.)

[kyoryu]

Similarly, saying the DM is on the same team is using the word "team" wrongly. The DM is running the opposing team. She is also running all the allies. And all neutral parties. And also making rulings about the rules and about what happens.

Yes, the DM is trying to run a fair and entertaining game for her friends, and trying to make it a compelling story. She should design the encounters so the players have every reasonable chance to win. The enjoyment of the players should be her goal. But that's not what "same team" means.

Shamelessly stole from Apocalypse World, the GM should be a fan of the characters.

This does not mean that they give the characters everything. Far from it. I'm a fan of the Dresden Files, and of Harry Dresden. As a fan, the last thing in the world that I want is for Harry's life to be easy. Because that would be boring.

I want to see Harry get stuck in the deepest, darkest, blackest pit he can - and find a way to crawl out of it.

[Quertus]

I'm only on page 2, so some of this may have been covered.

What is a DMPC? A PC, run by the DM. This is most obvious when you have a rotating DM, and the DM keeps running their charter.

-----

Some have claimed that the problem with the concept of the DMPC is that there is no way for the DM to keep character and DM knowledge separate. Well, yes, there are plenty of DMs who lack even that basic skill at role-playing. They are why I prefer the DM to write up the entire adventure in advance, and run it like a module. They are why I prefer to give the DM as little information about my character as possible.

However, those of us who actually roleplay in a role-playing game know that keeping player and character knowledge separate is kinda one of the fundamental building blocks of role-playing. For us, doing so as DM is fundamentally no different than doing so as a player.

Of course, that's not to say that we're perfect - heck, I don't even roleplay myself 100% perfectly when I play myself in an RPG. So, most good roleplayers would prefer not to have extra knowledge their characters don't have, if they prioritize role-playing. Thus, DMs who grok the concept of role-playing have generally been easy to sway to my "PC as black box" style of gaming.

So, no, having extra knowledge doesn't inherently make a DMPC bad - combining extra knowledge with a DM who is bad at role-playing, does.

-----

There's been talk that the problem with the DMPC is that he takes focus away from the PCs. While this is true, let's evaluate that.

1) If there are X PCs sharing the spotlight evenly, and you add in a DMPC who takes an equal share of the spotlight, each PC gets less time in the spotlight. That's true. However, the math would be exactly the same if, instead, you added in another PC. So this is in no way an argument against adding a DMPC - it's an argument against adding a PC, regardless of who is controlling it.

2) Alternately, the problem could be that the DMPC is getting an unfair share of the spotlight time. That's a problem, but it's generally called "DM favoritism", and is independent of the existence of DMPCs.

3) Or, the problem could be that you take issue with the fact that it is the DM who is getting the attention. Look, being a DM is a pretty thankless job. If you're problem is that the DM is having fun, I suggest you go home and rethink your life.

So, in short, I'm failing to see how this could be construed as a DMPC issue.

-----

Some have suggested that the DMPC should use different rules than the PCs. Um, NJNHN? Using the same rules is one of the things that keeps a DMPC in line with the party - remove that, and, not only will bad DMs get worse, but even good DMs may start to favor their character unfairly, entirely by accident, because they weren't paying enough attention.

-----

Let one (or all) of the players run two characters in that case.

I heartily endorse this idea. Unfortunately, not everyone can manage one character, let alone multiple.

But this one brute fact remains: A DMPC is a PC played by a player who has read all the DM's notes.

Funny story: we had a party all ready to run through a module, then the DM bailed at the last minute.

I agreed to run the module. But I kept my character as a DMPC. My first (of many) read through the module, I read through it as my character, constantly asking, WWQD?

So, when I actually ran the module, I roleplayed my character true to form. The players had quite the shocked looks on their faces when my character ticked off the quest giver, and was kicked out before the adventure even began.

He came back later, because he actually had a reason to be there, but no-one had any doubts as to whether I was the type of DM to manipulate my superior knowledge to my character's advantage.

So, even that isn't a guaranteed issue with a DMPC.

-----

Now, there are potential issues with DMPCs, even under good DMs, but they're generally more subtle, more insidious, and all but impossible to do anything about. Problems that almost certainly every one of my DMPCs is guilty of. When I actually catch up with this thread, I'll go into what those are, if they haven't been covered already.

But, I keep running DMPCs in some of my games, because, at the end of the day, what matters is whether those problems are a problem for your group. What matters is whether your group is having fun.

[obryn]

Dude, this is a series of (apparently) willful distortions of other peoples' arguments. It's a bad post.

Some have claimed that the problem with the concept of the DMPC is that there is no way for the DM to keep character and DM knowledge separate. Well, yes, there are plenty of DMs who lack even that basic skill at role-playing. They are why I prefer the DM to write up the entire adventure in advance, and run it like a module. They are why I prefer to give the DM as little information about my character as possible.

However, those of us who actually roleplay in a role-playing game know that keeping player and character knowledge separate is kinda one of the fundamental building blocks of role-playing. For us, doing so as DM is fundamentally no different than doing so as a player.

Not quite. It's a knowledge of both the setup, and the consequences. A DM can't play a character blind to the outcome of that character's actions. Players can. DMs can certainly answer, "What would this NPC do?" but they cannot answer "What will the consequences be?" with a shrug.

1) If there are X PCs sharing the spotlight evenly, and you add in a DMPC who takes an equal share of the spotlight, each PC gets less time in the spotlight. That's true. However, the math would be exactly the same if, instead, you added in another PC. So this is in no way an argument against adding a DMPC - it's an argument against adding a PC, regardless of who is controlling it.

No, if you add another player, the players are still getting (collectively) 100% of the spotlight time. The DM doesn't need any more spotlight time. They are the DM.

3) Or, the problem could be that you take issue with the fact that it is the DM who is getting the attention. Look, being a DM is a pretty thankless job. If you're problem is that the DM is having fun, I suggest you go home and rethink your life.

Come on now. That's an absurd argument that nobody is making. And if you think the job of DM is thankless, I just don't know what to tell you. I find it incredibly rewarding.

Some have suggested that the DMPC should use different rules than the PCs. Um, NJNHN? Using the same rules is one of the things that keeps a DMPC in line with the party - remove that, and, not only will bad DMs get worse, but even good DMs may start to favor their character unfairly, entirely by accident, because they weren't paying enough attention.

No; the suggestion is to use simpler rules for companion characters, such that the players can run them while also running their own characters. The barest-bones approach would be an NPC who can throw out a healing spell of some sort 1/encounter, an NPC who will give bonuses on certain kinds of skill checks, or an NPC who will give defensive bonuses to any ally adjacent to them. In no case is this a suggestion for DMPCs; the point is not to have DMPCs.

So, when I actually ran the module, I roleplayed my character true to form. The players had quite the shocked looks on their faces when my character ticked off the quest giver, and was kicked out before the adventure even began.

He came back later, because he actually had a reason to be there, but no-one had any doubts as to whether I was the type of DM to manipulate my superior knowledge to my character's advantage.

So, even that isn't a guaranteed issue with a DMPC.

So your players got to watch as you railroaded them into certain consequences by mucking up their interactions with an NPC. Okay.

[Mr Blobby]

The problem is that 'DMPC' has two definitions [in my opinion]:

#1: An NPC who keeps on popping up enough that they are PC quality in their own right. [They have opinions, hobbies, goals etc]

#2: A situation where the DM uses an NPC to derail / railroad their own story and/or become the star of it.

For me as a DM, I do #1 all the time. I've had them tag along on missions, offer advice etc when it was realistic that they would. Pretty much I put in NPC backups which PC's could 'hire' - normally if the party was lacking say a wizard / thief / whatever due to a player's no-show. But I don't move into #2 [I hope] - I respect that they're not the star[s], everything is rolled and they're not infallible.

But I think the biggest sign of a #2 DMPC is that the DM *will not* let them fail or die. Novels have the similar 'Mary Sue' problem, and I follow the similar advice for DMPC's that an author [can't remember who] gave about Sues: 'Kill your babies'.

I've had many DMPC's die in nasty ways - from traps, explosions, mis-firing spells and one fun time where one DMPC botched and put a crossbow bolt into the other DMPC's head, killing them instantly.

[hamishspence]

But I think the biggest sign of a #2 DMPC is that the DM *will not* let them fail or die. Novels have the similar 'Mary Sue' problem, and I follow the similar advice for DMPC's that an author [can't remember who] gave about Sues: 'Kill your babies'.

William Faulkner is one name I've seen given - another was Arthur Quiller-Couch, another was Stephen King - - none of them were talking about characters, but about sections of writing that the writer thinks are great, but are also unnecessary - padding - detrimental to the story as a whole.

https://sterlingandstone.net/murder-darlings-mean/

[Jay R]

LOL. Seriously, how am I suppose to talk about playing a character and avoid using the word "I".

Of course you'll say "I". That's a direct consequence of the connection I was referring to, and which you denied existed.

DMs don't have that connection to NPCs, and don't say, "I".

Player: I attack the ogre. [Rolls dice. Resolves attack]
DM: The ogre takes 14 points of damage. Now it attacks you.

If I happened to be responsible for running the NPC in question (perhaps the DM is not interested in running a follower for example), I would also word it in the same way. Because the character doesn't make rolls, the person running the character does. And if that person running it is me, then of course I am going to say "...I was not given ...". You're stretching here.

I'm not stretching; I'm reporting what I've seen. The DMs rarely say "I" referring to NPCs, and players almost always do. The only times I can remember seeing a DM say "I" referring to a character he was running, that character was his DMPC.

[Mr Blobby]

Could be... but I took it to mean writers, however much they might like character X shouldn't be scared to fail, maim or even kill them if that's how the story turns out [I follow the belief that most writers end up with the characters taking a life of their own and kinda complain to the writer if they make them act out of character].

At least that's how I read it, and the rule I always follow with NPC's - just because I really like you, doesn't mean you're immortal. Even if you technically are.

[Max_Killjoy]

William Faulkner is one name I've seen given - another was Arthur Quiller-Couch, another was Stephen King - - none of them were talking about characters, but about sections of writing that the writer thinks are great, but are also unnecessary - padding - detrimental to the story as a whole.

https://sterlingandstone.net/murder-darlings-mean/

Yeap -- "Kill your darlings" has NOTHING to do with the phantom "problem" of "Mary Sues", and EVERYTHING to do with advising writers to be ruthless in cutting out that turn of phrase or entire dialogue or twisty sideplot that they love but that doesn't work in that story.

[Mr Blobby]

Well, couldn't it mean both - both cutting flab and dealing with your love for your avatar or Sue? After all, they are two aspects of the same problem: the writer in love with things which are ultimately detrimental to the book.

Or perhaps it's the various Urban Fantasy novels full of female avatars/Sues which *really* get my goat which has made me see said advice in this direction?

[Quertus]

Dude, this is a series of (apparently) willful distortions of other peoples' arguments. It's a bad post.

No, if you add another player, the players are still getting (collectively) 100% of the spotlight time. The DM doesn't need any more spotlight time. They are the DM.

Come on now. That's an absurd argument that nobody is making. And if you think the job of DM is thankless, I just don't know what to tell you. I find it incredibly rewarding.

So your players got to watch as you railroaded them into certain consequences by mucking up their interactions with an NPC. Okay.

If no-one is saying what I thought they were saying, well, sweet! Although I may need to check my meds...

No, more seriously, sorry if I misrepresented anyone's (or even everyone's) positions, but that's what I read people to have said.

I am confused that it seems like you are yourself making the argument you claim no-one is making. Care to step me through this one, how the DM doesn't need more focus, but no-one is complaining about DMPCs as a source of spotlight time for the DM?

And, the module I ran was full of **** NPCs. Run straight out of the module, when one of the NPCs commented that it was the least they could do, the party responded that they were absolutely correct. Yeah.

So, what my DMPC did was demonstrate to the party exactly which type of **** the quest giver was. He provided useful information which they could then use to better determine their approach in dealing with him. There was nothing remotely resembling railroading them into certain consequences - quite the opposite, in fact.

Unless, of course, you're trying to willfully distort my argument.

[Dragonexx]

This thread has become full of no true scotsman arguements.

[pres_man]

Of course you'll say "I". That's a direct consequence of the connection I was referring to, and which you denied existed.

DMs don't have that connection to NPCs, and don't say, "I".

Player: I attack the ogre. [Rolls dice. Resolves attack]
DM: The ogre takes 14 points of damage. Now it attacks you.

I'm not stretching; I'm reporting what I've seen. The DMs rarely say "I" referring to NPCs, and players almost always do. The only times I can remember seeing a DM say "I" referring to a character he was running, that character was his DMPC.

Except that was not the context I was using the word in. It was more of:
DM: Your character falls into a trap and dies.
Player: Don't I get to roll a reflex save?

See, the player is referring to themselves because rolling is a player action, not a character action. I guess someone could talk about themselves in the third person, but unless you are Bob Dole that comes across kind of strange.

[Psikerlord]

What's a DM PC?
It's a mistake, 99% of the time. In a recent star wars game however our GM played the wookie heavy (non-speaking) as a party member, and it worked sweet.

[obryn]

I am confused that it seems like you are yourself making the argument you claim no-one is making. Care to step me through this one, how the DM doesn't need more focus, but no-one is complaining about DMPCs as a source of spotlight time for the DM?

I don't understand the thrust of your argument, here. You were arguing that reducing each individual player's spotlight by adding an additional player was equivalent to reducing each player's spotlight by adding a DMPC. I am saying these are not remotely the same.

And, the module I ran was full of **** NPCs. Run straight out of the module, when one of the NPCs commented that it was the least they could do, the party responded that they were absolutely correct. Yeah.

So, what my DMPC did was demonstrate to the party exactly which type of **** the quest giver was. He provided useful information which they could then use to better determine their approach in dealing with him. There was nothing remotely resembling railroading them into certain consequences - quite the opposite, in fact.

Unless, of course, you're trying to willfully distort my argument.

OK, I have no idea what the ****'s are replacing. I am coming up with alternatives, but none makes sense in context.

And yes, the DMPC made decisions that should be the players' decisions to make. I see little difference between something happening because a DMPC made it happen, and railroading. Again, you know both the setup and the consequences. There is no mystery; the consequences are known. You knew what the NPC quest-giver would do and say.

[Jay R]

Except that was not the context I was using the word in. It was more of:
DM: Your character falls into a trap and dies.
Player: Don't I get to roll a reflex save?

Yup. Compare to:

DM: The NPC falls into a trap and dies. Oh, wait, he gets a reflex save. Where's my d20?

and

DM: My DMPC falls into a trap and dies. Oh, wait - I get a reflex save.

[Talakeal]

Out of curiosity, how many people would object if one of their players was on his laptop raiding in World of Warcracft and playing D&D at the same time?

I bring it up because in my mind even if done perfectly, the DM is still trying to play two fundamentally games at the same time, which requires some serious multi-tasking. And, according to all the psychological studies I have seen, no one can multitask without their performance suffering, people who believe they can are merely better at deluding themselves.