Why do DMPCs get so much hate?

[MaxWilson]

If this temporary goal becomes more important to the campaign at large than expected, then it's harder to find a reason for this NPC to leave and the transformation into DMPC takes place.

This is D&D. If you can't think of any other reason for the NPC to leave, you can always just kill them.

[ngc7293]

it should also be noted that not all GMs are the same. We ran Rise of the Rune Lords in Path finder that took over 4 years to play. We had a pair of GMs running. Each had their own GMNPC. Because they were good at their job and didn't do things like stealing the spot light and overpowering their characters, they were just like regular players. It was fun. IE YMMV.

[Keravath]

Possible definitions of DMPC I see:

1) It is a NPC build with the PC rules, and played as a PC. The only difference between this character and other PCs is that it is the DM that happen to play it, rather than one of the players.

2) It's a NPC ally, that is along the other PCs. In the average table, most part of the game (fight, discussions, and skill challenge, ...) have two sides in opposition: the PCs, and the others. (Even peaceful situations, like a "quest giving dialogue", you have the side that ask help to the PCs, and side of the PCs). As such, a character played by the DM which play on the same side as them, is something uncommon.

3) It's a NPC significantly fleshed out, that have "agency" and actual influence on the universe, and doesn't even need to be with the team of PC to act.

The type 3 is not a problem (unless your group doesn't care about the universe you build, in which case you're just wasting your time).
The type 2 is ok but can easily degenerate if the DMPC start having a preponderant role, as it can significantly reduce player agency (if this NPC start influencing decision for the group), and or if he is technical complex to play (long turns in battles).
The type 1 is a big no for most tables, though I guess it would be a reasonable solution if you're rotating DMs from sessions to sessions.

In my opinion, the first defintion is a DMPC. The second is a long term NPC, perhaps being used to teach the party some of the mechanics (especially with beginners) and often used to fill out small parties which are often missing one or more of the useful roles in a party. The third is a regular NPC. The second case could become a DMPC if the DM starts to play them as "their" character rather than an independently motivated NPC.

Mechanically, all three of the cases above appear identical. A leveled NPC is being played in the party with decisions being made by the DM. The only difference is the attitude of the DM towards each of the NPCs.

I'd also say that it is ok for a DM to be "invested" in their world, the NPCs, the interactions with the characters, their heroes and their villains. However, if that "investment" means that the NPCs wear plot armor or the DM makes sure they always survive or always escape no matter what the PCs do and this is happening because the DM wants to see the NPC "win" because they are "invested" in the character then the "investment" has gone too far.

The DM has to remain a "neutral" adjudicator. They nudge the plot, set up situations but the players will likely do something unexpected, succeed where the DM expected them to fail, catch the central villain unexpectedly ... if that happens the PCs should be allowed the victory. The narrative is an evolving story line that always changes due to the interactions between the characters and the game world and events taking place in the game world outside of the ones that the players can see.

I think that last point is very important. There are typically two kinds of game worlds, static and dynamic. In a static world, the DM places locations of interest and there is a plot line running through it. The PCs move along (sometimes linearly and sometimes not) but reach the locations, complete secondary or side quest objectives, leading towards completion of a main quest. However, whenever the players arrive at those locations, they will be exactly as the DM originally wrote or conceived them. Much of the time this is fine since the players don't see it. However, it is a static world, the players are completing the quests but their actions aren't really provoking reactions.

In a dynamic world, each stage of a quest results in the players interacting with the world. Their actions have consequences. If they take a long time at certain tasks then events may proceed elsewhere in the world modifying the originally planned encounters and locations. Perhaps interactions between NPC groups occur that are initiated by actions of the players. Perhaps two opposed factions form an alliance once the threat the characters pose has been assessed ... but this may depend on whether there were any survivors, who say the characters and what did they see? What information is obtained by the NPC groups and factions. From a player perspective, there will only be a few times when a dynamic world is noticeable. It will happen when the characters become aware that some action of theirs in the past has lead to the current situation.

[Keravath]

it should also be noted that not all GMs are the same. We ran Rise of the Rune Lords in Path finder that took over 4 years to play. We had a pair of GMs running. Each had their own GMNPC. Because they were good at their job and didn't do things like stealing the spot light and overpowering their characters, they were just like regular players. It was fun. IE YMMV.

One of the few times that DMPCs do usually work is in a shared DM/GM situation where there is one campaign and folks take turns running the game. In this case, the DMPC is usually mostly player controlled while the DM is running the game. The DM also knows that they will be sitting on the other side as a player later so they won't tend to favor their character over the rest of the party.

So, I completely agree with you :)

However, my experience with DMPCs in a single DM game tends to be less positive.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Hmm... The only issue I'd have is #7. I already account diffuculty of encounters for a group of 6-8 players, so one more shouldn't be too much, and the rest I'm fine on with this character.

Why are you adding A DMPC? It sounds like you have plenty of players. In my own opinion, the only time a DMPC is justified is when you only have one or two players and need to make the party more powerful.

In 5e, I find combat to really slow down when the party is 6 or larger. Do you prefer being a PC instead of a DM?

[ChildofLuthic]

So on a personal level, I avoid DMPCs like the plague. In my personal philosophy of gaming (which is personal, and philosophical, and not something I'd ever claim as fact or even as good advice for all people), I think the main fun of D&D, as a player, is feeling like your character is cool. This happens by having cool moments where your character does cool things, like solving hard problems or interacting with the world in a clever way. This is why game balance is important - between players, it makes sure no one feels less cool than another; between the party and the challenges, it makes sure the problems feel hard but that the players can still solve them.

Now, DMs don't have a single character. They have the whole world. And the kind of fun DMs have is different. Being able to solve hard problems or interact with the world isn't as impressive because you make all the rules. You set up that problem and decided that the DMPC was strong enough to overcome it. You had your DMPC say that thing but then decided that would convince the NPC to act a certain way. It's just not as clever. It's like you're playing with action figures, and making the players watch, and the whole point of having rules and a DM is that it makes D&D a game and not just someone playing with action figures.

Furthermore, the players want to be the ones that do the cool things. THEY want to kill the bad guys, and seduce the barmaid, and win over the king. Anytime your DMPC does that, it takes away from the PCs.

To avoid this, you really shouldn't treat your DMPC like a PC. They're an NPC that fights with the party. Avoid giving them spotlight moments as much as possible.

[Undyne]

It's possible you are using DMPC to mean something other people aren't.

An NPC is a character controlled by the DM. This is true even if the NPC has class levels, like Fighter 1/Divine Soul 9.

A DMPC is a PC played by the same person who is running the dungeon. Unlike a classical NPC, a DMPC has some level of self-identification built in, just like a normal PC.

wait, that first bit has me confused. NPC is controlled by DM. DMPC is controlled by the person running the dungeon.

But isn't the DM the one who's running the dungeon?

[Undyne]

Why are you adding A DMPC? It sounds like you have plenty of players. In my own opinion, the only time a DMPC is justified is when you only have one or two players and need to make the party more powerful.

In 5e, I find combat to really slow down when the party is 6 or larger. Do you prefer being a PC instead of a DM?

To answer the last bit, yes. But I'm really the only experienced one at my group who has enough time to design games consistently. I typically do them once or twice a month- the only other player in the group with my level of experience barely has any time outside of my games to design his own.

[kyoryu]

DMPCs can work. There are a lot of potential issues with them, most of them covered in this thread. I think one of the key ones is "a DMPC can never accidentally step on a trap".

I discourage DMPCs. Yes, they are a tool, and yes, they can work. However, it's VERY EASY to screw them up, screwing them up often happens in a way that the other players may be reluctant to bring up, and often times when DMPCs screw things up they do so catastrophically. That, and any problem that a DMPC can solve can be solved in other ways that are less likely to wreak havoc.

They're a high risk option that has generally safer alternatives. If you've used one in your game, and it's gone well, cool. They're still a high risk option that has safer alternatives that are just as effective.

[stoutstien]

I brought this up with my table last night and became a fairly interesting discussion. We ended up on the subject of artifacts and Relic or other magical items that were all accounts and purposes are DMPCs or at least in NPCS with large impact on the party in their own right. most of them are nearly and vulnerable and have the capacity to be extremely more powerful than the players but no one at the table that I was talking saw them as a type of in NPC that can potentially overshadow the party.
It's interesting how powerful the presentation of a peticy NPC has on the players response.

[zinycor]

I brought this up with my table last night and became a fairly interesting discussion. We ended up on the subject of artifacts and Relic or other magical items that were all accounts and purposes are DMPCs or at least in NPCS with large impact on the party in their own right. most of them are nearly and vulnerable and have the capacity to be extremely more powerful than the players but no one at the table that I was talking saw them as a type of in NPC that can potentially overshadow the party.
It's interesting how powerful the presentation of a peticy NPC has on the players response.

I believe the idea of a magic sentient item doesn't fit on anyone's definition bsides yours. Please feel free to correct me if someone else agreed to your definition and I missed it.

[Doug Lampert]

Nah. A DMPC is a character the DM makes to effectively "play" the game he's DMing for. With the added bonus that the DMPC can be as powerful or plot-important as he likes.

Mostly though, a DMPC is a Scotsman but absolutely not the kind who puts sugar in his porridge.

Well, of course not, no True Scotsman would do any such thing.

That said, I think the definition below is actually pretty good.

"A DMPC is a character controlled by the Game Master in order to play the role of a protagonist, with equal or greater protagonism than the characters controllled by the players."

Edited to add:

I believe the idea of a magic sentient item doesn't fit on anyone's definition bsides yours. Please feel free to correct me if someone else agreed to your definition and I missed it.

I think his question is WHY isn't an artifact/sentient item a DMPC? It accompanies the party, it can have it's own goals, it can overshadow party members, it can solve problems, it can lead the action, and it absolutely can deny player agency as by the book it can take over a player at times.

If the magic sword of plot power isn't a DMPC, then what makes an NPC into a DMPC? What doesn't it have?

What is your definition under which that isn't a DMPC? That's one reason I like Zinycor's definition (AKA your definition), the magic sword of plot-power is rarely a protagonist, and it clearly isn't a DMPC, but it checks almost every box for what makes something a DMPC under most definitions I've seen.

[stoutstien]

I believe the idea of a magic sentient item doesn't fit on anyone's definition bsides yours. Please feel free to correct me if someone else agreed to your definition and I missed it.

It has nothing to do with the semantics of the terminology. You can label NPCs as Billy Jean or Ralph Nader depending on if they stand on one foot in the rain.
It was just very interesting that an NPC in the presentation of an item that has equal power than a NPC that is corporeal had completely different reactions from the table.

Edit: unless you're trying to refer that one of these items would not be an NPC whatsoever which I would enjoy hearing aid offense to that stance.