DMPCs: Good or bad?

>ForeverDM
>The only way to play is to have a DMPC
>Make a bunch with different personalities and allow the players to hang with whichever ones they like instead of forcing one on the party. Win-win in my mind
>one DMPC managed to roll 3 16s, a 17, 15, and 12
>He’s an elf fighter-barbarian-bard hybrid with expertise in persuasion.
>Level 12
>+11 to seduce all the ladies, which he does whenever possible because he’s a fucking ELF BARD
>Seduces random village lasses with ease and even has success with more resistant NPCs
>Player complains
>”That NPC is a gary stu”
>”He’s not an NPC, he’s a PC”
>”Let me clarify, DMPC”
>Like just the word DMPC alone is enough to condemn this elf bard for being an elf bard
>Said player has a character (which I hate but treat fairly because I’m not a shitter) that has, through roleplaying, luck, magic, and alien technology, broken the 20 cap on like 4 stats and has a sword of sharpness, and has passed up a Lucky Sword that turned out to be able to grant wishes (that he incidentally gave to said DMPC)
>Calls my PC a gary stu for having 16s in physical stats and expertise in banging hot chicks

The DMPCs GET OUT REEEEEE meme needs to stop.

It’s not even remotely hard to have a DMPC that plays just as fairly as the PCs. All you have to do is not metagame and not display favoritism towards your PC. It’s laughably easy to write characters who don’t have a clue what the fuck is going on, and as for favoritism, one of my DMPCs was reduced to 0 hp 6 times in a single dungeon because I have monsters choose targets at random (or if someone does massive damage to them, that person) specifically to avoid ANY form of favoritism.

I’ve been able to play as an actual player since the beginning of that campaign, so I’ve seen other DMs do shit at DMPCs and I’ve seen players metagame to hell and back because they can’t help it, but that means those people are bad at that particular aspect of gaming, not that the concept itself is broken.

Am I wrong?

DMPCs start to feel silly when they're interacting with other NPCs and the GM ends up having a monologue with himself while the players watch. Anyway, DMPCs are pointless because the GM can never get the full player experience, he has to keep metagaming to separate his own and his character's knowledge of the setting and plot.

if you're making a character you'd use as a PC and inserting them into the game, that's a bad thing. You can't trust yourself to deal with them fairly or get in the way of the players spotlight.

NPCs becoming pseudo party members can happen, but it's best to let it happen naturally. See what NPCs the players like and want to stick around, and enjoy roleplaying them rather than forcing your ideas on the players- A stable of your potential PCs being the only options is still you forcing your ideas on them.

>”That NPC is a gary stu”

Him using the term alone should have been enough to roll your eyes at anything he said and discard all of his opinions forever

You're wrong. You simply should never use DMPCs.

You can take PC projects and insert them as NPCs, but never make them part of the party. They're either support characters (like "questgivers", a term that I dislike but is useful here) or villains.

If you have four players, there's only four heroes in this story. Never five.

How come? It's a good shorthand for a wish fulfillment character.

I'm a Forever DM too, and you sound like a little bitch.

True. One good way is to let the players order around the NCPs and decide what they should do (within reason, of course). That way the GM doesn't get into the mindset that they're his characters.

I never actually told them "You have to hang with these guys". I just have a group of characters who actually have levels and such, and happen to be around. If they get invited to the fun, then they stick around. If they don't, they wander off. In fact, they're more likely to wander off.

The one DMPC that the players are "stuck" with (they can easily ask her to fuck off and she would) is one that one of the players and I worked out was a partner with one of his characters, and this character is ironically easily their favorite

There's three, and to be honest, I would be fine with that at this point but at the beginning I was encouraged to do this because they knew I was a ForeverDM at that point.

That campaign actually started as an attempt for me to be a player. The Elf Bard in question was, ironically, the first character I made, and was actually played as a player for one session, but we fired that DM after showing up for 2 sessions in 4 months and I took over

Then your ex-PC should have gone away. I don't care how good you think you are, the simple appearance of impropriety from that isn't worth the trouble.

Your PC has a point, because PCs and NPCs operate under different rules. The PCs are the heroes of the story, the NPCs are background characters. And from the sound of it, your ex-PC violated those rules which is why he ruffled the players feathers.

Get rid of him. Dead, just went away, whatever. Get them off screen, for the good of your game.

For starters it's a buzzword, and using that detracts from your argument (assuming you have one), because usually people use it as a means to call out on something that they dislike and then fail to elaborate on that when questioned about it.

Then, with that you imply any character is not wish fullfillment of some sort, especially since other characters in the party seem to be on the strong side (and that's discounting it's the char belonging to the one that complained on top of it)

And saying that a party face is wish fullfillment for acting the part is plain stupid, if anything he should have questioned the fact that an NPC was the party face, but that would have made it liable to being called a plot device.

>That campaign actually started as an attempt for me to be a player. The Elf Bard in question was, ironically, the first character I made, and was actually played as a player for one session, but we fired that DM after showing up for 2 sessions in 4 months and I took over

Now that situation is a bit more hairier. One thing is clear to me, contrary to what I believed with your OP post, this DMPC is kind of justified. I would've retired him with the DM change, but I don't expect everyone to do that and anyways maybe it wasn't even possible.

Your players should be a bit more understanding to be honest. That said, it's fair that they will still feel their protagonism threatened. Try for your elf to simply never be the protagonist of anything that happens on-scene. He can have moments of glory like seducing someone, but this will not be mentioned unless some PC asks him.

someone make something out of this

I don't know where this mindset comes from and I just can't comprehend it. How does that make it more or less fun? Characters are characters, it doesn't matter who's controlling them, as long as they're interesting and fun to watch in action then fun is being had. Every other player in the game objected to his objection because it was, frankly, silly.

I've always looked at Role Playing as a group activity, not an activity where one person is a chaperone who babysits 4-5 others. Maybe it's because I started out playing freeform where the concept of GM didn't even exist, but that's just the mindset I have.

Personally I prefer the plot-point approach detailed in DnD5E's DM guidebook where each player can take over as DM if they want. I'd even prefer a system where players agree upon the results of a roll over one person having final say, really.

The only type of DMPC I run anymore is pure support.

>D&D 5e
>Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard X
>Sage-like or otherwise knowledgeable background
>Takes knowledge-type skills
>Takes healing spells and utility spells
>Easy for players to control in combat, performs the less flashy role no one wants to have as their main character
>Allows me to do DM exposition-type of things in-character rather than with DM-voice

Don't make a DMPC that solves major problems or takes the spotlight from your group. He should always be second banana.

Being a GM is all about responsibility. You take on the lions share of the work and custodianship of your players creative contributions to the game, and you should try your best to handle it all well to create an interesting and enjoyable experience for the group.

GMing isn't about inserting your own characters and having player style fun. If you're going to GM, you need to look at the bigger picture. Your satisfaction comes from seeing people enjoying what you've created, from their reactions to events unfolding and to having them surprise you with how they drive the story.

None of this involves you trying to play a character in your own story. It's always struck me as incredibly stupid to even try.

You forgot the Lodestone. Make sure to give XP or other rewards for working around them.

Bad DMPC stories? Bad DMPC stories

>get invited to a tabletop session, first ever one so I'm excited
>tell the GM I want to play a paladin since I've always loved paladins
>"there's already a paladin"
>end up making a ranger, show up to the first session
>the dm is playing a motherfucking paladin
>he's also an obnoxious paladin
>loudly yells at people all the time, insists people do things his way, needlessly confrontational with other party members
>he never becomes THAT much of a focus so the salt isn't that bad at first
>end up talking to the dm in an off day, saying I wouldn't mind some sort of alignment shift storyline for my guy, and that I wish he'd include a plot hook or two to facilitate this
>"it's not my job to give you character development"
>the next session, he has a refugee army from the paladin's homeland show up and start bad mouthing him, ragging on the nobility of his country, etc.
>may as well have 'this is his character development' flashing above them in big neon letters
>outright has a vision of his goddess much later
>bad mouths her, asks why the fuck she never showed up or answered his prayers when she needed him, outright denies her
>now I'm not a fan of making paladins fall but he outright badmouthed and denied his goddess and he gets to keep his powers
>still later, the bard calls him out on his shit, saying he's not a good knight
>"yes I am, watch this"
>proceeds to break up a random robbery that was happening in the same building that was never brought up before, executes a thief brutally for a minor crime, and takes the money the thief stole as their 'just reward' instead of giving it back to the person the thief stole it from, who was also right there
>uses this money to pay for their meal

The DM genuinely believes to this day that this paladin is both a good knight and a good person. When I played a paladin like sir galahad in another campaign, he looked for every slight fault in my pc to try and make him fall.

I'm not familiar with the term as a TTRPG concept. Is this the magnet for trouble/bumbling fool archetype?

I think it's fair and in character for an NPC with the correct amount of knowledge and experience to make a contribution to the story. If the players are having trouble figuring something out, I'll have the elf bard roll knowledge or something and if he gets a good result he'll know the answer.

Other than that my DMPCs are utterly passive because I DO want the players to solve the mysteries I've made and what not. That's the entire point of making adventures after all, that's where the fun for the DM is derived.

He just happens to be good at banging chicks which is a thing he does when the players are killing time. It's not exactly plot important

See above. The appearance of impropriety is there, and you'd be better off getting rid of him.

What does he actually add to the game that couldn't be achieved by an NPC without that lingering doubt associated with them?

You could cast it that way, but I usually see it more as the overbearing inefficient semi-boss archtype. But really, the definition involves them being a net loss to the party, not a net gain; which is why you should give XP when you manage to either get them to do something useful, or work around them the same way you would any other hazard or obstacle.

Example

>Playing a not quite Shadowrun game
>In house security for a megacorp.
>Take care of a lot of dirty work for the Big Bosses, but usually in a way of having plausible deniability.
>Get a superior who actually wants to play clean, despite the fact that we can't operate like that.
>Is related to someone important though, so can't just fire him or let him have an 'accident'.
>Told to try to work around him.
>A lot of mission planning involves distracting him somehow so we can kill/steal/intimidate/otherillegalcrap without him knowing about it.

I see. I never heard that as the Lodestone before. That sounds like the typical "work around the uptight paladin" scenario as an NPC.

Entertainment.

Let me be clear, if a character I'm playing isn't entertaining to the players they disappear the session they appear in. At the moment, there's an NPC that they love but I feel nothing for and it confuses me but he shows up whenever its relevant and they LOVE it. They consider him to be memesupreme

It's the same with all of the characters I run. The players actually ask me why X person hasn't shown up in a while. Elf Bard was actually gone for like 6 months before people whined about it and I managed to finagle him into a bar they were visiting.

Then outta nowhere He's a Gary Stu

But it's not a buzzword. Mary Sue (and Gary Stu by extension) mean a character that is amazingly competent at everything they try and are universally loved not because of their personality but because they happen to be the protagonist. That's a clear step above a regular competent or likable character. Calling something you don't personally like a Mary Sue without regard to these criteria is just stupid, because it muddles the use.

The thing is, the uptight paladin usually is useful at some point. He might not approve if he catches you stealing or whatever, but if there's a horde of undead after you, you want the dude around.

The Lodestone is (near)useless even when he's being "helpful", and is a pain in the ass besides.

You underestimate the level of stupidity I've seen from the average paladin player.

I get the concept now though. I might use it for a twist.