Is the DMPC ever a good or even passable idea?

Is the DMPC ever a good or even passable idea?
>d&d 5e
>long-time forever dm
>members of main group have 'tried' to DM, all have ended in utter disaster
>DMing for a complete newbie group soon
>none of them are hyperserious, just looking to have a good time and try something new
>tempted to include passive, background DMPC from the beginning
>90 % of DMPCs are awful though
should I just resist the urge? Is there a way to make it actually beneficial/justifiable? How do I ensure it works throughout? There is no shortage of players, and even if there was a shortage the best way to handle it would just be to adjust the encounters.
There is no good reason to do it yet except for the fact that I really WANT TO.

If they're not into doing a super serious game, then you probably should resist the urge to include a DMPC, those are mostly only good for helping with a group that needs it.

Our dm does if sometimes. He always has a full statblock for him though that he lets us all see so we know no bs is involved. It's nice, and he can still fill the role of plot device when need be.

Sometimes the party will get stuck in analysis paralysis trying to figure out the "right decision", and it's tempting for me to jump in and suggest things. However, it's very difficult for a GM to suggest a course of action in a neutral way. Not to mention players will not accept GM advice in the same fashion as they would advice from another player. The assumption is, a GM says that for a reason. Sometimes that reason is players being very slow or possibly very foolish.

A GMPC is ok, what is not ok is when the GMPC hogs the spotlight, or forces the PCs to behave in a particular fashion.
They can also be a way for GM advice to get into the party in a way that isn't as jarring since it's in character. Sometimes, that also makes it more suspicious. Who knows.

Anyway, I feel there are three types of GMPC's that are ok. The ones who are powerful and capable in their own sphere of interest, like a mentor, who you only see very rarely because they are busy doing their own things, but sometimes are the only ones who can offer the right piece of advice or an answer to some mysterious lore question.

Ones who are about as capable as a PC, such as a guide who tries to help the party with a particular set of skills or a particular area of knowledge, who you see only in a specific scenario.

And lastly, my favorite, weak and limited characters, such as a torchbearer or packbearer who works for the party, who can be everpresent. Sometimes they are gullible, sometimes they are cowardly, sometimes they are exceedingly foolhardy and reckless, but they always have some sort of flaw that makes their suggestions and advice suspect.

Think about it this way: if you make a DMPC then that character knows ahead of time what's going to happen, and you get to decide how all his interactions with other NPCs go. Would there really be any surprises or challenges left for him? Would it be fun anymore for you?

As a player and DM, I've seen it successfully several times.

A DMPC is a group not needing more characters, should be a plot device type of character that fills a niche the party lacks.

This can be a type of personality, a background hole that can be filled, a unifying presence (like a prince or princess who is trying to usurp their fathers evil tyranny, who has gathered a party of capable adventurers). It could also be that shady liner friend who runs around off screen, gets them a few resources they wouldn't otherwise have found, creates a few plot hooks his solo shemamogams goes wrong, and let's the players focus on group activities instead of solo activities.

I have had a Rogue in a party that lacked a loner type. It worked well, because they sisnt want to a plot up ever, so this was a character who they COULD send off on his own, because while he wasn't just a sacrificial lamb, he was also disposable, and when ressurections became a thing, it wasn't a problem that it took a few sessions to get him back. He was also easily useable in case another character got himself killed.

The key thing to always remember with a DMPC: make them more oblivious than the PCs baring specific facts he is meant to give the party, and make them subpar in combat.

The "healslut" is always an option, but it is a bit lame.

If the DM can roleplay well, then they can work very well to fill out a small party or otherwise act as a plot hook themselves.

Current game has the DM acting as the little girl me and the other player have to keep safe. She's an escort NPC and has enough personality to make the party consist of more than 'superstitious witchdoctor and buff woodsman inna woods.' Someday she's going to be a lot more than that, but how long that is is anyone's guess and we have to make sure she actually gets there.

Healslut is a classic DMPC. Usually the only ones that don't ruin a game.

DMPCs are never good. The meaning of the term itself is negative.

The GM/storyteller controls NPCs already, they have no need to use DMPCs

It's never good, mainly because it's schizophrenic as fuck and also you got all the spoilers and it sucks.
I am kind of tempted to include one because my players are newbs so I think it could be easier to teach them what they can do both with mechanics and narration "by example" but still nope.

DMPCs are very easy to do wrong, but just as easy to do correctly, actually. They get a lot of flak because the bad ones are... terrible.
As long as you don't make a mary sue and don't step into the spotlight more than once every 10 sessions, you're good.

If you're a good DM, it's possible. Think of it like this - do all NPCs always know what's going to happen ahead of time?
If you can't separate what a character should and shouldn't know, then there are far greater problems in the story than a DMPC.

If it's an actual DMPC (That is, basically another fully-fledged PC that's under the control of the DM) then fuck right off.
If it's an NPC that happens to be following the real main characters around, that could be fine.

I had one as an artificer that basically acted as a crafting bitch for an all evil party.

Eventually, another person actually took over the character and like with most evil parties, they all ended up killing each other.

And they killed the Artificer first. Simply because they knew how dangerous he was.

At least in campaigns I have ran, the players oftentimes recruit npc to go with them so I play dmpc and they always become attached so it is great when I kill of my dmpc
Best if I can kill it off because of the players actions
And I really like using them to seed bbegs

#
I just got done with a DMPC I was using in a game that worked pretty well. I built him as a tank. Protected the backline and let the melee blender guys have fun ripping and tearing while the backline blasters blast. The best part is the party is having to re-evaluate their tactics now that he's gone after his "totally not planned from the start heroic sacrifice that also cemented their hated for a specific enemy".

RIP Sean

We're intentionally running on 120% tropes and loving every session

what if it's an npc with a fully-fledged character sheet and leveling?

>Is the DMPC ever a good or even passable idea?

My like, opinion, man, is no, it never is.

What is a DMPC? It's a DM Player Character. It's your pet character who you actually use to act out your own little story. It's not an NPC who is useful, likable, or serves some kind of important narrative purpose.

When you make an actual DMPC, you're inviting yourself along on the player's adventures. And your character probably has some unwarranted importance to the story because almost ever DMPC is basically just a plot enforcer. If you're not aware this is a problem, your character is an unlikable, overbearing spotlight hog. If you know this is a problem, then you're so caught up in avoiding that you make them a useless tag-along the player's don't really need.

>but what if they need a healer?! what if they need someone to guide them through my story?

It's not your job to fix problems you think the group composition has. That's the players' responsibility. I guarantee none of them will appreciate you pushing your healslut waifu onto them.

The reason DMPCs always suck is because you're forcing interaction between the players and an NPC. In my experience, nothing makes players hate NPCs more than the certain feeling the GM is demanding you be buddies with them for the sake of his "plot". Experienced players usually smell a railroad when this happens and they don't like that. Regardless of your intentions, you can't change how players will react. They're a fickle bunch. If they want a "DMPC" around, then they'll find an NPC they really like and crimp him into their adventure. And I guarantee you it won't be the character you're expecting.

No, see, the worst part of "oh you need this" DMPCs?
When the DM makes very sure they don't interfere aside from doing their thing.

Current campaign, we had a DMPC wizard along because we had no arcane casters. You know what he did?
JACK
FUCKING
SHIT

Even in battle. Even out of battle.
Then suddenly the DM springs the "oh you need him to make you some potions, he'll stay here while you get the materials". WHY THE FUCK WAS HE EVER WITH US THEN?

Our DM has one in a support role since our original 4th player bailed after a session and a party of 3 would be fairly shitty. His character isn't a Mary Sue or anything though so it's okay with me.

Thing is it's the players who decide what they need, not the GM. If they feel a particular NPC has necessary skills, then they'll go look for that guy. And if you've done your job as the GM then they should know who that guy is.

Some groups are legit too dumb to look for NPC assistance, others have been browbeaten by shitty GMs into thinking they can't ever get help.

The only DMPC I liked was an old blacksmith/tradesman that would follow the party around in his rickety cart and donkey and help them out with old man wisdom and crafting.
Complete support role, no combat.

I guarantee you the groups in both situations won't appreciate a DMPC's "help" either.

No, the people in my current group have thanked the GM for saddling us with a cleric who spends half of every combat standing around doing nothing, provokes AOOs because she heals while standing in melee, and generally takes more damage than she heals.
I've crunched the numbers, and beween the GMPC's shit AC and habit of charging turn one then taking a dozen AOOs because the GM's too dumb to have her not cast in melee, she's increased our rate of expenditure of healing resources by 20%.

At that point just go whole-hog and have a player-run game. Everybody at the table both runs a player and takes responsibility for the game. Have a rotating Referee each session to resolve any intractable disputes that come up. Take turns putting together content or use a pre-gen adventure.

>The reason DMPCs always suck is because you're forcing interaction between the players and an NPC. In my experience, nothing makes players hate NPCs more than the certain feeling the GM is demanding you be buddies with them for the sake of his "plot". Experienced players usually smell a railroad when this happens and they don't like that. Regardless of your intentions, you can't change how players will react. They're a fickle bunch. If they want a "DMPC" around, then they'll find an NPC they really like and crimp him into their adventure. And I guarantee you it won't be the character you're expecting.
This guy knows what's up.

I ran a game in one of my more popular settings late last year. A storm of random curses resulted in all citizens of the continent losing the ability to speak, coincidentally none of the party members were from the continent which they argued successfully would make them immune.

"Does anyone know anything about curses?"
>Leper who is an alarmingly powerful mage shoots her leg up.
"I roll arcana."
>Leper is now waving stump at the party
"Let me read up on curses in the rulebook"
>Double-amputee hexmaster is holding a sign that says "I'm the Hexmaster of Sprensen" in her teeth.
"I also roll Arcana."
>The mage is now holding up a sign that spells out the dictionary definition of "Hex" with her foot
"We can't progress, we're at a standstill"
>Hexmaster uses an illusion spell to make "Talk to the Hexmaster of Sprensen" float in the air while a Skyrim quest marker floats over her head.
"DM why are we at such a standstill? None of us have the means to figure out curses."
"Why didn't you ask the hexmaster who was about to invent the neon sign?"
"We can ask NPCs for help?"
>MFW

>90 % of DMPCs are awful though
I'm interested in where you are getting this.
I've dealt with... 2 dmpcs that were unacceptable in my time gaming, and maybe 7 others who were simply there to shore up the group.
I ran one myself for a time, and my group liked the guy enough to genuinely miss him when he died.
You seem to be coming from a position of hostility and mistrust to the GM. Why do the people on this board hate GMs so much?

>party of 4 in pathfinder excluding myself as dm
>heavy on martial, one partial caster, absolutely no one in the party has UMD or healing spells at all
>like their characters so I roll up a DMPC heal-bot oracle to keep them somewhat alive
>don't want to be the usual horror show of the angel-from-above-who-can-do-no-wrong-or-ever-lose dmpc
>so I make him a coward
>like scooby n shagy levels of cowardice
>at the first sign of even the slightest bit of conflict he screamed, ran for cover, but stayed JUST within LoS/LoE of the party to heal them when needed.
>at first players are annoyed by it but deal with it cause healing=longer adventure day=more loot
>then they start abusing this
>every fight when oracle books for cover party bluffs the enemy into giving chase
>que near-literal hanna barbera chase scenes as oracle runs for his life while healing the party
>keep this up cause the party's having a blast now
>later on they actually buy him magic items
>so he can run faster and stay alive longer as the enemy hunt him down

My games DMPC is brilliant!

Basically he's a renowned Irish engineer who is fatally alcoholic and facing fatal counsequnes for challenging the Inquisition by inventing teh idea of vacuum to build a (possibly working) flying machine.

He never fights, steals the attention, only answers technical questions and will pull the players gently back into the right direction with a hilarious irish accent.

This, or players are legit too greedy to spend resources hiring help.
In a game I am in right now, we tasked with rooting out terrorists who were holing up in a great, ancient forest to the north.
No one in the group has any kind of woodcraft or woodland survival skills, certainly not myself.
So before we leave, I personally scout out and hire an experienced tracker and woodsman to guide us.
No one else even thought to do this. No one assisted in reimbursing me for the expense paid (which was a fair bit, considering the danger involved). I was flummoxed that the party was so ready and willing to jump into a situation none of us had the skill set to deal with despite assistance BEING OPEN AND AVAILABLE IN ONE OF THE BIGGEST CITIES ON THE COAST.
And guess what? When we got there, he found the trail to the bastards within 2 days of independent scouting, led us to the rear of the camp, where we slew their commander while he slept in his own band, torched the camp, and murder a few dozen of them as they ran around trying to put the fire out.
They were also clustered up by the gate, expecting a frontal assault because they had word we were coming.

If you have new players
If you have 3 or less players
If one player drops out and you play their character

These are the only times I would do it, not to say it couldn't work on its own but those are the only situations I feel would warrant taking on the role of Player and GM

Stop referring to them as a DMPC. Part of the qualities of what makes a character a PLAYER character is that they make important decisions and actions that direct the narrative. They are a player within the game, and the game goes nowhere without them. Consider an NPC within the party, what makes them an NPC? I think it's because they don't have agency, they don't direct the plot, and they serve as supporting characters to the PCs. It's ok to run an NPC with the party, but they need to be in the "sidekick" role. They don't know any information other than what you've originally determined, they are for the most part useless in plot important moments, and they serve as simply another tool for the PCs to use to drive the plot.

Design NPCs, not DMPCs, and let the party decide whether or not they want to bring them along. Nothing turns a party off like a forced follower. Resist the urge to "round off" a party's weaknesses, there's nothing wrong with a party having no healer. It changes how they go about combat, and their strategies to success. Let them figure out how to deal with their weaknesses instead of solving it for them.