DM introduces DMPC who is stronger than the party and auto-nominates himself leader

>DM introduces DMPC who is stronger than the party and auto-nominates himself leader

Can DMPCs be done right? And what's the best way of killing it?

Insist they take point on all dungeon crawling.

>Can DMPCs be done right?
Very, very rarely. But I wouldn't attempt to do it myself. And the only "DMPC" I ever enjoyed playing with was literally an obstacle we got XP for circumventing, and was very clearly billed as such.

>And what's the best way of killing it?
Through the method that is most likely to cause a DM tantrum.

DMPCs are always a bad idea. Just ask the DM if they want to play instead for a while.

I like how Ryuutama does it. The DMPC is basically just a shy stalker who writes fanfics about the party, that only occasionally pulls the groups' ass out of the fire but has to do it in a way that doesn't reveal the fact that it is there (unless absolutely necessary).

Well, if the group is small and they need someone to support them in combat, I guess it could be okay to have a DMPC for that. You'd need to make them someone who's going to let the PCs run the show and be heroes though, by being a coward, or ignorant, or so on.

Why not just tone down the encounters to fit the party size as it is?

The only DMPC that I haven't minded was one where the DMPC was a mousy girl who spoke in broken common, she just followed us around carrying our loot for us and cooking for the party in exchange for food of her own and protection from monsters.

There was some subplot about her mother's ashes or something going on, but I didn't hear about it because the DM running the game attempted to avoid metagaming by deafening players whose characters weren't in the relevant scene, and my barbarian was off trying to kill a mythological frost wolf by himself while naked.

Sure if they sit in the back and don't do much except some occasional support or something like a healbot

I play my DMPCs like Gandalf, namely, too busy with other shit to deal with the party shenanigans.

I once had a low level party meet the local archsage seven times in three sessions, with none of them getting a word in because she was already rocketing off to deal with the three other plothooks the party didn't take up.

DMPCs are stronger then the party, sure. Doesn't mean that while the party is hunting down the Cask of Infinite Shine that the local goblin population didn't kidnap the mayor's daughters.

I never really understood what was meant by DMPC.
I RP every NPC. Some of them join the group for a while. Some they are forced to work with.
I write backstories for every NPC they are likely to meet that is important, even it's only a few sentences, so I can remember what they're like.
Sometimes, if the party is slow or negligent other people will work together to stop a threat, this creates a sense of realism in the world. Other times it is not and people have to live with the consequences.
What bad about any of this?

It's right there in the name. The differentiation between a regular NPC and a DMPC is the latter is an NPC occupying the sort of dramatic role that is usually occupied by the PCs. Whatever the core of your campaign is about, the DMPC is either doing it alongside the PCs, or worse, is doing it instead of the PCs.

Have him die once the party has their shit figured out

Make the character an unimportant hireling type character who helps out in combat to fill a niche the party is missing (the party lacks a source of healing, so a cleric is sent with them) but said hireling DOES NOT TAKE THE SPOTLIGHT IN ANY WAY and unless someone goes out of their way to interact with said hireling they don't exist out of combat. Go a step further and make the cleric an old man so you don't have people trying to roll to seduce

Alternatively don't do it at all and scale back encounters to account for their lack of something, or maybe even abuse it (party has limited range? There's a group of bandits that have fortified their fortress entrance and have crossbows trained on you, what do you do?)

>Can DMPCs be done right?

I guess that depends on what you mean by "DMPC". The term is generally used to refer to a GM who makes a character to "play" vicariously through, while still being a GM. This is bad GMing and creates awkward situations where you're both the person trying to overcome opposition and the person in charge of that opposition.

So, if you mean "DMPC" in the way it's generally used, it's pretty much by definition impossible to do it "right", because it literally describes someone doing it wrong.

If you're just asking if it's possible for an NPC to be an interesting, liked, or helpful part of a PC party then yes, it's possible. Easy, even. Hell, in my (entirely personal and anecdotal) experience, players tend to love "adopting" characters they like and taking them on adventures. I've seen them absolutely lavish gold and items on characters purely because they liked the accent they had, and other stupid shit like that. Plus, everybody loves a mascot.

I only use a DMNPC for one thing. If the party has no one capable of using wands for healing, they get an old granny adept with a wand of cure light wounds. If granny dies or the wand runs out of charges then they are fucked. She will tell PCs when they are doing stupid and bop them on the head with her cane when they're really being cunts.

So what's wrong with the DM having his own party member that does an equal or lesser amount of work than the other party members? Assuming everyone gets a chance to do what they want to do and the DM doesn't shove his head up his own ass, what's the problem?

I usually have the PCs travel with a group of NPCs with class levels who are basically stand-ins if someone can't show up. I usually give them pretty detailed backstories and stuff like that, but they're very rarely relevant and even if they become relevant I never put them in a position of power over the players.

Basically, they're the ones holding the line when the PCs dive into the midst of battle for heroics, or to go chase down the BBEG or whatever.

But this is a meaningless distinction in games where the PCs aren't unique or special.
There's other people who can do shit, the PCs compete with them.
It just seems like the tag DMPC is applied when the PCs feel like they're being bossed around by an NPC.

>by deafening players whose characters weren't in the relevant scene
Why didn't the player that got told DM secrets tell the party afterwards about what is going on?

W-what?
You mean the DM is not there only to read the story and compute the rolls but can actually change stuff to better fit the party?

>mousy girl
Did you fuck her?

Thats a good DM

We generally did, but desu the loot carrier's backstory didn't interest me that much and she never became relevant to thee main plot. Her purpose was to carry loot, cook, and take one of the night's watch shifts, and that's what she did.

No, I had to marry the former chieftain's daughter after conquering the Trial of Amarok in order to consolidate my position and put an end to my tribe's infighting.

The wizard ended marrying the girl iirc.

The short answer is that - for most games - the players drive the action. They resolve quests, and solve obstacles.

If your NPC, which you play according to their nature and backstory, end up solving more problems than the players, then it can be bad, as it minimizes the impact of the players. They end up not "playing" so much as watching.

If your NPCs are filling their role, but not diminishing the fun had by other players, then there is no problem.

If the NPC is reducing the fun, or showing up the players by being better than them at their one-trick (casting better than the wizard, or sneaking better than the rogue), you can have some hurt feelings, and the players feel like they aren't participating.

>But this is a meaningless distinction in games where the PCs aren't unique or special.
I've certainly never seen any such game. If nothing else, whatever the adventure is about is focused on the PCs, even if they're not mechanically special. Try running a game where all the players do is sit in a tavern and hear stories about other NPCs and their adventures, and see how long they'll stick around.

I would argue that the players are the focus of the action and not necessarily driving it, but that's really splitting hairs.

Telling the GM that playing with himself is frowned upon by society.

A DMPC done right isn't really a DMPC, it's just a hireling or a follower at that point.

This for example is just a particularly memorable NPC who accompanied the party, GMPCs by nature are characters who have class levels equal to (or greater than) the party. They are, by nature, bad.

>Can DMPCs be done right?
Yes, they're called NPC. If you have any reason to set them aside from the others and call them DMPCs, they're being done wrong.

In my current game, I use DMPCs when I need to hit the players in the right direction. I invented a whole underground insect spy network in the middle of the Chinese Capital because otherwise the players were determined to walk through the city as a bunch of Europeans in order to "infiltrate". I also have a forgemaster, who is in the process of belittling one PC, and giving the PC daddy issues, because the PC dropped out of uni.

In short, use DMPCs to pull the party out of the fire if needed, or make them something for the Party to aspire to, a "vision off the Future" style thing so your players know what is impossible.

You know Bain from Payday or Lester from GTA? One of my DMs had one like that in a very stealth-centric campaign. Never took part in the action, but gave us instruction when the party was heisting.

Precisely. A DM should never have a character in his or her game that they intend to function as "their" PC. However, that doesn't mean that NPCS being part of the party is bad at all. Sometimes it makes perfect sense for the local ranger to join the party on the behalf of the township so as to act as a guide, since they have agreed to rid the village of their troll problem. Or maybe there is a cleric that the church of the town offered to send with the party to help them clear out the catacombs, since the church feels like there needs to be holy presence to truly clear the tombs. Even long term npcs that are in the party make sense, so long as they remain BACKGROUND characters. An NPC in the party should very rarely be the center of attention, and if they are, it shouldn't be on the behalf of the party (unless they are using the npc's contact with another npc to be introduced, such as a knight npc getting them an audience with his lord). If an npc in the party gets to be the center of attention, it should be for something like the npc giving the pcs a quest, since they trust them so much.

There are two types of DMPCs that work:
>The DMPC that isn't a DMPC
This DMPC is effectively an NPC but has to do something that the PCs can't for some reason. They should let the PCs do the lion's share of the work and let the PCs take the lion's share of the loot as well. If all goes well, you have the party strike up some good banter with this one-off fellow who opens the door to Wherever or empowers the McGuffin they need.
>The tutorial DMPC
This DMPC takes a backseat to new players and basically shows them the ropes of combat, et cetera. Generally an old mentor figure, so very easy to dispose of storywise/mechanically.

DMPCs are basically just cancerous NPCs, there are no good ones

>make a stoic loner type of guy
>our logistic support was a girl that reminded my character of his past lover
>slowly breaks his self-isolated shell and tries to romance her in subtle ways over multiple sessions
>things seem to be going okay
>DM adds in a DMPC and in a single session cucks my character by fucking our logistic support
>my character goes right back to his isolation, though a bit better by opening up to actual party members instead
>stops all romantic passes at her, instead considers her a little sister now
>DM reveals to me later on he was trying to create drama by cucking my character, and wonders why my character stopped trying to get with the girl

What would compel a man to think this would be a good idea?

MAGICAL REALM ALERT

No kidding.

This.

My current party adopted a Hobgoblin Orc-Bloodline Sorcerer who surrendered to them in the middle of a skirmish in exchange for his life.
He made sure to appeal to their senses of mercy and the group decided to accept him as a member of their team.

I made him a polite pragmatist with a strong sense of survival and a habit of speaking with as few contracted words as possible.
He is also the party's only dedicated spellcaster, especially now since the Skald came in with a new character, and the Cleric is more of a melee combatant than a primary caster.

Before him, I used the Cleric's bastard son, some wandering Half-Elf Nobles, and a Warrior-turned-Merchant as tag-along NPCs.

I like DMPCs who are like the second-in-command to the BBEG

>me and close friends are artwhores and have OCs
>find out about D&D; I DM
>"play your OC, user"
>coincidentally my OC is a timid, submissive boi
>make him an ex-thief too so he doesn't run around pickpocketing every person he sees but still has a useful skillset
>basically party gets spotlight, with my character only speaking when spoken to or acting when commanded
>players complain that my DMPC is boring

i'd say something like a wise sage spirit or something, kinda like that feella in the animated highlander

I've never had any trouble with my dmpc's, but I also mostly make them to kill them which can be pretty effective. Like you've got your powerful dmpc leading your players on what's supposed to be an easy quest only to get ambushed, then you kill him brutally and leave the players in dangerous territory, this not only reminds the players that death is but a moment away for all of them but they also just lost one of the more powerful members of their group and depending on how well you wrote and role played the character the players may even care that the dmpc died. In fact this is what I make most of my npc's for, either kill them or cripple them and sometimes let them get out in one piece until eventually it's their time, and again if you act the npc's well this can be very effective.

>Can DMPCs be done right?
Never, but NPCs can.

You actually took it quite well, some people would go apeshit at the Gm

>"my character only dates virgins"
There problem solved. GM doesn't look like an autist, you look like one instead. Everyone's face is saved from embarrassment.

>DMPC fight in literal battles
This is where the issue arises for me.

I don't really care if the DM is accompanying us with a magical puppet character, a homunculus, or whatever the fuck he wants to be.

But if he is participating in battles, that's when I get a little bit angry. Why? Because the DM already plays as an endless supply of monsters and humans. The PCs get ONE(1) turn to play, and that annoys me. If anything the PCs should move the DMPC character as they see fit because otherwise we get
>DM plays
>DM plays
>PC plays
>DM plays
>PC plays
>DM plays
>DM plays
>DMPC Plays (still DM)
>DM plays
>PC plays
And that's when I get bored. I want to fucking fight not just look at how the DM autistically move his pieces and throw dices on his character getting attacked by another character of his while everyone else just watches.

I think that's the ultimate definition of autism.

>Your OC
Technically speaking isn't everyone's character their "OC". I mean I've seen blatant rip-off characters based on this or that but they were still their own thing.

Easiest way to look at this
NPC - A DM controlled character who serves a specific purpose, usually a one shot deal, but an be reoccurring. Does not typically join the PCs on adventures.

Hireling/Henchman - A DM or Player controlled character. Operates as a support character with a specific role (ie porter, torchbearer, meatshield etc). Joins PCs on adventures but under specific role.

DMPC - A character controlled by the DM that does not have a specific purpose. Operats as a player character, joins PCs on adventures.

DMPCs can not operate in cohesion with the PCs. The DM has knowledge of the world and the adventure that the PCs do not. The DMPC will almost always be viewed as a rival and will be scorned as such.

DMPCs should always do supporting role stuff.

This came up once or twice unavoidably in my group because of some rotating DMs. They guard the camp or keep an eye on the escape route. Or pretty much anything else that can keep them on-scene but in the background. They can also leap in when shit is real dire I guess but I'd be pretty hesitant and if in direct combat for some weird reason I would pass off control to someone who has died or is unconscious or something.

I don't know the reference, but deus ex machina anti-tpk machine isn't good for maintaining any tone but jovial.

Ryuutama is typically meant to be a comfy game, yes.

Use Mr. "Leader" as a meat shield and have him otherwise trigger all the inconveniences so they don't hit the actual party. Unless they're being roleplayed well, in which case I'd cut them some slack.

The GM knows everything that is going to happen already. Why does he need a character in the party that the rest of the group has to share the spotlight with?

He already has control of all NPCs, why does he need more than that?

Dmpcs are a derogatory term anyway, for the GM self-insert mary/gary sue/stus... do you know how silly it is when the GM speaks with himself because he has to RP both his DMPC and an NPC?

Having at least one NPC in the party is great. It gives you a natural avenue to introduce new ideas, and it lets you point out the obvious when the players miss it for whatever reason (miscommunication/misunderstanding, hung up on preconceived notions, distracted or tunnel vision from focusing on something else, collective brain fart, etc.) with it seeming intrusive. They can act as a facilitator if the party's communication breaks down or if the group stagnates or loses energy. And you can regulate their level of participation, letting them mostly fade into the background when they're not needed.

With big groups, I often don't include an NPC in order to avoid having too many people in the party, but I always miss them. Shit runs smoother, conversation is more consistently lively, and the party is smarter and better informed when they're there. Hell, it's not uncommon for me to include two NPCs in smaller groups, which allows me to provide opposing points of view and different attitudes and approaches. You obviously want to be careful to keep the spotlight on the PCs and not take away their agency, but it's not like this is an impossible feat.

With that said, I object to the very term "DMPC", as it suggests that the GM has his own player character, like that's *him*. An NPC in the party might be more important than most NPCs (they're certainly likely to get a lot more screen time than most), but they're not the GM's character any more than any of the other NPCs in the game are. He should not be assuming the role of and inhabiting that character in the way that player's do their PCs. To do so invites the very sort of bias that people complain about.

I've had my group ask for DMPCs before. I dunno why, I'll take it as a compliment I guess.

Wow. That's so petty it's almost comical.

If it's described as a dmpc then you're probably in for a bad time.
If the dm wants to mess around with characters in their game then they should just introduce new npcs that fit what they're looking for, if that doesn't do it for them then someone else should dm for a bit

Well, I've put DMPC's in campaigns over the last two years.
First one was just a bard whose job was to buff party members and prod the PC's where I wanted them to go, and deliver ongoing commentary.
The party seemed reasonably happy with that.
The second one (different group) was killed by the PC's ten minutes after being introduced before she'd had the oppurtunity to do more than ask the PC's to let her out of the cage she'd been locked in. The argument they gave for killing her was "She's a dmpc, therefore she must die". She hadn't actually done anything yet, but they slit her throat while she was singing 'on principal'.
The third was in a dark heresy game. The dmpc this time was a sister of battle who existed for the purpose of being the party's main combat character, as they previously lacked anyone who could actually fight. They (same group as example two) killed her 'on principal' too when she objected to the group's decision not to incinerate a dangerous mutant that had already killed someone.

Do you also enjoy killing your npc's?

Whenever I use "DMPC's", which in my book are only ever consistent and long-running NPCs that are relevant enough for the party to want/need them to tag along, they always have a limited and usually supporting role. This has included:

a goblin with a couple levels in rogue, who got by due to his dexterity and was one of two in the clan smart enough to speak common. His entire kit was sneaking around and using poison before getting one, maybe two attacks in.

An alchemist who was quite content to stay as far away from the battle as possible. Had a couple of contingencies when the fray found him and a good supply of potions that he was willing to part with for a sum of gold.

A wizard who had a focus on divination and research, and had only a handful of spells to defend himself. I was willing to give him dispel magic and haste to be kind, but beyond that he was not designed for combat as a character or a class.

I absolutely understand the mindset, but the key is usually more about distinguishing NPCs from the nutjob "adventurers" that players are prone to crafting up. Make their turns quick and succinct, and make it clear that most people would rather avoid situations that your protagonists are more than happy to wade into.

Your insistence on calling it 'principal' instead of 'principle' bothers me more than the fact that you admit on shitting over your party by lording over them with DMPCs

If we have rotating GMs I keep my character in the group, albeit very passive, or come up with a reason for them to vanish for a few sessions.

Just don't steal the spotlight from anyone and only have your character do something when no one else can or lend a hand when another character is in need.

When I'm the only GM, I wouldn't have a "character" since that would make no sense.

>Do you also enjoy killing your npc's?
How susceptible to getting dead people are really depends on the type of game it is, but as far as there is any plot armor, NPCs have less of it than PCs do.

That wouldn't work, that kind of GM wants to hog the spotlight to show off how cool his character is and relegate the players to passive observers to his one man show.

What would work is to leave the table as a group and go to another room entirely to play vidya or whatever, and tell the GM to call you back once his DMPC has finished winning the adventure.

All NPC companions should be sought out by the player's initiative. They like that thief girl they encountered last session and asks her to join them? She might. They desperately need a healer and so ask a local priest to join them? They might.

Anything else is bad form.

I think it can be interesting if it's someone who shows up to save the party in a time of need but then turns out to be working for the enemy later, and becomes someone the party has to fight/kill.

So you don't create your npc's for the explicit reason of killing or crippling them?

As long as they play it like a normal character, yes. I have one, he is supposed to be shy so he kinda just sits there and pushes the players in the right direction now and then

>letting an untrained girl take the night's watch
Why would you entrust her with such a task?

I made a dmpc for my pirate capaign, it was a moderatly powerful but physically disabled mindflayer wizard who moved around on a floating disk as his wheel chair.
That way when the crew went ashore he would always stay behind on the ship cause he was so slow. On the ship he was the navigator and if need be, secondary cannon.
The pc's leveled up past him though so now he's just the navigator.

>DMPC takes point in dungeon crawling
>knows of every trap in dungeon
>always 'hidden roll' the necessary to beat them
>DMPC conquers the dungeon by himself
>"We did a fine job folks. Who wants to try another one?"

Why does he have to be a DMPC instead of just an ally?

Of course he can join the group in some task if they make a deal or have good relations but is should be their decision and not DM walking over the party.

In general I think players like having henchemen and allies much more than DM coming to dungeon with his half-tiefling anime tiddy Jesus.

personally i use a dmpc because im not a very experienced dm and my players like to fuck things up

DMPC is not a NPC tagging along helping a party, it literally means a PC played along the others by the GM himself.

Which is stupid, because GM knows beforehand all the traps and surprises and controls all the enemies too.

In Elemental Evil I introduced a rival party of DMPCs that the players could call for help every once in a while, mostly because they took forever to make decisions and actually do stuff so I had them do stuff on the background to speed it all up

Eventually they were supposed to fight eachother but it never happened

>DM introduces DMPC who is stronger than the party and auto-nominates himself leader

I can think of one way this could work.

Our DM tends to take the DMPC out of a given fight, unless it's a big boss battle.

Course he kind of molly coddles us, because "Muh Narrative." and because his first game was with a killer DM who kind of hazed him by getting his character raped by orcs.

Simpler to just give the Party a necessary Healer or Tank.

>getting his character raped by orcs.
His fault. Orcs cannot rape you if you are willing.

"Well, Stabby McMurderjunky has had enough of the adventuring lifestyle and can now fulfill his dream: with his share of the loot and underground connections he hires a few half-orc bodyguards, establishes the best titty bar in the capital and retires surrounded by vice and debauchery."

Yes

In my DtD group a player has chosen t he "ally" background, so I have my DMPC be her ally. All allies either start powerful but never get exp or start less powerful than the party characters and gain half exp, effecgivelly never catching up with them, this is the latter.
This character is geared towards combat, excelling in double wielding swords or pistol for both melee and ranged without being particularly powerful in either, the character has the "illiterate" and "phobia: crippling shyness" flaws.
The only reason for her to be there is for when there are less players than I anticipated and the encounters might be too difficult for the party to face by themselves, so its added as a leverage.

Also, it is a good way to scare the fuck out of the party, I said that ally characters are always weaker than the party, but my players, of course, don't know that and assume that being a DMPC the character is broken, so when at one point the DMPC threatened with fighting against the party (the ally pc wasn't there, of course) it scared them both IC and OOC very effectively

Ryuutama is the epitome of jovial, so its fine

In a party of exalteds, my "dmpc" (which would actually better qualify as an npc) is a mortal that is there for comedic relief more than anything

I'll admit I was a bit miffed, because the NPC was a tool I was using to evolve my character but it wasn't like it was my waifu or anything so I pursued another route to make my character open up. The DM was actually pretty good under normal circumstances, but this situation started a trend with him making DMPCs throwing themselves into the spotlight and basically causing him to become a spotlight hogging PC in all cases. Eventually I left because it seemed like a magical realm power trip in almost every session and campaign we played in.

Well, in one game we have an NPC who started out as a regular side character, but we dragged him along on so many dumb adventures that he's pretty much become a GMPC.

The PC in question is really strong combat-wise (still not the best in the group), but he's pretty much useless for any kind of social or mental pursuit. So, he's powerful enough that he can pull the party's ass out out of the fire on occasion, but he's not overpowered.

In my RT game, I rolled up stats for a couple of notable NPCs, and use them as semi-DMPCs.
They're mainly there for support and not much use in a fight, and most of the time aren't even brought along.
Most notable one is the bombastic Archmilitant's wife/secretary, who acts as Seneschal handling accquisitions, as well as offering suggestions if the players run out of ideas.

>Can DMPCs be done right?
I've never understood the DMPC, the GM is already playing ALL the NPCs, what does he need this for unless it's to fulfill some misbegotten power fantasy.

So to go back to the original question, no, because if the DMPC was done right, it'd just be another NPC.

My DMPC is incorporeal and full of useless information, and only really serves to bookkeep for the party, and occasionally help them out with the lightboxes in ancient ruins.

She's a library ghost. She's actually an archival AI from a few thousand years ago,
but the players don't know that.

You also have limited means to save the party.
Actually, that "DMPC" is basically a mean to limit the power of the DM, because the players more or less know how you, the DM, can modify the story through your DMPC.

>Can DMPCs be done right?
I sometimes have one, mostly because the group I play with is really small so its hard to build encounters for such low numbers, but whenever I do I make up a full stat sheet, same level as the PC's, and put it out in the open for everyone to see.

>any tone but jovial.
Have you never taken so much as a glance at Ryuutama, nigga?

Have him express that timidity. Not every action has to be an attempt to effect the world. Even something as simple as nervous fidgeting can add to your character.

DMPC I suppose could be done right if they instead relegate themselves to a secondary role or a role the party doesn't have, and they tend to keep towards themselves, interjecting only as a mouthpiece to GM hints, when prompted for a response, and giving pertinent info.

For example, the team could have a "overwatch" kind of intel guy sitting safely in a building, bunker, or computer nest far away who does hacking and otherwise handing over info that he can find based on what the party needs or wants to do. Could also be a wizard who is scrying for the party and can help them from afar with creative use of scrying, impromptu research, improvised magic, and maybe a familiar the party takes with them. Could even just be a bunch of NPCs that hang out in the same caravan as the PCs, and perform tasks the PCs don't have the skills for while generally taking care of the basics.

Basically, treat a DMPC the same way you might treat a DM-controlled familiar or a sentient magical item with a few abilities the party can use.

Yes. Idk why but it seems like its a cultural setting - over here where I live, literally every group, for any kind of system you play, has DMPCs, and they're more likely to be the one character in the party that fills the role no one else wanted (70% of them are healers/support, as expected) than anything else.

Even with the absolute worst GM I've ever had (guy was the kind that liked to kill the PCs, was REALLY bad at worldbuilding or storytelling/writing in general, and was kind of a dick overall), his DMPCs were these really weak characters, and he went through 2 of them during my time playing in his table because they died. One was a druid and the other was a rogue (who got killed by a trap he failed to see on a skill check!).

After I started DM'ing, naturally I always made DMPCs, and never heard a complaint about that. All it takes to do it right is to not treat the DMPC any differently than you would any other NPC. If another NPC with the same personality would have been the first to rush into the dungeon and despite his "mad skills", would end up being killed by a falling boulder trap? The same happens to the DMPC.

>but if you treat them just like any NPC then it's not a DMPC!
Then it's just a NPC that happens to be in the party. There's literally no difference.

I guess people are either just really sad and want to be a special snowflake; or can't roleplay a character if they have knowledge of what will happen ahead of time.
I honestly don't know how someone would be able to handle ANY npc at all if they don't know how to manage the OOC knowledge x IC knowledge problem.

My group actually voted for GMPC to become a party leader.

>a cultural setting
Meant to say a cultural thing, fml

Because not every game is 3.PF where any party archetype can be filled by a full caster.
And you know what? If your dmpc isn't obnoxious trash, the players can come to like them and appreciate them as a part of the crew.

>Reading comprehension.
Is it hard? Going through life with such a crippling intellectual disabilities?

>Can DMPCs be done right?

I'd like to think so.
Mine are usually related to task the players are on, a soft bonus "escort quest" if you will
They tend to have more outgoing personalities to help engage the reserved players.
Normally have skills to cover party shortcomings that'd otherwise make it hard to proceed, (though naturally they won't do it as well, as fast or as cheap as players that bothered to diversify might HINT!)

>And what's the best way of killing it?

I usually end up killing them myself if the players get sloppy/lazy or sacrificing them if players get unlucky, having the useful and colourful person die because you couldn't be assed to X tends to make them focus.

If the players take to them and don't get them killed they may become recurring NPC's.

Have a kind of related story.

>get invited to a game, don't really know anyone but my one friend, but say fuck it cause I'm bored
>make a generic ranger character cause for some reason everyone wants to be rogues or spellcasters.
>dm is kind of a head-up-his-own-ass dick.
>messes with the party with stupid shit all the time. We get pickpocketed like 3 times in one session.
>Finally tired of that shit I follow a pickpocket to the thieves guild (of course)
>my character demands money back, from guild leader
>of course the guild leader is one of the dm's old characters brought back as an insert
>we fight but of course he wins because plot reasons (also the dm cheats
>turns out he's in the story so he can give us info about the big bad, lead us to him and train the rogues in our party
>I hate this character, my character hates this character, and the dm, and everyone knows it.
>dm decides to cool it. Gives us info and sends us on our way.
>game is meh for a while. Questing, dungeon crawling, usual d&d stuff
>many levels later it's final boss time.
>party is hyped.
>big Boss makes his flourishing reveal, big speech.
>it's revealed that he's way stronger than our party can handle, by another random character that effectively tells us his power level
>cue the rogue from the thieves guild
>heroic sacrifice.
>takes half the big bads hp in one scripted attack
>gets layed out, unconscious but not killed.
>God fucking dammit.
>my character casually shoots the rogue in the head. Just do my rolls without even asking the dm, just telling him.
>kill the rogue
>stand up, declare "fuck this game" and walk out.

Honestly, I know I sound like a bitch in this one, but I don't care. Fuck anyone who self inserts a dmpc.

I've ran a game where the players were really attached to an NPC and wanted to travel with him. I did any RP for them, but when it came to combat I made them control him. It seemed to work out really well.

Somewhat related, there's an character in the 5e starter kit adventure who has a note mentioning they will try to embed themselves with the party. which is just begging for a DMPC.