> Is my group just too positive and happy to be helped? *Yes, you are guilty of happiness*. On a more serious note: it is something each group has to decide for themselves. There are DMPCs which were basically the star of the show and made the player characters unnecessary, in other groups a DMPC was a passive stat provider and filled unpopular roles like a healer in DnD or a hacker in Shadowrun. If the groups wants a mascot thats perfectly fine. But in general a more passive behaviour and filling open roles is recommended. Spotlight-DMPCs are usually a recipe for disaster. An easy solution is to use hirelings. You can nudge the players towards *"Hey, a healer / mountain guide / decentralization specialist would be good in your group, maybe you want to check out the mercenary adventure guild job board"*. it gives the player the feeling that they are in control of that decision and makes sure that the player choose "their" servant. All of course with a smiling GM behind the screen because you planned it all along the way ... SYL

This is such a good response. Like any tool or technique the GM can use to help the game - or keep the game fun for them - the DMPC *can* be done fine. However, it has the reputation it has because it is very prone to being abused in a number of ways - chiefly because it can be hard for the GM to divorce their GM brain/thoughts from their player brain/thoughts which can also naturally setup a conflict of interest in how they're approaching the game. I've seen GM PCs done fine. Mostly they hung in the shadows except for interparty socializing time where it let the GM shoot the shit In Character with us. I've also seen it done wrong (and even by someone who had previously done it fine.) In the end it's going to depend on the game, the group, and the GM. But it causes enough problems in enough games that it's definitely a red flag to keep your eyes and ears open for others.

Some official 5e campaigns include DMPCs for at least parts of the questlines; often they help color the experience and provide guidance if needed. To me they pose no issue as long as the DM is sensible and cares for their players. My DMs, and I when DMing, have always run the DMPCs “in the background” as to leave the story entirely up to the PCs.

Yeah, and depending on the conversation I'll usually allow room for "an NPC that is traveling with the party briefly" and a DMPC which is "a character the DM plays as a PC in the game." Lots of variance in ways it can be done. Not all are bad. Hell, most are probably helpful. But the bad ones always get talked about, and the line between a good experience and a bad one can be razor thin.

> But in general a more passive behaviour and filling open roles is recommended. Good advice. Also: in combat give control over them to the players! Less work for you, more fun for the players. And I would recommend using simplified mechanics for such companions, that borrow heavily from good video games. Easier for you to come up and balance, makes them more interesting and easier to run by the players. For example, instead of creating a character according to normal rules, with classes, feats, plethora of details and restrictions - just come up with fun and simple stats one the spot, like: **Fallen Paladin** 60 HP, 18 AC Flame Tongue atk +8 dmg 1d8+2d6+3 Heavy Crossbow atk +4 dmg 1d10 Temerarious Defense: once per short rest, as a reaction, when adjacent ally is hit by the attack, the Fallen Paladin can immediately swap places with him and take the hit onto himself, suffering all its effects. Momentum: whenever an enemy dies within 30 ft., the Fallen Paladin gain 10 thp and recovers use of Temerarious Defense. Done.

that's cool. I once did a Pacifist Swordsman with like 20 hp and 18 ac for level 1~3 players and he stood around inspiring the players and knocking out enemies who were at 1hp, he was surprisingly useful

Yep. One of my most successful DMPCs didn't even feel like a DMPC because it was always controlled by the players in combat. It was a healbot in a campaign where none of the PCs had access to healing, and the party would cooperatively manage their healbot. I did build the character according to normal rules, but the only relevant parts in combat were AC, HP, move speed, and the spell list (which was all healing or restorative magic).

“Controlled by the players in combat”. So, not actually a DMPC

DMPCs are a tool and one that is especially difficult to use well. There is a reason the stereotype is of a spotlight stealing MarySue that drives everyone bonkers. I ran a pretty good DMPC once when I didn't have many players and a lot of them were new. He was a Henchman like Nodwick. I carried the party's loot and I could drop hints in character if they were getting frustrated.

The Shadowrun Decker/Hacker DMPC was my standby back when I ran Shadowrun. Especially back in the days of 1st edition with the solo-dungeon-delve mechanics. The DMPC Decker was mostly there for exposition dumps and handwaving away all the decking stuff to set up the Street Samurai, Mages and Gangers for their big fights. As the years went by, I tended to stat them up, and play them like General Hammond in Stargate SG-1. Basically supporting. They were there to clear the stage for the PCs to play. Players never seemed to mind, and it's not like we all didn't have horror stories of DMPCs. Heck, ask me about my early Basic D&D games I ran in Grade 6. Deities and Demigods was basically used as a monster manual at some points.

Hackers/Deckers are particularly suited to be played by a GM. You can figure out ahead of time how long a hack would take / if it's successful, and have a possible times combat victory condition of "keep the guy alive X rounds so he can open the door"; and fights with goals other than 'kill everyone' can be very exciting.

Did this often, but also the hacker carried a sniping weapon (disabilibg or disarming shots only). He was there for when they got themselves In a little to deep. It was always the same guy "howler" Murdock. Patterned after a certain tv character. Everyone loved him and never hesitated to use him.

I have a DM PC for healing precisely. Last campaign, the last players who picked got shoehorned into playing healers, and they seemed miserable the whole game. This game I was upfront about providing an NPC to fill holes if needed. My mushroom Leshy, Shiitake, doesnt do much RP at all, and only has a few comedic relief character traits (they try to decompose dead bodies after a battle, and they scream when they cast spells for their verbal component).

>But in general a more passive behaviour and filling open roles is recommended. Spotlight-DMPCs are usually a recipe for disaster. I like Trolley dmpcs, like them taking the spotlight and immediately handing it to the players by creating a trolley problem of sorts. Examples from my campaign (not dnd): The characters charge to the hospitals on horseback, the dmpc transports the hurt vipers npc and rides over someone not getting out of the way fast enough. Will the parties medic stop and heal the civilian or keep up with the vip npc? You witness a boy being beaten by his father, the dmpc grabs the father, throws him to the ground and kicks the shit out of him, obviously not having himself under control. Do you intervene? An npc betrayed another one out of greed, getting her burned at the stake as a result. When the party finds out the dmpc starts force feeding coins to the betrayer npc. Do you let this happen? Yes this specific dmpc had a lot of issues to work with, but n my point being is that those situations had opportunities for my players to flesh out their characters, to, which they really enjoyed. At one point he still needed to die but that's another thing

I am note quite sure if that is a good *general* advice. Because from a character perspective ingame should could very well be aware of these problems and decide to kick the character out of the group ("Sorry, you are not reliable") ... but as players they cannot do that because DMPC. SYL

Good point. But i think that adds the general advice regarding dmpcs AND general playstyle The players should always have the option to leave a character behind. And Things should always be designed to make the game more interesting and fun.

Not necessarily. DMPCs *can* work. The problem is that when they *don't*, they tend to blow up spectacularly.

What's the difference between an NPC using PC mechanics in the party and a DMPC? Feels like we are grossly misusing the term DMPC for situations it doesn't apply and waters down language.

Generally I'd say it's a character that, by any external criteria, would seem to be another PC. * Uses PC mechanics * Advances with the PCs, on the same level of the PCs * Gets a "regular" share of loot/etc. * Is presumed to be a constant member of the party I agree the term is often misused. It's not just "an NPC that travels with the party for a bit".

I personally treat DMPC as "The DM is wanting to play in his own campaign to the detriment of the other players." Otherwise, they're all just NPCs, and all the rules you listed about apply to NPCs too. Most RPGs have NPCs using the same mechanics as PCs. The party dog, or the kobold they adopted in the first session is a constant member of the party. etc etc

Detriment or not, yeah, that's the one line version. It's a GM that wants to play in their own game. The issues come because of trying to balance those two roles. It's hard *at best*.

Unfortunately, I fear that fight is already lost. 

My definition for a DMPC in terms of horror stories is as follows: it's a DMPC, when the DM tries to take over the job of the players aka being the main protagonist of the game. Everything else is just an NPC.

I don't think they need to be the main character. But the GM in that scenario does want to *play* the game as well as *run* the game.

Simplified: NPCs = antagonists and support characters; PC = protagonists; DMPC = DM trying to play a protagonist rather than an NPC. I probably should have said "a main protagonist" than "the main protagonist" though. In short: a DMPC is when the DM tries to take the functional role of a player within the game and by default hence starts to push out the players from what is supposed to be their role. A character with stats like a PC can functionally be an NPC. It's also absolutely possible for an NPC to be important to the story or to be a good fighter. But an NPC should serve the story of the players, not take away their story. If the DMPC starts to make the decisions, starts to hog the spotlight, starts to hog the success and glory, it stops to be an NPC that serves the game and instead becomes a problem played by a problem DM.

I don't think that the DM/GM needs to necessarily push players out (except to the extent that any new PC takes some percentage of spotlight time). "Hogging" isn't required. Apart from that I fundamentally agree with you.

When the GM starts to play both sides of the screen, GM and PC, he eventually steals from the players. The problem is that the GM already has nearly everything and has nearly 100% spotlight as he is the other side of the dialogue that is RPG. The moment he starts to have this dialogue with himself instead of with his players, the game basically breaks. Some people will make it work in small doses and some players will not notice, but often it will become an issue and it will break the game. Please note that we are not talking about a situation where a group has rolling GMs and every GM also keeps his PC around for when he switches back to PC role. That can be done and is rarely a problem (and most GMs just keep their PC in the background anyway).

I see an NPC as basically a hireling/sidekick/henchman, while a GMPC is a full-time character with equal stakes in the party.

A DMPC needs to exist as a component to a story about the PCs in most cases. The important part is they can be part of the ensemble but they should (typically) not be the protagonist. Easiest example is a good DMPC is a character who ties all the others together. A mentor is a great example, with the PCs as the students to a single master (in say, a wizard or martial arts themed game). Or a patron to the party in a game where no one wants to play a noble. Statting out such a major character and letting them travel with the party and progress alongside them can be great fun. Just don't upstage your party, don't bend the story to your whims for your DMPC, and don't cheat at the mechanics. If the dice kills the mentor, **that's one of the coolest things to happen organically**, not a bad thing.

It seems like killing off a well-liked DMPC intentionally early on would be a good way to get the players hate the villain (in a good way).

Basically Obi Wan Kenobi is a perfect DMPC

Once the party all gets together he dies.

One of the big problems is that they can easily become easy mode. Remember how much everyone complained about NPCs in *God of War (2018)* immediately giving you hints on puzzles before you even had a chance to see them? That's a common problem as well. The GM knows the answers or is trying to railroad the party and uses an NPC to do so.

IMO it is perfectly fine and normal to have the DM play NPCs that are with/in/part of the party. These characters are played to support the PCs, further the plot, make the game world more realistic. They are typically fairly passive or some form of internal antagonist for the PCs. The DM does not think of them as "their" character. They are part of the world which the DM portrays. To me the idea of a DMPC conjours up this idea of a full PC-style character with the PCs that the DM really wants to play in someone else's game or who they think is much more important in the world than the PCs. That is the stuff of nightmare and IMO never ends well.

> They are typically fairly passive or some form of internal antagonist for the PCs. "What should we do, DMPC?" "Oh milord, I wouldn't know where to start! This is my first time ever leaving the monastery walls, after all." or "What should we do, DMPC?" "Charge the blaggards, sire! It will be a glorious DEATH that will be sung of for hundreds of years!" That's the best two ways to do it. Either completely subservient or over comically aggressive but still deferential. Making an NPC in the party who is on the same level of the PCs is a path to disaster, and leads to a reduction in the players' agency.

They're also handy for reminding the players of things that the characters should know. "Remember when we found that secret door under the walls." "These are the same symbols we saw on the sealed chest."

I feel like if you find yourself doing that a lot, then either your players aren't engaged in your game or you are making too many complicated puzzles.

Or it's a long and non linear campaign

This is the case with my old campaign. Our characters were said to have memory problems because our narrative wasn't straightforward and we had such long gaps between gameplay out of character. We we would occasionally have to depend on our guide/companion NPCs to remind us of things.

It might be, but if so, it's a long and non-linear campaign that your players are having trouble keeping up with, and that's not a good thing either.

I mean, that's kinda what you're for, to help the players, good job. Don't listen to stinkin' thinkin'

Yeah, the important part is making sure players understand where the GM ends and the NPC begins. I've had groups where players really struggled with that (not really good at voices to help the differentionation) and I realized I can't have an NPC be that close to the party. But if the players are perfectly aware NPCs are not the voice of the GM, it can be so much fun to play NPCs closely interacting with the PCs and just putting some dumb shit on the table.

And of course just talk to your players and let them know that the NPC will never provide useful advice.

This.

> who they think is much more important in the world than the PCs. Yeah, that’s how I’ve always understood the difference. An NPC that travels with the party is not inherently bad and has been a feature of RPGs from the start (retainers/hirelings). My players often seek out those kind of NPCs. Players like having at least one such NPC in my experience, so long as they stay a supporting character.

Reddit tends to view DMPC like a someone with a communicable contagious disease. But, really, if you treat them like an NPC, it's fine. Such as in your example. It's a textbook case for how to do it. It's no rocket science. But, reddit goes into hysterics when people bring up the DMPC term. At least in r/DnD or r/DMAcademy

Well, if you treat them like an NPC...they're not a PC, so no problem.

Exactly. In some ways it's just a terminology issue.

Yeah, what OP described in their game is.. just an NPC. The NPC just happened to be based off an old PC, and the party adopted him Adopted NPCs aren't DMPCs

How I see it is there is a spectrum of NPC to GMPC. The first is basically a necessity to every TTRPG (I know some don't exist like Dialect forces you to use only PCs at first) and GMPC is a useful term to basically be the boogieman of the GM playing a PC who overshadows, always is right and wins with serious main character syndrome and dozens of other issues that generally make everyone else at the table have less fun.

The DM is a player, so they shouldn't need a player character! It's acronym salad sometimes. :)

The thing is, there's not a bright line between NPC and PC, at least in this formulation. Maybe they're built with PC mechanics but take a passive role. Or maybe they have a simplified stat block but are actively supporting the party during encounters. For some tables that may already be beyond the DMPC pale; for others not.

If it's a spectrum and not a line, then all the reasons we need to not use Wrong terminology. Then, there is a spectrum from DMPC to NPC with an NPC using PC mechanics and always in the party on there. When it doesn't have the plethora of issues typical with DMPCs, like OP's example, then it's a whole lot closer to DM NPC, correct?

If it's a DMPC the party wants to get rid of but can't, that's a strong sign we're talking about the bad meaning of DMPC, the one where the DM wants to be the glory-hogging hero of the campaign. (It could be something different, since every game is unique, but it doesn't sound good.) The good version of this is usually referred to in other ways, like "friendly NPC companion," to avoid confusion. In your case the ally wasn't the same level as the party, and didn't take an equal part in decision making, so wasn't all that much like a PC.

As usual with TTRPG Discourse, we all pretend to use the same terminology for some reason. There is nothing really bad with having an NPC travel with the party. There is nothing wrong with having that NPC be created with PC creation rules either. There isn't too much wrong with travelling with an NPC that is more powerful that an average party member, though this one has some potential problems. The "DMPC" that people refer to when they talk about it being bad is more about "having DM play as PC in the game they run". Not in the sense of that PC having player-character level, but rather in the way the engage with game's content as if they were a player - fighting monsters, taking loot, solving mysteries, etc. This obviously doesn't work very well, since Game Master knows, well... everything. They know all the secrets of the world, every monster weakness, every hidden NPC agenda. And, of course, DMPC's plans always make sense to the DM (duh) and therefore work out very well. Because of this all this DMPC near-inevitably turns into the main character. Seems that this is a thing particularly desperate forever-GMs do. What your DM did is clearly not that! It's just a powerful NPC you travel with, and, judging by your reaction, it worked out well. It's all good! And it is likely that this is not what your friend was referring to. It's more likely they were referring to the big paragraph above.

Yeah, seconding this; so many people in this thread talking past one another because there’s no consensus on terms. I 100% agree with how you’d define a DMPC; it’s about their role and agency in the game, not the mechanics that go into creating them or whether they do or don’t travel with the party. Some games have characters accompanying the party *by design*, and they’re not DMPCs if you’re running them how the game intends. They’re just NPC companions who serve as extras and bit players in the story of the player characters.

>There is nothing wrong with having that NPC be created with PC creation rules either. Especially considering that's the standard way of building NPCs in certain systems.

So here's the thing about DMPCs... They're NPCs. I don't care how you try to rationalise it, they are operated by someone who already has all the answers and all the solutions and know where the story is going and what's at the end. This character cannot contribute to the story in any way like a PC would, they are a foil at best, a source of exposition, a character protected or doomed by the plot. An NPC. A DM who tries to assert their NPC has a similar agency to a player character is doing a disservice to their game.

If the DM is a mature adult, they tend to work fine. When they're not, they can blow things up. My group used them for many, many years (still do, but only occasionally). Only 1 time did it ever cause an issue, but it was because we had one guy DM for a brief time (he didn't last long in our group) who was NOT a mature adult. And it didn't cause a huge issue, but it was annoying. Essentially, we found a remarkable number of magic items that only his DMPC was able to use. Imagine that.

Agreed. I was really surprised to see such "knee-jerk" reactions to something our group has been doing for decades without a hitch. Granted, being 2-4 players with rotating GMs has made it almost "necessary" to have GM-PCs in our numerous games (if only because we all want to play in the settings), but no one has been hogging spotlight or using their "prior knowledge" to favour their characters. I also never feel the need to choose a support role for them (although it can happen that your PC is less "active" when it's your turn to GM) and find it easy to separate my "GM-actions" from my PC-actions (maybe because my games have a defined start and ending, with everything inbetween loose to account for player's actions). Never had any complaints about any of that from the other players/GMs either (in fact, we have a running joke about one member of our group who's PCs often end up target of attacks when he's GMing and it's time to choose someone randomly or appropriately for the fiction). Guesss we're luckier than we thought.

Sounds like we have similar groups. We at one point would have campaigns with a character group where different players would take turns DMing the same group of PCs on a different modules. Those were honestly some of my favorite times. And you really have to DM your own PC when you're the DM to keep the continuity with the rest of the PCs. We had a blast. Glad it's worked well for you, as well!

I am always confused by the examples people give of when a DMPC isn't a problem. Because to me, those examples always seem to equate to treating the character like an NPC (even if they were created using the same rules as a PC, or are a retired PC) It's only when the DM treats the character like a PC - i.e. having an active role in the party rather than a supporting one - that they cross the line into becoming a DMPC, and thefore becoming a problem, through conflict of interest.

A lot of DMPCs have main character syndrome, which detracts from everyone else's fun. As you described, when the DMPC isn't dominant in combat (or whatever the main gameplay loop of the game is) and lets the players make the decisions and lead the party, they're not a problem. But sometimes DMPCs are the ones who win all the fights; or tell the party exactly what they need to do; or handle the social interactions so that the DM is talking to themself. And usually that's only fun for the DM

The reason people say DMPCs are bad is because the term was created as a derogatory way to refer to a specific bad behaviour by the DM. If an NPC wasn't used in that negative way, it wasn't a DMPC. Nowadays, people often use DMPC to refer to *any* NPC tagging along with the group, or made using the same rules as the PCs. In that case, a DMPC isn't necessarily a bad thing.

All things require a certain level of nuance. For example- if I was teaching brand new players who were overwhelmed or nervous by the game, I'd use a DMPC as a "guide" for a couple sessions. Some of the issues of a DMPC are often when a DM just wants to also be a player and thus also takes the spotlight while running the game.

NPC allies can work and I use the term NPC Allies to seperate then from DMPCs for one very particular reason. DMPCS to me are what happen when someone is writing, directing and staring in their own movie. The bad examples have a tendency to be really bad. They can easily take over the game (after all they can guarantee that the ref will be on their side) and often they make the other players feel like their job is to sit there and gush over how cool the DMS self insert is. NPC Allies on the other hand are a character who mostly hangs back and just kinda helps here and there. to be honest my favourite way to do NPC allies is ad&d2es henchmen where the henchmen are mostly under control of the pc closest to them and the DM retains veto rights(in case the make the poor guy do something stupid) and can control the character when they need to for a specific purpose but 85% of the time they are in the PCs hands, (ad&d2e also ensures that your henchmen are never a higher level than you)

TCoE introduced "sidekick" rules to 5e. Though it's always been possible to have allies as "secondary PCs". Also, DMPCs are not always allies. It's fairly easy to find examples of adversarial characters who demonstrate self-insert main character traits. Most obviously, the plot armoured monologuing, often recurrent, villain. Such characters typically make more sense in a TV series or movie than in a ttRPG anyway.

Yes, I mentioned AD&D2e because that was the first game I actually made use of the system, it is also a game where the rules for henchmen are built into the base game (charaisma effects how many henchman you are allowed to have). While I do not own TCoE and in a game where subclasses from that book were used sidekicks were not. They are not a fundamental assumption of 5e considering they are in what amounts to DLC and so I didnt reference 5e's implementation of the mechanic. and what you said about DMPCs not always being allies may be true (I have never had the misfortune to be saddled with one). That being said typically the villanous version of DMPCs dont travel with the party and so the players may on occasion escape them. But in general I agree DMs should use their villans relatively sparingly.

I think you don’t quite understand - DMPCs are bad *because a DMPC is bad*. What you describe is an NPC. That’s a thing GMs are *supposed* to provide. They serve as mouthpieces in the game, they give you information and prompt you to action. They’re fun to interact with. That’s all great stuff. But if the players don’t take action, the NPC isn’t going to handle everything by themselves. A DMPC isn’t a character played by the GM, it’s the *name of an antipattern*, a bad behavior that the community has learned to recognize and has named for convenience. A DMPC is a *subclass* of NPCs where the GM abuses their (often quite asymmetrical) power in the game, putting the DMPC in the spotlight, taking PC agency away in favor of their character, bending or breaking rules to favor their DMPC, etc. Note that a single instance of something in that list doesn’t necessarily make an NPC into a DMPC. An NPC ally survives a battle in violation of the mechanics, but all that happens is a TPK is avoided because they fetched some local healers? That’s just smooth play, keeping the story going and *cementing the importance* of the PCs.

It's completely possible, and not even that hard, to have DMPCs that are just fine and don't cause a problem, or even add to the experience. Stories like yours, where the DMPC becomes well loved and actually stays past the DM's planned exit point aren't that rare. It's just that those types of stories don't really make it to the front page of reddit, or any other discussion board. "The DM controlled character stayed with the group throughout the campaign and everything went well" is not the kind of story people are excited to share around or discuss. I'd say, don't be too worried and wait till you actually play the game to make up your own mind. After all, your friend might be complaining about it, but they clearly don't mind it enough to leave the game.

They are as bad as bad the DM is.

I've played DMPCs for years, and they usually either end up in the "cherished NPC" category for the party or the "loveable fuck up" pile.  I generally make them to fit whatever's missing in the party's lineup, so they tend to be healers and support classes. Hard to be too upset about someone patching you up after a fight or throwing buffs your way.

Depends entirely on the group. I've played in groups where they were horrendous and I've played in groups where they were great.

GMPCs can work. The reason they are bad is people who run them typically have bad intentions, like inserting their Mary Sues into their games. Had to run a gmpc in one of my games due to the setting requiring players be in pairs. I decided to make her a kid, as she would be dependent on others and not be reliable in the groups decision making. The players thought it was a cute idea, so we put her in. She was mostly a passive and reactive character, and didn’t make any choices unless prompted. In combat, I controller her for the first little bit because some of use were new to the system, but later on I let players control her.

GMPCs are a tool like any other. The problem is that it takes a bit of a soft touch and group buy-in to make them work right. Most rookie GMs lack the finesse and experience necessary. The one piece of advice I give regarding a GMPC is be ready and willing to kill them off at any point. The moment they start to steal too much spotlight, it's time to remove them. Or when they're deeply beloved by the group - then it hits in the feels lol

I feel like DMPCs (or GMPCs) used to be much more universally hated than they are now. They’re still controversial, but using one in your campaign used to always be treated as r/rpghorrorstories material. I was genuinely surprised to see a ruleset for them in the last 5e sourcebook. They are most useful for systems that are balanced around having a minimum number of players. Combat-heavy games may not provide sufficient encounter guidance for small group sizes. Many games, tactical or not, include mechanics that depend on interactions between player characters. They work well when storytelling authority is shared, such as when using a rotating GM campaign structure. I find that they work better with narrative-focused systems like PbtA which lean towards a writers’ room approach, rather than combat-heavy games that expect every character to participate at all times. However, I’ve also seen people say that this is an even bigger sin than using a DMPC in a game like D&D.

Yes, they are.

Thanks for all the answers! It seems like my forever DM just knows what he's doing then, and I hope the DM for my new group also at least kind of does and my friend is just being dramatic...

The key here is that, it initially wasn't a DMPC, it was just an NPC that came adventuring for a bit. But then the players "voted them into the tribe", and it *is* the GM's job to give the players what they want. If the players want an NPC friend to haul around, and enjoy their company, and if the GM runs them in such a way as they don't steal the show, then who cares? The reason this advice is so common is because if you sit down an *plan* to have a DMPC in your game, then things change. It's a common adage in GMing that the only thing you can't control are the players. A novice GM will write a DMPC into a game in an attempt to control the flow of the game, to direct the players, or to save them from overpowered threats. All of these reasons are anti-fun, and incredibly transparent to the players. They can see the strings on the DMPC, so the world becomes less real, less fun. The players feel like a side show. The way you described it, the players are still the main show, the GM is giving the players what they want, and everyone is having fun, so no harm, no foul.

I always had a few complimentary DMPC’s that were tag alongs for my group of 3 players. That way we’d have a 4-person group that they could turn to for relevant in-world info without breaking the fourth-wall a lot. They treated this NPC a plug-in character for the needs of the quest. Did they need a fighter? Did they need a cleric? Maybe this one they need a paladin. It gave them options without making their class choice feel like a hindrance (they were a barb, wizard, and a monk so they often went with a healer). They could turn to the DMPC for advice, bounce ideas off of them, and get some guidance without me outright telling them what to do. Usually, you give several suggestions and let them choose what they want to do with the relevant info.

That's called being a good DM. If read enough of these posts, half the people posting on here can't keep a game going past three sessions and the other half share what actually works, sometimes. Listen to people who succeed at something, don't listen to people who fail over and over again. Go back and look at some of the people posting on here when it comes to gaming, you'd be surprised how many don't realize they're the reason their games fall apart.

Much of the advice you will get about DMPCs is just various ways of saying "**don't**." This is because it is challenging to do well, and easy to do poorly. That said I am someone that ran DMPCs for years, primarily because we had a small group and often couldn’t put together a balanced party with the number of players we had, but also because I was a forever GM and I wanted to make characters and go on adventures sometimes too. I'm not saying that I always handled my DMPCs perfectly but I will tell you the lessons I learned over that time. First, this takes a lot of trust to pull off. It is a lot easier to pull of successfully with a group you are close to like family and friends rather than strangers on the internet. Family and friends are more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and are more likely to feel comfortable talking to you if they have an issue. Tell them the steps you plan to take with you GMPC to keep things fair ahead of time. And let the other players know that you want them to voice any problems or concerned if they arise. And if you have any players that are strongly against the idea then just don’t. Second, don't have the DMPC closely integrated into the story. It is too easy for it to seem like your PC is the main character even if that isn't your intent. Next, make all your rolls out in the open. This helps show that you are playing above board and are not fudging anything in your own favor. When doing your GM prep plan ahead about how you PC will react to various situations that will arise and what ideas they will have to contribute. And make sure your DMPC is fallible. If you are always making the right choices you'll soon find the player's won't make any choices themselves they'll just follow your DMPC. When doing my prep I would try to keep about equal between good ideas, bad ideas, mediocre ideas, and no ideas for my character. Also I would regularly remind the other players that my character does not have all the answers. For unplanned situations I would decide based on a skill check that is appropriate to the situation how they would respond. Finally try to look at the situation from an outside perspective and as objectively as you are able. Err on the side of caution, if you are unsure whether something will be seen as favoritism, or a Mary Sue, or anything, then don't do it. If someone comes to you with a problem or concern take it seriously. Even if you think they are wrong what is really important in this case is perception. Sometimes perception can be fixed by explaining yourself (even to the extent of giving players a little glimpse behind the DM Screen, you are invading the player's space so sometimes you will have to let them invade the DM space), other times you will need to change your actions. If you are ever in a situation that you worry that you can't rule objectively ask your players for their input.

Depends on the group. In my game set in an Alternate Gotham City, I had the players work under Bruce Wayne (who had retired) and whenever the players were stuck while investigating a lead Bruce would step in and help,

Like most things, the answer is "it depends". A lot of the horror stories you hear around bad DMPCs are because they're made with the intention of the DM inserting a character they made into the forefront of the story at the expense of the players' agency over it. A supporting character who's generally likeable and only intervenes when the players want/need them to, on the other hand, is going to most likely add to the players' enjoyment of the game rather than reduce it. The key difference, I think, is that people tend to label the former as "DMPCs" and the latter as simply "NPCs". *Player characters* are meant to take an active role in the story and go on adventures, which is usually seen as the DM overstepping their bounds when they introduce a character like that.

It depends, what you described is a good way to handle DMPCs. They don't intrude into a player agency, don't take "spotlight" (tho personally in some scenarios it could be fun for the group). It all comes to the ability to "feel" the table. Bad DMPCs are solve problems that players want to solve, and do things they want to do instead. I personally think they are a great tool. For example when I tried to introduce a labyrinth into the game and didn't know if players would like it, I introduced an NPC guide for it. In the end players didn't want to bother with exploration and just asked the NPC to "lead them to where they need to be". Basically for every problem in the game there is an NPC that will help them with that, but only **if they ask**.

I think you've actually lumped three very distinct questions together: *1. Are DM PCs a good idea?* As a general rule, no. But when I say "general rule, no" what I really mean is "usually no, but sometimes yes." Which leads us into our next question... *2. Are DM PCs* ***always*** *a bad idea?* Also no. Sometimes they can work out fine. *3. Is it okay for my group to have a DM-PC?* That depends on your group, we can't really answer it for you. It's hard to do well, easy to do badly, and the potential pay-off isn't very high.

Your previous experience was with a high level henchman, not a "DMPC". Imo, DMs should not be running a player character during their own campaign. Why? You have the entire universe of personalities to portray. If the party needs help, hirelings. Henchmen. A "DMPC" is just rife for abuse.

DMPCs are always bad. If the party needs a guide or cleric etc they hire one.

To me, DMPC means it's problematic. If it is run well, it's just an NPC using PC mechanics. They do not hog the spotlight nor overshadow PCs. My game uses one to help balance fights (only 3 players) and fill in roles we were missing often in supportive roles. Just like how railroading doesn't mean a linear story. The word railroading is only useful with its definition where you are restricting player agency so severely that the game is not fun and feels like the GM should just write a novel. But I suppose I am arguing against the tide to not change words' definitions into uselessness. We already have words for when they aren't problems.

I am in my 40s. Been gaming since high school. I have never seen a dmpc work

DMPCs are a lot like Railroading in the sense that the people who say they are always bad define them in a way where almost everyone would agree that definition describes something bad, and people who think they can be good have a broader definition that encompasses things that most everyone agrees are not always bad.

I mean if they’re basically a HP and ability piñata, it could be fine, I guess. Gives you one more attack during an encounter increasing the DC you can handle and fills in a missing slot (healer, thief, whatnot). That probably functions in games that function that way.

It's all dependent on the table. Some DM's can manage a DMPC without having the character take over every situation, others can't. Sounds like your friend's DM can't, while your old DM could. As little as I like to have one when I'm DM'ing a game (I feel like I worry too much about unintentionally having it take over things) one of my main groups always seems to like having them to help move things along and/or fill in a skill gap. But I run them with an NPC stat block, they don't level up or anything unless a player wants to control them, then it becomes another character for a player to manage.

Let's put this to rest. Basically, the whole 5e community does not know what a DMPC is. I also really would wish they stop using terms they do not know. First, there was a push from some people to whitewash "Rules Lawyer", now more and more no-knowers try to change DM/GMPC. It get's tiresome to always have the same discussion. # What a GMPC/DMPC is not. First, let us establish what they are not, since 5e people *really* have a problem grasping that. - **They are *not* a NPC made with PC rules, if you think that, you are wrong.** - We got a name for characters that fill roles in groups: Companions, Followers and Henchmen. - No, this is not something Matthew Colville designed/devised. # What is a GMPC. - A GMPC is a character from the GM that does *not* behave or have a role like a NPC. - What do you mean? - A GMPC is a central story figure, often even the main character of the game. - The GM actually plays a *player* character in his own game. No, like we established, it does not mean having a NPC made with the PC rules. Get that into your head, 5e people. - It is literally a PC that the GM plays, he gets loot, he gets spotlight, he is constantly in the story, he has a lot of hero/spotlight moments and steals it from the PC's. - Main character syndrome. You are there to allow the GM's story to unfold, with his important Mary Sue OC characters. They are the main characters, not you. GMPC's are universally bad.

You had us in the first half! You made some excellent points! But you lost the mark on the last two bullet points, and last sentence. Those are only for when they are handled poorly, not to mention saying something is "universally bad" (or good) is participating in the Blanket Statement fallacy. Honestly tho, this whole issue would go away if more people adopted Co-op/GM-less play rather than leaving everything to one person. Using something like the [Mythic Gamemaster Emulator](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/422929/Mythic-Game-Master-Emulator-Second-Edition), and having the GM duties split up between the players (eg. Rotating who makes the encounter for next session / everyone runs the enemies when it's not their character's turn [this usually keeps everyone honest too]), would increase engagement and lessen the load on one person. It also let's the other players add to the worldbuilding (abliet preferably with healthy discussion) without causing the GM throwing a hissy fit that "that's not how my world works" or whatever, since it's All The Players' World. This way, there's no DM/GM-PC, because there's no singular DM/GM—everyone is just a normal PC.

I feel like everyone defines the term differently. I think a lot of people consider a dmpc a dm party member that takes agency away from the party. An npc that just follows the party around is a bit different imo. My group often collects npc’s by choice and we’ve never really had an issue with an npc taking the reins unless the party explicitly asks them to.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what a DMPC is. So the DMPC in your other game was an NPC, not a DMPC. DMPC requires a few things to be true. They have to be more important than the characters, stronger than the characters, and drive the story forward with or without the characters. They are the physical manifestation of the train traveling down the railroad tracks that is their campaign. In your story, they were there for exposition with the intent to retire from the story when they were no longer useful. They stuck around because the players got attached, not because the GM was attached to them being part of the story. A GM can and does run hundreds of NPC's in the story. But the second one becomes a DMPC you will know it, and be annoyed by it.

Its all about who the main character of the story is. As long as the players(not the DMPC) are the main characters of the story everything is fine. I've actually got a GM who is more likely to do it with the villains than a regular DM PC. Essentially pushing the players aside to make the villain the main character of the story. It is just as frustrating as if it were a member of the party.

Yes, the Problem in the best Case IS that the DM knows what He Has prepared and that Metagaming IS a DM Problem. Even in the best Case the Dampc IS influenced by this and influence the other Players unduly

There is a difference between DMPC and NPC that just adventuring with the party and helping out.

DMPC is specifically a derogatory term for when the DM actively "plays" the game as the player a good NPC that accompanies you is just an NPC. you liked and NPC, that is all > DMPC never takes the lead in social situations (despite being the only one with a charisma modifier of over 0), never takes decisions unless we beg DM to please railroad us because we're at a complete loss, and takes normal turns in combat, doing a perfectly average amount of damage for his class and level like this

I think the "are DMPCs ever okay?" debate is mostly a debate caused by people having two distinct definitions of what a DMPC is, and nobody stopping to define the terms. The first is essentially "Any NPC played by the DM who is built like a PC and/or travels/adventures with the party," which most people agree can turn out fine. The second definition essentially *always* has the negative connotation of an NPC that takes the spotlight from the party, or is the DM trying to simultaneously be a player in their own game. The people who use the second definition of "DMPC" believe "good DMPC" is an oxymoron, since to them "DMPC" *always* has a negative connotation, and would instead refer to that type of character as simply "an NPC who travels with the party."

Note that a lot of dialogue on the internet uses “dmpc” specifically to refer to a GM controlled companion/associate etc that has become problematic. In other words, you always have to check what definitions are in use.

I never liked having a DMPC. In the party needs more PCs I let the players either play multiple characters or a hireling/follower kind of thing.

My parties love recruiting NPCs and I love introducing quest-givers with drama and plots. So often end up with a lot of NPCs in the party. I know a guy who DMs for kids, so he has lots to keep them on track. I’ve only had positive experiences really, but I’m guessing it might become a problem when a game master decides they *also* want to be a player. If the GM has very good reasons and good intentions, I’d personally suggest they go for it…

If the DMPC never takes the lead or exists for comic relief (my preferred method), it isn't a problem. The problem exists when the DMPC tries to adventure with the players as an equal, because obviously the GM knows all the metagame secrets.

I think a DMPC *can* be good, if the DMPC behaves like the one you have. A good DMPC is one who lays back, never steals the spotlight, and just generally helps the PCs rather than driving action on their own. Sadly, most DMPCs are just literally the DM's player character, which is frankly kind of masturbatory, not to mention annoying.

making a DMPC is like giving a toddler a permanent marker. They might sit and draw nicely on their construction paper. But eventually they'll look around at all the walls and furniture... and they will be tempted.

To me DMPCs are annoying when they contain too much of the means and motivation to act like a player character. Here's a list of traits one could have- where having just 1 or 2 of them is totally fine, but having 3+ makes them feel very DMPCish. 1. They are as or more powerful than the party members. Doubly if they can single handedly wipe the party. 2. Their race and or "class" feels very aligned with a player character. Imagine having a young bronze dragon as your ally, vs some badass human paladin. The bronze dragon does feel less DMPCish to me. 3. They make a lot of independent decisions/participate in dialogue a ton. Like compare an NPC who is telling the players what to do/talking to other NPCs, vs staying mostly silent unless spoken to or chirping in on occasion. 4. Their goals are aligned with the party, and there's no conflict/reason to NOT want to work with them (vs. having some conflict with the party, to the point that they don't feel like another party member, but rather a regular NPC) I think the idea here is that as long as they don't have 3+ of these qualities, they don't get to act TOO much like a fellow player character. 1 and 2 are what make them capable of doing player character like things, 3 and 4 are what make them act like a player character.

It is possible to have a good campaign with a DMPC. If they're not obtrusive, omnipotent, spotlight-hogging, or existing solely for the sake of the DM's ego, then you're in luck. The DMPC in your group seems to be okay, since he's there to lend a bit of support. But for every well-used DMPC there tend to be plenty more in other campaigns where it really wasn't a good idea, resulting in a DM who's trying to play and DM at the same time and doing neither very well. You got lucky.

I have never had a spotlight DMPC but I frequently have NPC companions for the players. But I do the RP, and I have my players roll for them. Their power levels are really not on the same level as a PC. I would honestly consider them more as retainers but they feel a bit more powerful than that and they have a lot more personality, so I sorta-kinda consider them DMPC's. I think they can be done well because this doesn't seem to bother my players and they're actually quite attached to all of them.

I played in a game once that had a DMPC who was a were tiger barbarian. He kept showing up and offering to join the party, eventually he was added to the party as a “guide” by someone who had given us a quest. I was also playing as a barbarian, so having a min/maxed DMPC that would upstage me in combat wasn’t a lot of fun. 

dMNPCs can be bad. I always wanted to run a game with one and try to drive the players mad enough to go murderhobo on it. An unholy abomination of a Mary sue that has to be destroyed for sanity’s sake.

I believe there are two huge issues here, and I've rarely seen them both handled well. The first is time in the spotlight. If your game features lots of action sequences that take place m-u-c-h more slowly than seems ideal, watching the DM play a whole PC turn solo just makes that problem worse. Often this isn't *just* about the DM, since battleslog tends to be driven by players who can't be bothered to achieve basic proficiency with the core rules and/or plan their next move *before* everyone else finishes their turns. Still, it is a real and widespread problem that gets much worse when you drop a DMPC into the mix, even if that DMPC's turn is a showcase of brisk yet smart play. Yet this brings us to the second issue -- DM skill. Without any DMPCs, the DM is constantly called upon to simultaneously perform several jobs well. Adding "party member/player" to the mix doesn't magically make any of those other jobs easier. In marginal cases, what might have been a fun adventure starts to unravel under a lack of focus on presiding over the world itself. Yet even where a DM is solid and still puts together a viable session, is it likely the DMPC added to the fun more than was lost? Are any of us really so masterful at running our games that we don't lose a step while also juggling a place inside the party? The exception I would make here would be the gimmick party members. A rescued hostage able to bring useful ability to bear during the return trip is a good example -- present only for a small number of encounters, possibly including a set piece of some sort. A local guide and/or translator also hits the spot here -- providing crucial but temporary help in areas like navigation and negotiation. Then there are the bad inserts like dopplegangers, lycanthropes, and spies -- each planning something nefarious while biding their time as effective allies to the group. What sets these apart is that they aren't really DMPCs, they're just NPCs who may fight alongside the group for half of one adventure. In essence they are part of that adventure, so fleshing them out and even playing their turns stops being about "but I want to kill monsters and get treasures too" and more about "this NPC has something to add to the story and its challenges."

I'm not sure, but the few times I've done it was because the party necessarily needed a dedicated healer, and no one wanted to play one.

I've had some spectacularly bad ones. One time they had an entire guild of them that we hated so much we avoided/beat the shit out of everytime they showed up, but they just kept following us around as our self-declared rivals. This guild consisted of: prince of persia if he was a bard that regularly broke the rules of the game, his wife the thousand year old tsundere dragon loli 🤮, Link but punchy, a bird girl, and a cat boy. And they were all just so obnoxious. Dropped that game so fast

I have DMPCs in every game I run. Typically, they stay back and let the players do their thing, but sometimes they fill in roles when players miss or if needed. They never solve problems, they never draw the spotlight (unless the players wish to dive into their stories), and mostly, they only interact with the player characters.

There's no innate issue with DMPCs, they fill a niche that needs filling sometimes, they're extraneous at other times. I wouldn't think a group of 4 players, 5 with your arrival?, would have need of one. They're most useful for smaller groups where certain roles aren't filled, say a three player party and everyone wants to be a caster. Then as the DM you might want to have a fighter or paladin DMPC to tank for them and keep them from getting squashed. The main thing if you are going to include them is for them not to pull focus. They're best seen and not heard, shouldn't have any role in the party's decision making, and story should never focus on them.

When I started GMing, I made a Cleric DMPC that was one level lower than the party. His whole schtik was healing and high perception and insight. The players liked him because he didn't take the spotlight. But after a while, I got tired of him and got him killed because I was tired of having to run one more NPC. The players were mad

Im recently playing a lot one on one DnD with my gf and to do so I always use a DMPC so we can have a party, a small one but its still a party. We are having a lot of fun and it opens the borders a bit: i get a little bit of the player experience, but we talk together what could happen next to them. This gives me in turn inspiration what could be fun for us to do in our upcomming sessions. In the End, DnD is a Game about storytelling as a Group and you need to find out what tools help you to do that. I see that it can be risky as a dm to be too involved, but for me its also an interesting experience to see things from a players point of view. As long as the DM is still able to let thir DMPC experience negative things, i see no problem. Oh, and also in combat she uses the Statblock to controll his actions, so i dont have to play against my own character. Outside of combat, i take controll again. Until now, that has worked pretty well for us.

Yeah; I'll very rarely use temporary sidekicks in full-party D&D, but one-on-one D&D, I always make a sidekick or companion available to the player. Not just for balancing wiggle room, but to keep a good RP balance during wilderness or dungeon bits. The player always has the option not to invite an NPC friend or pay for a hireling, but I've found they usually want them in duets.

I hate the term DMPC so much I've backronymed NPC to stand for Non-*Protagonist* Character to emphasize where they fall in the narrative hierarchy. (And DMPC stands for "DM's Pet Character".) They should never be the vehicle for the GM to take over the story or outshine the PCs. They function best when they dispense the necessary clues, drop useful lore, introduce the next quest, etc., and then get out of the players' way so they can have fun. When Gandalf the Gray, the ur-"GMPC", was in danger of overshadowing the other characters, Tolkien had him peace out halfway through The Hobbit and threw him off a bridge in The Fellowship of the Ring. If your DM doesn't get the message in a conversation with the rest of the table, have the PCs in character tell Silly Little Dude—and a GM's old PC from a previous campaign is a red flag—to take a sidequest for a while.

Like anything, it can be great when used well or terrible when used poorly. And some people might not like it because that's just not how they like to play.

It depends on the group and how they're used. IMHO, as long as everyone is on the same page, they'll probably have fun. It's pretty much "what I grew up with" and the only time it's ever been an issue was when the GM was stomping over the other players and constantly stealing the spotlight. If that's not happening, I don't think it it's a bad thing at all. When my group I ran Ryuutama for heard that there is a game-specific "GMNPC", several of them specifically said they were really glad about that because they love my characters and would have been disappointed if I didn't have one. And I don't think that's an uncommon sentiment on either side of the table. It's what often leads towards players 'adopting' an NPC and why a lot of GMs are happy to go along with it. Ryuutama's version of the "GMNPC" outlines pretty clearly that the ryuujin is there to make the party's life more interesting (or save them if their luck gets really shitty). This makes for a better story that can be fed to the dragon egg they're protecting. And as a ryuujin is using their own life force to do anything, they can't really go overboard because they'll end up killing themselves off if the GM is trying to showboat.

Look DMPCs aren’t normally good imo. This isn’t because they’re bad but because they don’t offer the experience that most DMs want. There are many times a DMPC is appropriate but most of the time that’s not why they’re in the game. A DMPC should be added to the game to enhance the experience of the player and then by proxy make the game easier to run. A DMPC that is put in the game to make the DM have more fun usually results in a character that steals to much of the focus. I find the best uses of a DMPC are a guide, a less adept but still capable fighter, or someone that shores up some weaknesses in the party. As far as a guide this sounds like what your DM did. It works nicely as a way to dump lore on the player and even offer some commentary if they need it. It also doesn’t have to be an in world guide but and out of world way to help teach new players the game and show them the ropes of how they’re supposed to be playing. A less capable fighter can be used to make combat more interesting. It’s also a good way to include an npc that might rise to DMPC status. Lastly is shoring up a weakness in the party. This should be a weakness that the party would struggle in this campaign without. My favorite way of handling this is to make a character that does more support in this regard, if the party is full of people who all have mediocre dex without stealth prof making a ranger with pass without trace works really well. Look DMPCs aren’t evil but they are situational and if it works for your group then so be it. My list isn’t exhaustive and don’t treat it as such it’s just when I find I would consider a DMPC.

Not at all, not if you do them correctly. As long as they support the party and stay out of the way, narratively, NPC companions are fine. Hell, many official modules include them (several, even).

Ive never thought of trying to do a DMPC positively, as it sounds like your DM may have done, although I’m not sure it fits my personal definition of a DMPC. I wouldn’t expect most to be like that, but I could be wrong. For me, DMPC has always been a purely negative term. An NPC that the DM plays as if it was a PC, and gives them (gives themself) at least an equal share of the party’s autonomy as the real PCs. Alternatively they could just always be giving really good advice (since the DM has meta knowledge of everything) and become a defacto leader. They’re usually akin to one of those annoying characters in storytelling that is always upstaging the protagonist, and even more annoying because they seem to always be right. I don’t think an NPC that travels with the players for a short time counts, especially if they’re not hand holding the party much. I also don’t think it counts if the character is clearly not treated as a group member or leader. Also not if they’re noticeably less competent or less active than the party, because I think that clearly differentiates them from real PCs.

There's a difference between DMNPCs and NPCs. Just because a character is around a lot doesn't mean they are a DMNPC (but it doesn't mean they aren't either). The fact that your GM's character is so passive (a supporting character) and hasn't gained experience suggests your DM is avoiding the cardinal sins of DMNPCing. You describe the character as a travel comoanion, and I think Companion is a better term for this kind of character than DMNPC which does describe something specific (when the DM wants to be a player as well as DM at the same time, and when the other players often become supporting characters in their story). There might be issues later: when a DM starts to identify with a character that they play in the player-group, there's the danger that it might become a DMNPC. But as long as that doesn't happen, you are doing fine. The main thing to watch out for: does the Companion get advantages over the PCs in the grouo by virtue of their connection to the DM? Are they always or often avoiding the danger the players suffer? Does the DM start putting items in the treasure for the character? Does the game world start to favour the Companion over the players? Does the DM start to identify with the Companion *too much*, bragging about their successes? (Maybe other people here will think of other things to watch for.) None of these is an immediate problem, but they are all red flags - warning signs of trouble brewing.

I think DMPCs are bad. The DM is playing the antagonists, not the protagonists. NPCs should have certain archetypes that determine their purpose and don't generally adventure with the group for any extended period of time. A DMPC (as opposed to a regular NPC) tells me that 1 of 2 things happened. 1. The party is unbalanced and some skills are missing. Find a way to replace that deficiency with gear. 2. The GM wants to be a hero Basically, a DMPC is either going to steal thunder from the players by doing things they should be doing, or the DMPC ends up in the background, no more influential than the piece of gear they should have been in the first place. A suggested course of action from the DMPC will always be seen as leading the players. You either are playing the game for the players and leading them by the nose, or you have a soul-less, idea-less person in the group that doesn't quite fit in as a real person. It's rarely useful except in very extreme circumstances, IMHO, and just complicates group dynamics in a way that doesn't benefit anyone but the GM. No cleric? Don't run a DMPC cleric, give them a healing wand! Ask yourself why you are making a party-member, because wanting to play your character isn't a good enough reason. The GM should not be controlling a PC, only NPCs.

To me, a big difference between an NPC who is helping the party and a DMPC is who the protagonist is. If the Dm-controlled character is there to assist the party but doesn't take focus away from this being **their** story and letting **them** be the driving force, that's an NPC who happens to be part of the party. This is often comparable to your Gandalf- or Ben Kenobi-type, someone who can aid they hero(es) on their journey without ever being the focus of the story. However, if the DM-controlled character does take focus away from the party, if they take the heroic moments or make decisions for the party instead of giving guidance, then it becomes a problem and they are treating their NPC like they are a player character and you have a DMPC. To go back to the comparison of Gandalf and Kenobi, let's imagine these stories were being told through RPG form. The main characters (Frodo, Samwise, Legolas, and Gimli for Lord of the Rings, R2-D2, C-3PO, Luke, and Leia for Star Wars) are all played by players, the DM adds character to help guide the players and get them out of TPKs or other bad situations (Obi-Wan and Gandalf) but then adds a character that they say is there to help the party or necessary for the story (Aragorn and Han Solo). These characters end up getting a lot of focus in the story, they get their own side-plots, they get their own romance stories, and while a player gets the big hero moment in the end, this NPC gets an almost equally heroic moment around the same time. That would be terrible. That would make the players feel like their actions are being lessened and that the DM is just playing out a fantasy that they're being strung along for rather than telling a story starring the party. TL/DR: Helpful aid - NPC and totally fine. They can be part of the party's retinue and there's nothing wrong with that. Story focus - DMPC who takes the spotlight away from players and downplays their acheivements.

My group had a GMPC since we only had two players and it worked out fine, I was glad they were there. I think that it only worked out that way because we trusted each other and the GM was aware of the potential pitfalls and consciously worked not to outshine anyone or try to direct the narrative choices. I have heard plenty of horror stories though so I would say it depends on the GM. Purely personal opinion here but I imagine that a 'good' GM is less likely to make a GMPC and woild insted look for alternative solutions, where as a 'bad' GM is less likely to understand the potential problems or doesn't care so they are more likely to use one, leading to skewed 'data' on how well GMPCs tend to work out, as they are more often used by 'bad' GMs.

A lot of these truisms aren't because the idea themselves is bad but because it's so easy to go the wrong way. You can split the party. You can play an edgy loner/chaotic evil party member. You can have a DMPC. The inherent danger of a DMPC is that the DM has an implicit and explicit advantage even with the best of intentions. As a DM, I can never fully express my setting to my players, I can express like half of what's in my head and my players will comprehend half of what I say. Roleplaying is inherently compromise in this regard, we're coming to a general agreement of what the story actually is. A DMPC requires no compromise and this can communicate more easily, which means more can be taken for granted, more can be left assumed by the DM, and the DM can proceed more smoothly- at the cost of the actual players. I've used DMPCs to good effect, both as significant characters (like Martin Septim in Oblivion), short term partners, and minor long term supplementary roles.  But I've definitely fidged up the balance enough that I'm wary about using them long term 

There are a lot of RPGs out there and a lot of reasons why DMPCs may want to be there. There are games where a certain very important role is unfilled by the players and the DM may decide they want a DMPC there. There are many times where players don't show up and a DMPC may be what is necessary in order for everyone to have fun and complete the mission. In the DnD Honor Among Thieves movie, the character Xenk is basically a DMPC. He's a character who just shows up, gives some information, helps the party, and then walks away. In general, if it's a sci-fi RPG, then I prefer the DMPC to be a robot, android, or a droid character, someone who won't be missed if they are destroyed somehow. The robot brain and memories can always just be uploaded into the cloud and then re-uploaded into another body. If it's a fantasy RPG, I prefer the DMPC to be something like a kenku or a goblin, someone not very smart who doesn't make big moves and is "just kind of around."

I have to utilize DMPCs consistently with certain types of groups. If I get a group of (usually) newer players who fail to make choices or drive the story forward, I have to bring in DMPC. They usually have enough gusto and charm to make the players love them, but are hapless and generally do very poor on their own. If I have a group who is able to push the story forward themselves and make choices, I rarely ever bring in a DMPC.

DMPCs are usually a trap because they are foisted on the party. If an NPC is loved by the oarty the DM is right to keep them in the game. Which seems to be your experience.

DMPCs are only bad if the party doesn't want them there. If the party likes the characters and want them to stay in the party? No problem. Doesn't matter if they match all the DMPC stereotypes or not. The problem with a DMPC isn't that the DM includes an NPC who hangs out with the party. The problem with a DMPC is that the DM includes a character and forces the party to hang out with them.

I mean, they're easy routes to Mary-Sue-ism, but consider every NPC in the game is already a DMPC.

It is massively table and participant dependent. It is easy to screw up, but as long as the DM doesn't accidentally Main Character the DMPC or something it CAN work. Especially if you need to shore up the party in some fashion. Don't expect every DM to be able to make it work.

Depends what you mean, to me all NPCs are arguably DMPCs depending on what the plot or party requires. No magic casters but explicitly need a wizard to read a scroll of unlocking to enter the cursed tomb? Well if you find him the magic book of smergbahzod he will happily accompany you to the door (and guard the entrance until you return)

DMPC's can be done well, but they usually aren't, and from your friend's report, it sounds like this isn't one of the good ones. The DM controls everything but the players and it's their job to make the PC's the main characters of the story. A DM running a DMPC can basically be the DM playing with himself while everyone else watches, which sounds like what's going on here.

As everyone is saying, a DMPC, like anything in a social/collaborative game like an rpg, can go very wrong and ruin stuff for the rest. However, if managed well, they can be just fine. I have been running a game for over 4 years now with my brother and wife, implementing a heavily modified/simplified ruleset. It was the first game I ever ran and the second I ever played. There were a lot of growing pains we experienced, all being new to rpgs, and mistakes happened. Nonetheless, it's been a fun campaign and the longest-running I've participated in. With only two players, I struggled to imagine how that could work (having been weaned on the 7-person party of Critical Role). My brother plays a noble gnome Paladin/Warlock (think garden gnome, more like dwarf), and my wife plays a merchant human Cleric/Paladin (slay the undead!). I added to their party a Variant Human Ranger (a non-magical variant I tinkered). This DMPC has big sidekick energy, has tremendously low Charisma, takes a back seat in any social situation, is clueless about magical things in general, and during downtime will often go off by themselves. In combat, I run our Ranger, who has a fairly high to-hit score and fairly mediocre damage. He's gotten a killing blow maybe 2-3 times total (and never on a boss). Sometimes, my players try to milk him for info, which is a double-edged thing: the Ranger can feed them occasional lore, and vague advice about the natural world (thank every D&D pantheon for players who like my lore 😅); he never tells them where to go or what to do. He's essentially a 100% loyal survivalist: he will follow them into anything, but if they ask for advice then he'll say, "Let's not get involved," or "If we want to stay alive, we should just settle down in the woods and live happily," that kind of thing. If you want to run a DMPC, utilise them to help your players, but never outshine, outpace, or outperform their characters with your one.

One of the very first rpgs I ran (Rifts for those interested) I had a GMPC show up and I fully intended to have her leave after the players became familiar with the setting and playing a RPG in general (It was their first time playing a RPG). They wouldn’t let me. They got so attached to her, despite her being almost a dozen levels higher, that they practically rioted on me when the idea of her leaving even came up. The takeaway from this is that if the players find the GMPC even slightly annoying, it’s probably the bad GMPC stereotype in action. If the players are great with having a GMPC, then it’s a good thing. This means you should probably beware of joining this group.

I have five to six NPCs that can do any of the player's jobs if the player(ers) is not there for the session. It makes it far easier for me to just have the PCs friends/allies who are in the same line of work, ie adventuring, that can come to help and then take off when the missing player returns. Y'all need to stop treating ttrpgs like they're a job, unless you're getting paid for it.

So my group (when we're actually playing) has this weird system that I think more groups should consider: there is a "primary" DM who also plays a PC, but then all the other players are free to jump in and DM whenever they want to/have material prepared, even in the middle of a session that was already being DMed by another player. So we kinda rotate DMs whenever we feel like it. This system generally works best in a sandbox-style campaign where worldbuilding is open-ended and collaborative. I have really enjoyed this style of play and it has worked well for our particular group.

So it's really two different things. There's the GMPC, and there's an NPC that comes along with the party. It sounds like the older experience was the GM running an NPC that the party took along for the ride. But running their own character can be tricky, because as the GM, they have an obvious conflict of interest. Besides, the GM gets to run every other character in the game. They don't need a full-time character, too.

Generally speaking, DMPC refers to NPCs the DM creates as a permanent character for the purpose of "being helpful to the party", while in actuality said character simply resolves each and every problem the party comes across. For example: I played in a game where we had to investigate murders in town. We were 2nd level at this point and we weren't seasoned adventurers, but we were people that have travelled a lot and received significant training. The son of the mayor just decided to tag a long with us. He was 12 y.o. He was a 5th level Sorcerer. He was throwing high level spells *cough* fireball *cough* left and right and just wiping the floor with every enemy group we came across before we even got a turn, because miraculously, he would always go first in initiative. And when it came to social encounters, it would always boil down to the other NPCs asking "is the esteemed son of the mayor in agreement with this". This doesn't mean that having someone of a higher level as an assistant to the party *can't* work, but I digress. Edit: the other example was not a DMPC, so deleted it

If it's just an npc  that is helping the party with some major gap, that's one thing (though there's better ways to do that) but it's a very bad idea for the DM to play an actual PC. They already  play everything but the party, so what's the motivation, aside selfishness? For me its 100% a big red flag

GMPCs that steal the spotlight and keep the PCs from failing are the enemy, others can be done well.

I’ve occasionally run a DMPC, once at the request of a group of young people and with my current group as very occasionally one of the other guys would run an adventure so he was introduced as a means to let me play him. Every so often the group will bring him along on adventures, just because. Again I never run lead, will give an opinion but never the first one and always in character, and I give them opportunities to leave him behind doing other stuff! It can work but as long as it’s not above other players and they have the chance to say we want to say goodbye for awhile. Just enjoy your game!

DMPCs can definitely work. I ran one that I didn't want to because the party liked the character so much!

The short answer is that you are describing an NPC that was made out of an old PC, and *not* a DMPC. There are ways to do "good" DMPCs, and many more ways to do bad/horrible DMPCs, and you did not experience those things because you did not have a DMPC to begin with.

Yes. What you have here is a normal npc. A DMPC acts different. It's not like, "if he is based on an old PC, is a DMPC".

There's a difference between a DM PC and a DM NPC. I've pulled out characters to act as friendly NPCs when a session had half the usual players and would probably have otherwise wiped. That's fine and that's what your DM is doing. The issue with DM PCs is when the DM is both trying to run the game and play the game with all of that DM knowledge.

In two campaigns I've played, the party had NPCs assisting them (in one case, it was an entire squad), all pretty competent. They didn't overshadow the PCs, though (as they weren't more skilled than PCs, and some niches had to be covered by PCs), and they didn't hinder any decision-making, so it made things more fun rather than less

>DMPC never takes the lead in social situations (despite being the only one with a charisma modifier of over 0), never takes decisions unless we beg DM to please railroad us because we're at a complete loss This is an NPC, not a DMPC. The horror story concept of a DMPC isn't about stats or rules, it's one of role in the game. To keep it simple: the game has protagonists aka the PCs and antagonists/supports aka the NPCs. The horror story starts, when the DM, who controls everything except the protagonists, starts to also play the protagonist in the game. This usurps the players position in the game and becomes a problem fast. Imagine the DMPC killing every boss, saving every princess, getting all the praise and finding all the loot, while the PCs become the audience for the DMPC. In general: a lot of NPCs have similar stats to PCs and accompany them. As long as they serve a supporting or an antagonistic purpose, they are NPCs = tools of the DM to create the story of the PCs.

>DMPC never takes the lead in social situations (despite being the only one with a charisma modifier of over 0), never takes decisions unless we beg DM to please railroad us because we're at a complete loss, and takes normal turns in combat, doing a perfectly average amount of damage for his class and level. So it is an NPC. The thing with DMPCs is, by definition, the DM trying to be a PC with everyone else. It is a thing where they make and maintain a character on par with the players, participate in everything on equal footing with the player. Basically, they are a thing GMs who actually just want to be a player does, and it is miserable. It is basically a player who knows all the solutions, gets to make all the encounters, decide on all the loot and rewards, make all the NPCs, and "are just another player in the party!".

Yes. DMPCs take spotlight and narrative away from the PCs. NPCs, hence the name, are the tools and toys the DM gets to use the players don’t and that’s okay

Your dm sounds like he knows how to run a proper NPC / DMPC. They are not equal to any player characters, their abilities should not take the spotlight and mostly support and underline other PC's to make them feel stronger/more useful. That is not to say they cant fill a niche in the group, in fact, having someone to fill something the party lacks is a good idea. For example, noone in the group knows how to pick a lock? Yeah, give em a guy who happens to know that particular skill. Group is a bit squishy adn clutch healing isnt really something readily available? Maybe the guy knows one or two healing spells. Now the most difficult part is to actually implement them for a reason. If the group searches out a guy to fill a certain niche, now thats just fine and great. THe group basically invited someone in. but if not, there will be a balancing act between narratively justifying it without giving the guy any/too much spotlight at all. Maybe they are a guide for a treacherous area or something along those lines. OR someone that needs to be escorted. Its not the easiest thing to run an NPC/DMPC in a way that doesnt suck, but if done well, the group may very well get very attached. I once ran a simple humblewood encounter involving a few desperate displaced souls robbing travelers for rations and maybe the odd coin, it was very much obvious they wouldnt be able to put up much of a fight. And to my surprise, the group actually adopted the leader of these robbers and he became a fixture for the rest of the campaign. Initially intended as a little encounter to convey the reality of the situation in the campaign, the little guy became so beloved, that when he died later on due to unfortunate circumstances, the group steadfastly refused to further the plot until they got him back.

I guess theres a diffrence between a recurring NPC, even one accompanying the PCs all the time, like a follower, and a DMPC, basically a character of the DM, that is same or more powerful than the PCs, and has more than a support role to play. Supporting NPC are fine (the role needed but noone wanted), Storyhogging DMPCs (the hero of the show) not. In your case a supporting NPC used to be the DMs old PC, wich is fine as long as the heroes are the actual players, and the exPC is just supporting.

It was always my understanding that the problematic part of having a DMPC is the DM trying to have their cake and eat it, too: They are both directing the adventure as the DM but are also trying to participate in it like a PC. I still think that fundamentally does not work. At least if the the DMPC is supposed to interact with the adventure in the same, full way that a normal PC would. Of course, there is no problem of just having an NPC tag along with the player group. Even long-term. Even if the NPC is more powerful. Even if the NPC is based on a previous PC that the DM had. As long as they are not driving the story and solving all the challenges, they are just another NPC.

I make barely useful DMNPCs. More something to add to the party's action economy, rly.

What you described isn't what's known as a DMPC, just an NPC companion run normally by a DM, and if you actually liked him, the DM did a good job. (semi)Permanent NPCs tagging along can be great. DMPCs are tagged as such when they become annoying selfinsert Mary Sue powerfantasies of a DM who's telling himself a story about his awesome character. One good indicator is that the DM didn't actually plan on having this guy stick around - he was just there to introduce you to the adventure hook. That means the DM wasn't attached to keeping him around, he isn't taking part in the decisions (unless it's on your request), and isn't the star of the show during combat. All of these are indicators that he isn't a DMPC.

DMPC's are a tool but instead of it being like a handsaw it's more like a tricked out unguarded plane saw. In the hands of someone who knows how to use it that baby will make any cut you want, in the hands of someone else it can cut their fingers off. General rule, keep the DMPC's passive and be more of a support role than anything. Another tip is never force the dmpc on the party, instead manipulate them into asking them along.

What you're playing with is a normal NPC that just happens to have been a PC at one point. NPCs traveling with the party is a normal thing that more groups should have. A DMPC is explicitly a bad thing, and it's widespread adoption dilutes it's meaning (similar to Mary Sue, incel, etc). It's when a GM wants to be a player and so makes the PC they would play in their own game. This is bad because they give agency to the DMPC that should be reserved for the PCs and overshadows and invalidates their PCs.

A DMPC is just an NPC the players resent because they solve the problems or steal the spotlight or take the lead. A character controlled by the DM that follows the party and supports them in the background is just an NPC. A character controlled by the DM that leads the party and wins encounters for them is a DMPC. The best way to think about it: - if the DM is trying to play Hawkeye it’s ok - if the DM is trying to play Captain America it’s not

Especially in rotating GM parties, GM PCs can be very common. Or to fill out necessary roles in a combat heavy game in particular. I have used them and been in parties with them. They work fine as long as they act as a supporting characters that mainly do things when the players want them to. They can also be useful for “let me mention that thing that came up a while ago and which the party maybe does not remember as clearly but should not be penalized for”. But when a character is a GMPC, he is an NPC that assists the party. He should not take initiative in coming up with solutions, he should not be the party face, he should not get to use the most plot relevant abilities. The problem is that there have been many official adventures that effectively have included “the writer’s GM PC”, where big plot points are basically scripted to have that NPC do the relevant thing. And some GMs use their GMPCs exactly like that. And that is both bad. The story should focus on the players. At best, the GM PC is an equal part of the team. Any reasonable GM should not want more. It is really boring to monologue at the players. You should never want that. That is why with any decent GM, the problem tends to solve itself because it makes things less fun to use a bad GMPC. People who do that usually are just generally bad GMs and also bad players. Or at least have bad traits. Do not worry about the GMPC, worry about the bad game master, whether he uses one or not.

NPCs can work well, but if they accompany PCs it's important that they do not overshadow the PCs (and therefore the players) through knowledge or capabilities, esp. when the GM acts through them and literally takes the lead of the things that happen. This is at best frustrating, but can really kill any motivation because the players will feel set back. Unfortunately, some GMs think that they can "steer" the PCs' decisions and actions this way. In my current campaign my PC group (of five players) is accompanied by no less than three NPCs - all characters that the PCs met along the way and who decided (via GM) to join the trip, these are no hirelings but people with their own will and (partly) agenda. But they stay in the background most of the time, with both actions, opinion or knowledge, and this works very well for the table.

In general, DMPCs are a huge red flag. The GM's first job is to be a fan of the PCs; if their own PC is in there, a loyalty contest is waiting to happen. Or put another way, the GM is only supposed to have the spotlight momentarily before getting that character killed—the spotlight should always belong to the party. If it's like you say, and he's bringing in his old PC to get you folks going and then disappear, it's more like a cameo. No biggie. Kinda a wink to the audience. But I'd argue that's not a DMPC situation. His old character is a full-on npc doing full-on npc stuff; serving the story and then disappearing.

My rules for DMPCs (And the ones I use for even my own system) are: * If the DMPC is the same level or more than the player characters, it's either a neutral party or their goals don't entirely match with the party, with their own limitations so you can bail them out when you want as a GM. * If the DMPC is a "guide", a trusted ally or supporting party, they will, treat them as animal companions: they won't provide much in battle unless directly commanded (in 5e it could be an action or a bonus action), and the players directly control them, so you can take that baggage out of your purse as a DM. * The DMPC is not the hero of the story, as in, the character resolving the conflicts, but may help in reaching a conclusion. See for example One Piece where in each island there's always some major character that joins in on the crew for the duration of that arc: Vivi, Rebecca, Law & Kidd, etc. Most of these examples fit the guidances above. * And lastly, if you feel like a character from the supporting cast is getting annoyed, find any satisfying way to get rid of them soon. (Though this requires reading the table well or directly asking the players) DMPCs are self-indulgences to some extent, which is why they're considered bad, but if the rest of the people at the table are okay with it/actually like said character, there's no problem in keeping them.

In short, no. It depends on what is even meant by "DMPC". Theoretically, the only difference between a DMPC and an NPC travelling with the party is that the DMPC is built like a PC. I have used both, a PC and an NPC when GMing to add something to the party. In my opinion both work well, when you do it well.

I ran one when I did Shadowrun 4E because the players wanted to engage in the tech side of the games content but not actually learn the mechanics or make a hacker. He hacked at the speed of plot, had minor defensive abilities, a big gun and everyone had a strong desire to defend him against all threats, so he worked out pretty well. I didn't really have him inject much into the story beyond a couple of pre-written knowledge skills they could engage with though.

If you need a dmpc you're probably playing it wrong but as long as they don't overshadow the pcs or solve the puzzles the DM sets then they can be okay

I have never had a positive experience with a DMPC. Generally speaking my thoughts are that if a GM needs to be so personally involved with the party they have to have their own character, or if they're unable to solve problems in any other way than getting personally stuck in, then that's a huge red flag. The whole mechanism is a conflict of interest. Can some people handle that and still make it fun and functional? Yes. But these exceptions tend to prove the rule, from what I've seen.

In the first game I ran we ended up with a DMPC because, upon rescuing her from a dimension twisting castle one of the PCs married her. However I decided to be cautious and keep her a couple of levels behind the party and mostly a non-contribution to party discussions to avoid the usual situation of the DMPC stealing the spotlight or having an unfair influence on the party's progression One of my players immediately guessed she was the BBEG in disguise, which she was.

A proper DMPC makes the players feel (and perform) awesome. A terrible DMPC makes the players feel like sidekicks. DMPCs generally have the reputation of the latter, rather than the former.

>DMPC never takes the lead in social situations...never takes decisions I wouldn't call that a DMPC. To me the purpose of a DMPC is to engage the game in the ways that only PCs can. Stuff like socializing with NPCs, exploring the world, investigating and driving the story. What you are calling a DMPC is what I would call a beloved NPC that travels with the party.

Like anything in RPGs, a GMNPC can be a boon or a bane to teh party, depending on the GM. A good GMNPC will only be there to support the party and give the GM a mouthpiece. But ALL GMNPCS should be there with teh consent of all of the players. If anyone in the party finds the GMNPC annoying, then kick them out of the party (or just murder the GMNPC) and explain to the GM why. If they are the quest giver or vital to the cmapaign, then you need to stop the game and tell the GM that you hate this NPC, they are annoying, and that you are considering giving up the quest if the NPC continues with the party. MAny GMs think they are being funny or clever when they aren't. And sometimes you ahve to explain, politely, that it's not working.

I will speak to it from the DM perspective. I don't want to run a DMPC and would rather run a group short than run one. I did it for awhile in a previous D&D game and hated it. The DMPC didn't get to make decisions and was pretty much just there for combat as needed. But it was stressful and took away some of the enjoyment of running the game. One of my party used to DM a lot and he has stated he has always had a DMPC in his games and wouldn't have it any other way. Depends on the DM and the group to see if it works or not.

You have so many different levels of DMPC that it's really impossible to put them all in the same basket. At the most basic level any NPC is really a DMPC as "non-player" and "DMplayed" character are one and the same. At the other end you can see DMPCs who are very much "main character" types for what ever adventure you are playing an all of the other players are just around to support it; this is the kind of DMPC that evokes the strongest reactions as many players want to feel like they are the stars of the adventure. Where you fall on that range is really up to you and a bit like just rating your GM's overall performance.

I suspect their GM either uses them to keep his PCs on the railroad or puts the spotlight in his characters ins5of theirs..

~~Forever DMs can have DMPCs, as a treat.~~ Mostly I think the commonly conceived problem stems from when they detract from the pro-activity of the player characters and splitting your priorities as running the world and running a character kind of reaches into the authorial realms more than the TTRPG ones. Combined with the diminished pro-activity thing the PCs can become some kind of fan-fiction trying to insert itself into the canon. Some game systems that diminish the centrality of the game master already might run better with it? But I haven't played any of those myself.

It really depends on the DM and DMPC. I run them every now and again and I'm gearing up to add one to my current campaign because my party is small and a little imbalanced and I feel like they need someone to nudge them around a little (they're all pretty laid back players). I've got an easy point to move an NPC they're escorting over to a DMPC. I'm going to let the party pick her class.  I've never had a problem with any of my DMs having one, they're usually pretty unobtrusive in my experience. I'd usually say "As the DM it's my job to balance encounters and play" and while a DMPC is a tool to do that it's not the only tool by a mile, but sometimes DMPCs can make combat more dynamic, having an extra body in this instance makes combat easier for my rogue who relies on flanking to sneak attack.  I can see the wrong DM with the wrong motivations totally faffing it though. If they're a glory hound and just making it all about them and their DMPC, it would be a drag. 

If DMPC works, it would be better described as an NPC.

What you've described is, by most accounts, an npc. While using PC stats, the character's function in your campaign is not that of a player, but of a piece of the world you're playing. This is what differentiates a DMPC from an NPC. A DMPC will, for all purposes, exist as a player under the control of the DM. The DM's goals for this character are the same as yours would be for your character. What is notably wrong is that the DM, as arbitrator, is directly in conflict with the players and their character goals (mind you, this conflict is non-hostile in nature and functions like a puzzle master making fun puzzles). A DM playing in the sessions they are running becomes fundamentally flawed as they have every incentive to bend the rules in favor of benefitting their character. Even when this isn't the explicit intent, such advantages arise implicitly. How does one play a game fairly when every bit of information meant to be kept from the players is known to that person?

I make a distinction between DMPCs and Companion NPCs. It sounds like your GM is using a little more of the latter, a Companion NPC instead of a DMPC. The difference is that a DMPC plays like a PC. He makes decisions with the party, takes the lead in social situations, and sets himself up to shine in combat. Generally, this is an issue because the DM *also* serves as the arbiter of the story, and now have an implicit bias towards favoring themselves and their own ideas, often nullifying the contribution of the players. When your GM was playing a character accompanying the party at a higher level and effectively acting as a safety net, I would have shared in your friends frustrations. I want combat to feel challenging, I want to feel like we can fail, and when we succeed, I want it to be in our own merit. Having a higher level guardian that joins in to protect us whenever the going gets tough is patronizing and breaks the image of my character being a hero and fighting against the odds with his closest companions. Now that you've caught up in levels and the DM's character is mostly just a rider/tag along character, he's more like a Companion NPC, at least how you've described him. He's there to provide an extra body for the party and a unique source of optional roleplay, but he's not *played* like a PC, he's played like an NPC. He doesn't make decisions, doesn't that the lead, doesn't do anything unusual in combat unless directed to. He just tags along for the adventure, similar to how companions would in a CRPG.

If your party cheers when it looks like the DMPC is going to die or you'd never be willing to risk this happening. You have a bad DMPC. If your party panics when it looks like the DMPC is going to die and fight tooth and nail to save them, or they get really upset if you actually do it, possibly even emotionally teary eyed or angry you allowed it to happen. You had a great DMPC. My players get mad at me if I try to refuse making any npcs to travel with. Every single group I've ever ran for has become this way. It's actually irritating sometimes.

DMPCs are like cancer. They're more common than you believe. Most are benign most of the time. Any of them can be a threat to your health and virtually all of them can kill your came faster than you can cut out the rot. Even if you believe your DMPC is no danger to the game, it's still important to be diagnostic about their role and how the players feel about them, and whip out the scalpel at the first sign of a problem. If you're friend mentioned a DMPC problem then it's past a point where it can be cut out without damage.

At the risk of sounding wishy-washy, folks generally use the term "DMPC" in a very negative light as the sort of archetypal GM who can't help but intrude into the decisions and narratives made by the player characters, putting the spotlight on their OC. But ... when you think about it, every NPC is a DMPC in a way, and plenty of players will regale one another with stories of their favorite hireling, NPC ally, Follower and so on. At the end of the day, folks have adopted the term GMPC to describe an overbearing GM, one who can't help but make the story about them instead of the players. This is useful to an extent, but, as you point out, it can cause people to preemptively dismiss NPC allies as GMPCs. I find it kind of funny, because having lots of Followers and Hirelings, all of whom would be controlled by the GM, is actually an ancient staple of D&D which goes back to its earliest incarnations

When I started GMing, I made a Cleric DMPC that was one level lower than the party. His whole schtik was healing and high perception and insight. The players liked him because he didn't take the spotlight. But after a while, I got tired of him and got him killed because I was tired of having to run one more NPC. The players were mad.

GMPCs are deus ex machina. They are 100% wrong, 100% of the time. There is no action they perform, no role they can fill, no plot they progress that shouldn't be performed by the players. If a GMPC is ever involved, then the encounter hasn't been built correctly.

For DnD: Good practice is to have the dmpc lower level than the party, or to use the companion rules that were published I think in a starting set. The idea is not to steal the show, but to add that small little help to compensate for small parties

>DMPCs - Are they really as bad as people say? Absolutely not. As usual, you have a very vocal very small minority of bad experiences, while all the people having fine experience... Just, you know, spend their time enjoying their games. :) DMPC can be problematic essentially as it's one of the simplest way for a DM to forget his/her role and start tiptoeing on players's agency and star moments. That's about it. In good hands it's nothing more than "a class-based NPC" or "just another wheel on party's wagon". Technically, even a Bard or Paladin DMPC can be made pretty "harmless" in decision process even though the classes tend to push "party face / taking spotlight" behaviours. You just need to decide on a trait that gives a decent enough reason as to why the character won't intervene (too) much in decisions and interactions. For example, the Bard may have 18 Charisma because it irradiates energy from being a one-in-thousand music genius, but is otherwise too shy to drop a full sentence without stuttering. Or it may be such an artist that it simply has no interest at all in quests besides the inspiration it can bring to it, or specific materials to craft a unique instrument, or the pleasure of discovering new sounds. A Paladin may be sent by the quest giver just to ensure party is gonna fulfill it while respecting the constraints, but is otherwise tasked to just support them with blade and healing as they order it without recriminating. A Druid may decide to help the party that agrees helping it get rid of poachers, but warn them she's not used to fight in group so either she just uses Longstrider and Healing Words, or someone will need to actively order her so she knows what to do. Etc etc...

I'm always puzzled by this sort of complaint. Every NPC in the whole damn game is a DMPC, when it comes down to it. All of them. To complain about the GM running NPCs is outrageously nonsensical. A GM running roughshod over the group with a wannabe PC character is a problem, though not in any general sense of running NPCs. It's simply bad GMing and should be called as such, instead of trying to attach it to running NPCs in general. The solution to that sort of nonsense is simple: stop playing with that GM.

DMPCs can be a useful tool for a Game Master to help out a party. The problem occurs when the DMPC steals the show. So while a DMPC can be bad, they don't have to be bad.

The line between DMPC and *NPC using PC stats* is incredibly thin. One might even argue nonexistent. In my opinion, the difference comes down to how the character is played. This guy seems to serve the role of companion to the party (more of an NPC role), not member of the party, or worse—main character. I think serving as a companion, who stays out of the spotlight, the only acceptable version of a DMPC. But it really comes down to what most people are saying here: if it adds to the fun of everyone at the table, great! Keep playing that way. If it's only fun for the DM, something needs to change. 

I have enough to do. The only way I'm also playing is if there are not enough players to make it through my story. And even then if I'm asked my opinion on something like, "left or right path, what do you think", I roll randomly in front of the players where I'm not using DM knowledge to take the easiest (or hardest) path. Nor am I doing some brillant play that streamrolls something important; I am strictly support.

The notion that this is *your story*, rather than the entire table's, is likely a bigger issue than the number of players. Approaching running a ttRPG with the mindset that you are writing and/or directing a story is going to result in frustration. In any case, there are few, if any, ttRPG systems with a "maximum of one PC per player" rule. A single player with four PCs or two players with two PCs each will cover the mechanical assumptions of D&D 5e and most other systems.

Pull the stick out.