Greetings!

Ok, I have seen more than a few "DM Videos" and Vlogs where some people cry and scream and admonish DM's to never have "DM NPC's" and that having DM NPC's in a Character Party is terrible and blah, blah, blah.

I have typically, *routinely* included two or sometimes more DM NPC's in Character Parties over the years--decades, even, in campaign after campaign, whether I have three or four Player Characters, or even five or six Player Characters. Having a few useful NPC's that are also party members and friends with at least some of the rest of the party has always, always been a good thing in my experience.

Then, of course, the Player Characters often gravitate towards cultivating boyfriends and girlfriends into joining the group, just rough, cigar-chomping friends, and stalwart companions and hangers on, as time progresses. An old, bearded wagon driver, or a toughened, grizzled hunter, or a proud but inexperienced farm girl, looking for adventure, the list of NPC companions can grow organically pretty quickly. Such relationships are normally founded upon various motivations, whether such is romantic, common goals, common religion, vengeance, hard luck, or just eagerly seeking adventure.

But in the "Online World", especially, there seems to be this huge taboo about DM NPC's. I'm boggled at WTF these people are crying about, or why they typically claim that it is a terrible DM taboo.

In every campaign I have run, as I mentioned, I routinely include DM NPC's in the party. I have never had a Player think it is a bad idea, and in fact, all of them have considered it entirely normal, and actually good. What smart Player Character doesn't want a friendly, allied NPC fighting at their side and sharing the dangers facing the party of adventurers at every turn?

What do you all think, my friends?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

We do it all the time.  I see nothing wrong with it.  I don't recall anybody I ever played with objecting to it.

It's not an inherently bad practice, it's just something that bad DMs can really shit the bed with.

As always, it depends what is meant by the term. Technically all NPCs are DMNPCs. As for NPCs traveling with the party, nobody seems to have an issue with henchmen, hirelings or friendly NPCs who happen to travel along with the party. The usual objection is to what I've more often-heard called a "DMPC". Namely, a character who is both with the party and of the party, and for all practical purposes a PC, save only that they are controlled by the DM.

The usual objection there is that DMs will tend --intentionally or not-- to turn such a character into an egregious Mary Sue, which gets preferential treatment as the DM's "baby" and solves the party's problems through meta knowledge. The obvious retort there is that isn't a problem with the concept. It's a problem with bad DM-ing.

That said, I still tend to avoid them. I have enough to manage with standard NPCs, and when running that kind of allied hero I do feel some pressure to keep them in the background so as not to rob my players of agency. Consequently, when I've run them in the past they've often wound up under-characterized and being little more than overpowered hirelings. These days I only keep an NPC with the party for a long period of time if their presence is necessary to the PCs' goals

There are at least two broad reasons, the second one with a bit of legitimacy behind it if you squint when you look at it:

1. Confusing the "GM PC" with "NPC party members".  The GM also playing a main character seldom works well, has a lot of pitfalls, and really only works at all in groups with GMs that can treat a "main NPC" as a full party member and still NPC, typically in a really small party.  It starts to go off the rails as soon as the GM does it because "I never get to play".  In short, it's an advanced GM technique to pull it off correctly, but every GM with enough advanced techniques to do it can handle the small party thing in other, better ways. In less experienced hands, the GM PC is more likely to turn into a Mary Sue PC or even wreck the game entirely.  It's a bit like "Don't split the party" as player advice.  It's not true that players should never do it, but it is true that they should think twice, thrice, and then again before doing it--while recognizing that it has certain pitfalls. As starting advice, it's very sound.

2. Even with true NPCs, there can be a tendency of too many other characters to overwhelm "screen time" in ways that start to leave the players out. Plus, every GM has bandwidth limits on how many things they can process, especially in fights and other tense, involved scenes. 

I tend to keep my NPC usage pretty limited and/or farmed out to players when possible for exactly that reason--it's not something that I want to spend my bandwidth on--unless that NPC is going to give the game a lot of pop for that attention.  It's why I tend to sprinkle in recurring NPCs 1 or 2 at a time, see which ones click with the party, and the rest tend to disappear into the woodwork as fast as I can get them there. I can pull it off--more NPCs for a longer time--but it makes me tired. Thus I don't enjoy it very much. So it's a GM tactical thing, rather than anything right or wrong with including NPCs in particular. Some GMs and some particular games, more NPCs make a lot of sense, where you are trading that attention for lowering your bandwidth on something else that is less important to the game. 

Obviously, having 3+ NPCs that are practically permanent party members controlled by the GM turns all those considerations up to 11.  It's something to do consciously while seeking that kind of game, rather than just, say, blindly drifting into it because the party made friends with a bunch of people early in the game, who have tagged along ever since, and the poor GM who didn't consider that outcome is forced to deal with it unprepared.

I think there is also an aspect of player continuity and campaign frequency to this question, too.  If you have a stable group of players playing 1/week at the same time for a few hours, it's OK for NPCs to get introduced, and then kind of fade into the background until something arises that prompts their participation. People get to know the NPCs overtime.  So they don't require constant reintroduction.  In contrast, if you have a game (like one of mine currently) that is 50% to 75% of a large player group showing up, on a once every two or three weeks schedule, it is difficult to remember more than a handful of NPCs at all, let alone ones "in the party".  I have to remind constantly for all but the most frequent players and NPCs.  Plus, I've had a few "guest" players that are only there for a few sessions.  So in effect the less frequent players are the party NPCs.  They are merely played by someone other than the GM.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 10, 2024, 07:17:26 PMAs always, it depends what is meant by the term. Technically all NPCs are DMNPCs. As for NPCs traveling with the party, nobody seems to have an issue with henchmen, hirelings or friendly NPCs who happen to travel along with the party. The usual objection is to what I've more often-heard called a "DMPC". Namely, a character who is both with the party and of the party, and for all practical purposes a PC, save only that they are controlled by the DM.

The usual objection there is that DMs will tend --intentionally or not-- to turn such a character into an egregious Mary Sue, which gets preferential treatment as the DM's "baby" and solves the party's problems through meta knowledge. The obvious retort there is that isn't a problem with the concept. It's a problem with bad DM-ing.

That said, I still tend to avoid them. I have enough to manage with standard NPCs, and when running that kind of allied hero I do feel some pressure to keep them in the background so as not to rob my players of agency. Consequently, when I've run them in the past they've often wound up under-characterized and being little more than overpowered hirelings. These days I only keep an NPC with the party for a long period of time if their presence is necessary to the PCs' goals

This.  I haven't experienced it personally, but I've heard plenty of stories about a bad DM wanting to be the star in his own game, so he makes a DMPC and the other players get to be supporting actors at best.  If you have a hard time separating yourself as DM from yourself as player this is going to be a problem.  Also, as mentioned, when I DM I'm fully occupied with running the game.  I don't have time to be a player, and if I try the game will suffer.  Having an NPCs in the party is something else entirely.

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 10, 2024, 07:17:26 PMThe usual objection is to what I've more often-heard called a "DMPC". Namely, a character who is both with the party and of the party, and for all practical purposes a PC, save only that they are controlled by the DM.

The usual objection there is that DMs will tend --intentionally or not-- to turn such a character into an egregious Mary Sue, which gets preferential treatment as the DM's "baby" and solves the party's problems through meta knowledge.

This is why I insist on one of my players not using the term "DMPC" for the NPCs I attach to their parties. They have enough personality to make them distinct, so if a player wants to engage them in conversation, they can, but they're not intended to be characters in the same way that the PCs are.

Because of the current metaplot, the current crop of NPCs are basically just living McGuffins, so they sometimes have narrative importance (one game, the end fight was against the alhoon who's been in the setting for millenia -- their NPC was able to put the party on a level playing field with him due to her importance as a McGuffin in relation to another McGuffin) and do stuff in important "cut scenes" now and again, but that happens maybe... twice a campaign, if even.

This is a huge thing on Reddit.

Friend of mine was telling me about how nearly every damn thread over there complaining about "teh horribible DMPC!" was not actually a damn "DMPC". It was a bog standard NPC in the party.

There are morons over there who absolutely can not get that these things are, you kn ow... FUCKING DIFFERENT!

A DMPC is indeed a problem way more than it is a boon. This is when the DM is playing in the party as a player AND DMing in the same breath. They are not running an NPC. This is their character and they are acting as a player.

Party NPCs are just that. NPCs in the party. But these Reddit halfwits think they are exactly they same thing.

Welcome to yet another term completely twisted out of shape and now has no meaning because its been stretched to essentially include everything on earth.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on December 10, 2024, 07:26:25 PMPlus, every GM has bandwidth limits on how many things they can process, especially in fights and other tense, involved scenes.

For me at least, it's also just not a lot of fun to play both sides of the table during battle.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 10, 2024, 07:33:13 PMThis.  I haven't experienced it personally, but I've heard plenty of stories about a bad DM wanting to be the star in his own game, so he makes a DMPC and the other players get to be supporting actors at best.  If you have a hard time separating yourself as DM from yourself as player this is going to be a problem.

I've experienced it personally, albeit not since I was a teenager. Even then, we thought it was lame and made fun of the people that did it. Sadly, a large percentage of the allegedly adult players of D&D have the emotional maturity of teenagers.

As explained by others, it is about basically the GM sneaking in their pet Mary Sue/Gary Stu into the story and a) hogging the spotlight for how cool they think their character is, b) shepherding the party through the proscribed adventure arc, c) being the safety net to prevent party mistakes that could lead to party failure and PC loss.

But it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.

Good rule of thumb: the players' PCs are special because you have priority of my GM attention.

That doesn't mean players cannot walk and chew gum, as if it is some grave risk to have their PCs talk to "my" NPCs, be they walk-on cameos, hirelings, henchmen, or whatever. My attention is on your PC and your journey, my NPCs will talk and act rationally in-charcter but the core of on-screen playtime is your PCs being and doing (including talking and listening) in the fictive world. I'm not interested in making players sit there and watch me play NPC puppets talking to themselves off in their own little world without the players interest in doing so. Want to listen in on NPC conversations? OK, you are asking me as GM to whip up NPC conversations on the fly to give your PC the spotlight of listening -- but the spotlight attention is about your PC doing the listening.

However the usual degradation of guidelines and best practices becoming diktat about grave pitfalls; typical human group exaggeration and splitting behavior applies.

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 10, 2024, 08:20:26 PMBut it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.

These should all be run by the players.

No need for a GM to run any of them.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 10:12:48 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 10, 2024, 08:20:26 PMBut it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.

These should all be run by the players.

No need for a GM to run any of them.

There are players who complain if the DM makes them  handle the NPCs. There are players who complain if the DM doesnt let them handle the NPCs. There are players who dont even want to roll and make the DM do all that because rolling "breaks muh immershun!"

I have also heard these characters called GMNPCs.

In the Star Trek RPG campaigns I have run you can't avoid having one or two NPCs run by the GM in the landing parties that beam down.

Its not always Security officers, often its Science Officers, Medics or Shuttle Pilots.

The last time I ran a Fantasy or Sword & Sorcery setting I ran a GMNPC that was a Half-Orc Knight named Sir Peter. He was friendly, a bit dopey at times, but very loyal to the adventuring party. Strangely he was also literate in church Latin. (Long story)

- Ed C.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 10, 2024, 10:12:48 PM

Quote from: Opaopajr on December 10, 2024, 08:20:26 PMBut it's also overused as a complaint by people who also never ran hirelings, henchmen, and other support characters.

These should all be run by the players.

No need for a GM to run any of them.

There's a tradeoff.  The players running the NPCs is less work for the DM.  But you also get NPCs that do whatever the players want even if it's not something reasonable for them to do, like test all of the doors for glyphs of warding.

Some games can be OK with a "GM PC" - a character that the GM identifies as "their PC" - in the party. But it is always a red flag when the GM also wants to be a player, IME.

Obviously NPCs in the party are fine, as a rule.