This is all hypothetical, I never even heard of such a thing until today and I'm totally new to dnd and have no plans to be a DMPC. I get why they are hated, too much knowledge for a PC and too much attention spent on the PC. But what if those two things could be corrected? Random generators could be used so the the PC doesn't know anything the DM does. Also the PC could spend a lot of time on sidelines so it's not taking the DMs time. Or what if there was a PC that was literally the DM? As in the DM themselves are actually in the game. Like having a narrator literally walking around with the group. Kind of like a DMNPC. Probably all dumb ideas and wouldn't work but just curious what your thoughts are on the DMPC and if it ever can work. 

It's just not a recommended avenue to entertain. As a player, I've never seen it be either well received or successful. As a DM, I've never bothered with attempting it, seeing as its tabooed and just more work for the DM.

DMPCs can barely ever work. Even if the DM plays their side perfectly, their meta knowledge affects the way players treat them and thus the dynamics of the table. It's a rare table where it will work properly.

There are measures you can take to make it work. I've done it. But then, really, the result is not a DMPC, but a permanent and particularly powerful NPC that uses a character sheet rather than a statblock. That can work very well, but it's not a DMPC.

DMPCs can work.  My current GM often runs one, and nobody in the party has an issue with it.  The real trick is to make the GMPC a support character- they should be someone who focuses on helping the rest of the party do well, not someone who's going to be dealing the damage  and making all the skill checks themselves.

I like to imagine it as the PCs are the rock band and the DMPC is the roadie.

A good roadie knows his whole job is to make someone else look good, keep someone else safe, help someone else do what they were put here to do. A good roadie stays out of the spotlight. If he's doing his job right, you don't even know he's there. Once in a while he might step on stage just to fix a problem, to set something right. But then before you even realize he was there or what he did, he's gone."

— Eddie Riggs, Brütal Legend

I think the best thing to do is look at the why. Why does the DM want to run a DMPC? Combats are too hard? They want an easy way to give the party information? They want to try out a build they made?

You identify the problem that you are trying to solve with a DMPC, and then you find a better alternative solution. Make fights not as difficult. Explore new, creative ways to share information. Let the DM rotate out every now and then so they can be a PC.

It's not that they can't work. It's that they are an indication that something else is wrong and it's better to fix that then apply a solution that can be so problematic. When a game is running well, I have absolutely no desire to run a PC alongside everything else I'm doing.

It also helps if there is more than one GM and the GMs trade off GM duties. 

GM1 has DMPC so when he plays in GM2 campaign his character is there.

I haven't done what they call a DMPC these days since around 86, 87. And I killed them off about two thirds of the way (Gandalf type scenario).

The issue with a DMPC is that it is a Player Character, who is part of the party, and who is run by the person who is supposed to be the referee.  While I am Loathe to use a sporta analogy, it comes in really handy for this.

What would you think if you saw that two teams were playing sports, but the referee was playing alongside one of the two teams? Does it seem fair? As a DM, one of the key roles is referee -- adjudicator, judge, hury, etc. They have to remain fair and impartial between the Non-Player Characters and the Player CHaracters.

Now, there are all kinds of other stuff that is usually talked about around them, but I won't go into that -- others probably have or will, and you said you already saw all the bad stuff.

Now, can it be done well? Yes.  Canit be done with an NPC instead of a DMPC, though? Well, if the answer is yes, then it is an NPC. WHich means the use case is going to be very, very narrow -- and be dependent on a lot of other factors.

One of the reasons that a lot of folks want to have a DMPC is that they want to be a player, too. THey want to role play and be involved as a hero -- which is cool -- but a DM also has to role play the Villains, and if you have a nasty, tough villain, you have to do it from inside their head the way that a player runs their PC.

I have villains that are very  sharp, that have complex plans with lots of moving parts -- and often the early points where a party handles stuff and causes a problem for them, they party takes out all the underlings, leaving a big question int he mind of the Villain -- why di dhtis happen, how did this happen, who did this. 

Now, as the DM, I obviously know, but my villain doesn't , so for me to do the next part -- sending out orders, planning and adjusting due to problems caused by some unknown agent -- i have to remember that my villain doesn't know.

So, the next place he's left orders that someone should always flee the scene if the place is attacked. WHen the party does, the minion watches and then reports. If the party never uses fireball, the villain will not know if they have it. But as the DM I know they do. So the plans the villain makes can't be based on them using fireball.

Presto -- I am playing a character. I am still being a referee, still playing fair -- and I have all the cards already, so I don't need to -- these things are stuff the players know about it -- But I do because I am playing the stuff they don't know in my head.

My players love to have companion animals. THey love to hav ethem attack. I rarely have the mental space to run a DMPC any more -- because I run so much other stuff.

But I probably could -- I just don't see a need for one that I can't fill in by dropping an NPC in here and there and getting to do different things.

In general, DMPC's are a bad idea are a bad idea and should never be done. On the other hand, I've done it succesfully myself a couple of times, and it can work. 

What I feel is necessary: I never let a DMPC make any decisions, pull any real weight in combat, resolve any situations. My DMPC's are there for 'advice', comic relief, and support - of a sort. I had a 'ranger' once - she was really a rogue - that supplied skills the group didn't have, fired the occasional arrow, and was funny usually at the expense of the PC's. Over a three year campaign, I think she got a kill. Which, btw, was rather convenient because I seem to recall I had over-tuned that encounter somewhat =)

I had what you might call a DMPC once (the adventure some alarmingly rough fights at low levels and it was a small party low on casters - if the sidekick rules had existed by this point, I would've done that, and if the game had gone on longer or been with more experienced players I might've turned her over to one of them), and the players liked her a lot. Knowing the concept's reputation, I had intentionally made the character pretty flat and didn't intend for her to do much outside of being a combat aid, but they wouldn't stop talking to her, so I kept messing with them by having her tell stories about being part of other adventuring parties that all died messily to various monsters. The game didn't run too long, and I think the reason it was viewed as entertaining instead of intrusive was because they were making the character important instead of my telling them they had to care about her.

Quote from Acromos >>

In general, DMPC's are a bad idea are a bad idea and should never be done. On the other hand, I've done it succesfully myself a couple of times, and it can work. 

What I feel is necessary: I never let a DMPC make any decisions, pull any real weight in combat, resolve any situations. My DMPC's are there for 'advice', comic relief, and support - of a sort. I had a 'ranger' once - she was really a rogue - that supplied skills the group didn't have, fired the occasional arrow, and was funny usually at the expense of the PC's. Over a three year campaign, I think she got a kill. Which, btw, was rather convenient because I seem to recall I had over-tuned that encounter somewhat =)

 You see, I wouldn't call that a DMPC, that's a permanent NPC. You don't really express agency, you're using a character to further the objectives of the party as well as provide some flavour and depth to your world, which is what an NPC is to me. a DMPC is just a PC played by the DM, and a PC is a hero, the centre of attention (albeit as part of an ensemble) and is actively playing the game and expressing agency.

In my opinion, DMPC are fine when remaining just supporting cast and not spotlight hugger always saving the day. I've run a few over the years without any issues , most of the time because it's a small group and no players want to run two characters. Rather than adjust published adventures encounters, i prefer to add an extra. If i'm not using an NPC statblock but a fullly fleshed PC, it's essentially so this character have more abilities to help the party as much as a PC would, but usually always take the backseat during roleplaying.

While i can often have NPC or DMPC help the party piece togheter things or clues they may have miss, bring forth new informations  etc... i usually try to have this with a PC instead, deducing or recalling informations automatically or after making  ability checks.

When party is missing one,  my preferred DMPC is a traditional Human Fighter Champion it's very simple. 

Essential, a DMPC is a NPC with character sheet that can level up and evolve in more complex way that strictly sticking to NPC statblock.

The question that must be answered before you'd add a DMPC is: What purpose does it serve? Being a DM is a lot. Trying to play a character on top of it is likely to lead to both of them getting inadequate attention.

Most, if not all, of the purposes can be adequately solved with a long-term NPC, and even those ought to be used sparingly.

I've currently got a long-term NPC with my PCs. She started out as an emergency bodyguarding plot, but chose to stay with them when the opportunity arose to return to her old life. She's an informational resource, creates the occasional complications by existing, but only really takes anything of a foreground role when the plotlines that brought her into their company are currently in focus. And, while she does fight alongside them, she's about 7 levels behind them (they trained her), so can't dominate the show. (And having an NPC who you both like and who will create Problems if they get killed putting themselves in danger is not always an advantage.)

Just to clarify, when i say DMPC shouldn't be always saving the day, i mean not to solving actions that PC should be, especially those crucial to the storyline. The player characters should always be at the center of this storyline.

But it isn't to say it can't happen during a combat that such NPC is having some success over others, getting missed by attacks while scoring critical hits or high damage rolls.

I usually also mostly use them in combat, fading away during exploration or social encounters, unless the campaign would require it do or say something important to help the party advance witch i'm unable to make it come from one of the PC itself, that would be an extremely rare case because i'm always trying to keep the players as the main characters.

I think of it like a serie or movie supporting cast, while it may appear in some scene, the camera usually remain focused on the main actors to do or say things cenetered on storyline. 

I guess the question is whether a DMPC is defined in practical terms (a character built similarly to a PC who travels and presumably levels up with the player party) or in philosophical ones (a character who is placed in a narrative role typically reserved for a PC but not controlled by a player). The second case is hard to defend, while based on most replies here the first seems uncontroversial on its own for certain types of games, which makes the question a bit semantic - does a character that is similar to a DMPC but well-implemented count as a DMPC, or is the term inherently pejorative and a "good" one would be considered something else?

My first exposure to DND was with a DM who had a DMPC. We had three players, a melee Druid/Fighter build, a warlock (me), and a cleric. We didn't really need more, but our DM added for us a fighter until about a year later when we got extra players. I kind of think the DM really wanted to play, but no one knew how to be a DM since we were all new to playing, except the DM, who had years of experience. It worked out most of the time, though I do admit, there were times it miffed me a bit, such as when his fighter got some sweet sweet sword and I was using some hand-me-down magical items for different classes.

So my feelings are that it can be fine, but make sure the DMPC never outshines the players and definitely don't give the DMPC cool gear while the players are using discarded magical items not even appropriate for the class.

As some are alluding to above I think any character controlled by the DM is inherently an NPC. A DM has too much meta knowledge and control to look at it otherwise.

With that said, I think recurring NPCs who go on adventures with PCs can be a real positive if done right. If you have a large party I don't see much use for them other than in very unique situations. Mostly they are just going to slow things down and there is always the risk of taking the spotlight away from the actual PCs.

But if you're in a campaign with only 1 or 2 players, then a regular NPC or perhaps a rotating cast of NPCs who join the party can enhance things as long as the DM is very serious about not being the "star". I recently started a Birthright-setting campaign with a single PC who is the new regent of a small barony. She has a trusted bodyguard, a court mage, etc... that she can have me control when joining her on adventures. This allows for more flexibility in what she can take on and gives opportunities for in-party roleplaying that you don't have if playing a total solo campaign. She makes all the decisions but gets the opportunity for a more broad adventure experience since additional roles can be filled and, most importantly, she has in-game friends for her character to build relationships with.

Quote from BatJamags >>

I guess the question is whether a DMPC is defined in practical terms (a character built similarly to a PC who travels and presumably levels up with the player party) or in philosophical ones (a character who is placed in a narrative role typically reserved for a PC but not controlled by a player). The second case is hard to defend, while based on most replies here the first seems uncontroversial on its own for certain types of games, which makes the question a bit semantic - does a character that is similar to a DMPC but well-implemented count as a DMPC, or is the term inherently pejorative and a "good" one would be considered something else?

 I usually define it has the former as to me an Nonplayer Characters is a monster statblock that generally do not level up or grow but in fact it can also include class & level, or even PC sheet per the DMG.

The latter is usually the one negatively regarded. Isn't Mary Sue  a term referring to this philosophical one now that i think?

If i go by these philosophical term, yeah i never run DMPC, just NPC with character sheet.

Using Classes & Level: You can create an NPC just as you would a player character, using the rules in the Player's Handbook. You can even use a character sheet to keep track of the NPC's vital information.

Quote from BatJamags >>

I guess the question is whether a DMPC is defined in practical terms (a character built similarly to a PC who travels and presumably levels up with the player party) or in philosophical ones (a character who is placed in a narrative role typically reserved for a PC but not controlled by a player).

The first isn't a DMPC, it's an NPC ally, but to some degree it doesn't matter -- NPC allies who aren't DMPCs can cause many of the same problems as DMPCs, because the real problem is when NPCs are stealing the attention and glory, and the problem with a DMPC is mostly that if the DM thinks of the character as their PC, they want the character to get glory the same way as they'd want for a PC.

Incidentally, I have over the years played in or run games with rotating DMs and a shared group of PCs, and in that type of game there's definitely DMPCs -- each DM has the character they play when they aren't DMing. However, typically that character behaves in much the same way as a PC whose player is absent -- they exist but are mostly not a part of the story.

Quote from Linklite >>

 You see, I wouldn't call that a DMPC, that's a permanent NPC. You don't really express agency, you're using a character to further the objectives of the party as well as provide some flavour and depth to your world, which is what an NPC is to me. a DMPC is just a PC played by the DM, and a PC is a hero, the centre of attention (albeit as part of an ensemble) and is actively playing the game and expressing agency.

 That's a pretty blurry distinction. But I agree, I guess. Let me phrase it like this: If you want a GMPC, don't - but if you absolutely must, play it like an NPC. No player in the world wants to sit by as the GM plays challenges, then also solves them while the real players are spectators. 

Quote from Trtlman >>

This is all hypothetical, I never even heard of such a thing until today and I'm totally new to dnd and have no plans to be a DMPC. I get why they are hated, too much knowledge for a PC and too much attention spent on the PC. But what if those two things could be corrected? Random generators could be used so the the PC doesn't know anything the DM does. Also the PC could spend a lot of time on sidelines so it's not taking the DMs time. Or what if there was a PC that was literally the DM? As in the DM themselves are actually in the game. Like having a narrator literally walking around with the group. Kind of like a DMNPC. Probably all dumb ideas and wouldn't work but just curious what your thoughts are on the DMPC and if it ever can work. 

 "Random generators could be used so the the PC doesn't know anything the DM does"  -  If you were randomising the characters behavior what would this even be adding?.

DMPC's are usually caused by DM's wanting to play as well as DM (Which already is a misnomer because DMing IS playing), as bad of an idea as it is for the metaknowledge etc reasons, if the DM wasn't even controlling the character in any conventional way, what is there even to gain from having this DMPC?.