Couple of days ago one of the players in my table came to me with an idea to an interesting character that he said he would like to meet in game. I'm a new DM just started running my first campaign and this player has been helping me with tips and occasionally sending me stuff that he or other players in the table would like to see in the game. So we got into a discussion about rather the players would want DMPCs or not and because we are heavy on RP they said that they want to meet more interesting characters as long as they have an interesting story and not just there to fill a role that the party lacks. I read online that the ONLY reason to bring a DMPC into the game is to fill a role but since it seems both me and the players want to bring them from a RP and story stand point I find it difficult to decide rather its a good idea or not, I could really use the help of another opinion... Thanks!
You just don't call them DMPC but NPC's. They should not contribute significantly to combat (actually best kept out so they don't take extra time) and not be "all knowing" as that would remove a huge part of the exploration and mystery solving part of the game.
They can easily be heavily story linked without having answers for everything.
I would make sure to predetermine what they know (I usually have a "What-They-Know" section of notes for all NPC's). And just as a suggestion, have some of the things they know be incorrect. idk about your party but my party has the "video game" mindset where they think all NPC's must be correct, and all leads are relevant. Throwing in some puposefully wrong info from your DMPC/NPC guy could lead to some interesting outcomes and decision making!
I am going to second the call to simply consider this to be an NPC. This NPC might just be well developed personality wise and valued by the players, but they shouldn't be considered the DM's proxy in the game. I have run loads of games for limited numbers of players, a great majority of them one-on-one games, in which NPCs are required because the Player needs someone to talk to, plan with, and heck even fight with and beside. The trick I have found is to simply remember that the NPC is question is no more or less important than any other NPC in my game, no matter how often they are interacted with. It cannot be *my* character!
A number of instances, we have even shifted the game to Troupe style play wherein the Player(s) are controlling multiple characters in combat, and the DM is roleplaying those NPCs out of combat. This set up makes everyone at the table explicitly aware of which character is the "ultimately important" one (hint: the Player's Character is!) while allowing the player's group to face challenges that would be beyond their capability alone. In this instance, I find that 2-3 characters are around the limit for a single Player to manage comfortably. Additionally, the UA Sidekick rules are very good for crafting NPCs that are *nearly* as good as a PC, but won't steal limelight or require in depth knowledge of a esoteric class/subclass combo.
What I meant by DMPCs is they want me to be traveling and playing alongside them bringing different characters to every story arch, kind of like guest apearances on critical role but if all of the guests where played by Matt and the characters would stick around for longer and more often
All my NPCs have stories, families and their own background stories. Some are basic from the bar and shop owners to random citizens and guards.
It's a lot of work and not every npc will be even used but it's handy to have them.
I do have main story NPCs who are important and very powerful who I'll never let the players take with them unless it's fully needed in the story. So I keep away from doing that.
The DM plays the NPCs and the enemies and the rest of the world. There's no good reason that a DM should be playing a character in the campaign.
matt Mercer had a popular NPC in Pumat Sol, owner of the invulnerable vagrant. because he was so popular.... the characters on critical role returned to the invulnerable vagrant many times.
the point being NPCs are the means for you to interact with the players, whether they travel with or stay behind.
if you need a traveling NPC I would suggest something like an orphan boy follows one of the players hoping to some day be a squire/acolite/scribe. give the boy 1 hit point and a speach impediment, the boy could be with the party for years if they keep him safe, all you gotta do is present it and respond to the players reactions. no need for DMPCs
Couple of days ago one of the players in my table came to me with an idea to an interesting character that he said he would like to meet in game. I'm a new DM just started running my first campaign and this player has been helping me with tips and occasionally sending me stuff that he or other players in the table would like to see in the game. So we got into a discussion about rather the players would want DMPCs or not and because we are heavy on RP they said that they want to meet more interesting characters as long as they have an interesting story and not just there to fill a role that the party lacks. I read online that the ONLY reason to bring a DMPC into the game is to fill a role but since it seems both me and the players want to bring them from a RP and story stand point I find it difficult to decide rather its a good idea or not, I could really use the help of another opinion... Thanks!
You just don't call them DMPC but NPC's. They should not contribute significantly to combat (actually best kept out so they don't take extra time) and not be "all knowing" as that would remove a huge part of the exploration and mystery solving part of the game.
They can easily be heavily story linked without having answers for everything.
I would make sure to predetermine what they know (I usually have a "What-They-Know" section of notes for all NPC's). And just as a suggestion, have some of the things they know be incorrect. idk about your party but my party has the "video game" mindset where they think all NPC's must be correct, and all leads are relevant. Throwing in some puposefully wrong info from your DMPC/NPC guy could lead to some interesting outcomes and decision making!
I am going to second the call to simply consider this to be an NPC. This NPC might just be well developed personality wise and valued by the players, but they shouldn't be considered the DM's proxy in the game. I have run loads of games for limited numbers of players, a great majority of them one-on-one games, in which NPCs are required because the Player needs someone to talk to, plan with, and heck even fight with and beside. The trick I have found is to simply remember that the NPC is question is no more or less important than any other NPC in my game, no matter how often they are interacted with. It cannot be *my* character!
A number of instances, we have even shifted the game to Troupe style play wherein the Player(s) are controlling multiple characters in combat, and the DM is roleplaying those NPCs out of combat. This set up makes everyone at the table explicitly aware of which character is the "ultimately important" one (hint: the Player's Character is!) while allowing the player's group to face challenges that would be beyond their capability alone. In this instance, I find that 2-3 characters are around the limit for a single Player to manage comfortably. Additionally, the UA Sidekick rules are very good for crafting NPCs that are *nearly* as good as a PC, but won't steal limelight or require in depth knowledge of a esoteric class/subclass combo.
What I meant by DMPCs is they want me to be traveling and playing alongside them bringing different characters to every story arch, kind of like guest apearances on critical role but if all of the guests where played by Matt and the characters would stick around for longer and more often
All my NPCs have stories, families and their own background stories. Some are basic from the bar and shop owners to random citizens and guards.
It's a lot of work and not every npc will be even used but it's handy to have them.
I do have main story NPCs who are important and very powerful who I'll never let the players take with them unless it's fully needed in the story. So I keep away from doing that.
The DM plays the NPCs and the enemies and the rest of the world. There's no good reason that a DM should be playing a character in the campaign.
matt Mercer had a popular NPC in Pumat Sol, owner of the invulnerable vagrant. because he was so popular.... the characters on critical role returned to the invulnerable vagrant many times.
the point being NPCs are the means for you to interact with the players, whether they travel with or stay behind.
if you need a traveling NPC I would suggest something like an orphan boy follows one of the players hoping to some day be a squire/acolite/scribe. give the boy 1 hit point and a speach impediment, the boy could be with the party for years if they keep him safe, all you gotta do is present it and respond to the players reactions. no need for DMPCs
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Alright, thank you everybody for the replies you helped a lot!