Can a DM have a PC

[Mythlore]

I recognize the sort of importance or desire to 'lead' or 'suggest' through an N/PC played well, and think that there are pitfalls to it.

After all, you're already supposed to be doing EVERYTHING, where the sin are you going to find the time and energy to fight your self? But, I concede that part of the fun is being part of the group that takes down a big baddie.

I would suggest, to those who are considering such to try to keep the micro-management down. Along the lines of KISS, keep it short and simple. Give your character signature and simple at-will powers -- select encounter powers that don't need a lot of book-keeping -- pick daily powers that are clearly either 'the big bomb' or make it part of the N/PC's character that they picked a 'mediocre' power. Try to avoid having too many 'interrupt' and 'reaction' abilities; pre-calculate opportunity attack bonuses, since (at least once) your character is likely to be working with the group to make it hard for enemies to move around. Don't use difficult maneuvers like marking which require extra maintenance. Keep the selection of feats and powers simple, focusing on the basics: attacking, or having a good defense. If there's role-play to be involved, make sure the skills are diverse enough (or in-character enough) to fit a skill challenge.

But, most of all, MAKE IT EASY TO DO. You should be blasting off an at-will power, then preparing an encounter power, and maybe dropping your daily. You'll move around the field, or just strike on one target. Remember, NO FUNNY STUFF. At least, not for combat, which is already enough effort.

 

[trumbeller]

thank you for all of the feedback. It seems the consensus is for a DM to avoid playing a PC unless its really necessary or I really want to. The suggestion of handing a PC over to the group to handle sounds good, though. I'm gonna listen to the experiences of DM's past and avoid creating bad situations for my new D&D group. You have all been very helpful!

 

[Greatwyrm]

I've never seen it done well.

Personally, I'd recommend using the guidelines in the DMG to scale your adventures and encounters down to the number of players you have.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

Well, you could always take the lazy route and make an archer ranger who spams Twin Strike every round. Anything more complex than that, though, and I'd avoid it like the plague if you're not too experienced DMing.

 

[77IM]

You shouldn't try to have a "full" PC. It's just too much work, and it takes some focus away from the PCs. You can add an NPC to the party, though, if you do it right.

1. Make the NPC taciturn and subservient -- that way, he is never the focus during role-playing encounters and won't steal the PC's spotlight. (As DM, you have enough spotlight already, what with controlling the entire multiverse.) An apprentice, follower, or hired henchman works well for this.

2. The NPC can help the party with puzzle encounters, but only as directed by the players. He can't actually solve the puzzles -- UNLESS the players get stuck, and then you can have him gain a sudden insight and offer a hint. The reasons for this should be obvious: since you are the one making the puzzles, it would be pretty lame to solve your own puzzles! But one downside of any sort of puzzle is that the party gets stuck and can't solve it, so the NPC can serve as insurance against that. You just want to make sure the PCs don't start relying on these hints.

3. A really, really simple NPC is easier to run. The above comment about spamming out twin strike is said in a humorous tone but I think it's sound advice. I'd give an allied NPC no more than 1-2 at-wills and 1-2 encounter powers (a weaker encounter power might be recharge or something). I think, to speed up combat, I would give him fewer healing surges than a PC, but only track them during short rests (he would have infinite surges during combat). Also, no action points.

4. If you want, you can even let the PCs control the NPC during combat. This only works if you have simple NPC stats (see #3), because running a PC is already complicated enough. You might want your players to take turns running the NPC during combat, or you might want one person to do it all the time.

5. The NPC should get a share of the XP. His presence is making the fight a lot easier, just like a fellow PC. He should get a share of the treasure, too, but should get "last pick" of magic items. Otherwise the players might feel cheated out of some loot that they really wanted.

-- 77IM

 

[kenmarable]

Wow, I guess I'm seriously in the minority here. Just about every campaign I've been in from basic D&D, AD&D, 2e, 3.x, and now 4e, with probably 4 or entirely different groups of players - we've had DM PC's. Typically it's been because we have rotating DMs and it just flowed better having the DM PCs there with everyone else and not disappearing depending on who was behind the screen. The 2nd reason we've done it is when I've had a 1 DM, 1 player group (did that a lot when I first started out in the 80's and then more recently with my wife and I when kids kept us from our regular groups).

It has never been a problem for us. As long as everyone is fine with it, and the DM realizes that they are DM first and player second, I don't see any problem at all. Have the DM PC act within their own knowledge (which is easier to do than you would think), and there's no reason to do random dungeons or any of that.

I'm sure it could go bad - especially if you have a prima donna DM PC that becomes overly indulged. And if you use a lot of puzzles and mysteries, then the DM PC is just a dumb bystander (definitely don't use the DM PC as a "hint-giver", that leads to more problems than the PC just sitting it out and not contributing). But as long as the DM(s) are mindful of things and everyone in the group is fine with it, I say go for it.

If others have had actual bad experiences with it, I'd like to hear what went wrong. But from all of my experience with using DM PCs (both as someone playing a DM PC and as just a player in other groups), it has has never been a problem.

 

[SigmaX0]

Our DM of the last 9-10 years has expressed a desire to play a PC a few times, but I don't think we would ever use a DM PC.

Mainly, bias/balance issues would be in question, not that we don't trust him, but any PC has their own or the party's interests at heart, and the DM is usually trying to kill them.

Often in campaigns we have long-running interesting NPCs involved in combat. As a group we usually avoid NPC involvement and all the shared experience issues it brings, but when our DM cleverly intertwines a really good NPC character with strong bonds to the PCs, it can often really enhance the game.

We also tried a dual DM campaign once, and it was awful, though I admit we could probably have put a lot more effort into it.

EDIT: looking at 77IM's post, I agree with the subservient point. 2 campaigns ago, one of the PCs was of 'noble' birth from a barbarian tribe, and he had a servant of sorts who had stuck with him since they were kids. He was a great addition, never stealing the spotlight, but around to help in combat and provide some seriously epic moments, including the barbarian getting so attached to this NPC, that he would take *ridiculous* risks to stop him from falling, something our DM manipulated very intelligently.