Playing a character while DMing. Yes or No?

[zonetrooper1]

Back when I was running Pathfinder for my son and a friend of mine, I thought we were a little short on characters, and so rather than put another character on new players I ran one myself. I know some GM's do this and some frown on it. I really hadn't up til then, but I liked it and I think I'll continue to. Not only did I get a chance to advance a character of my own, it kept me super honest with the players. I wasn't overly hard on the pc's, and I made sure I didn't hold back just because I had a player in the game. I think it gave me a barometer to gauge some of my actions. If I didn't want to do something because it was detrimental to my character, that was an even stronger reason to do it.

Playing a character while DMing. Where do fall?

 

[cyderak]

Back when I was running Pathfinder for my son and a friend of mine, I thought we were a little short on characters, and so rather than put another character on new players I ran one myself. I know some GM's do this and some frown on it. I really hadn't up til then, but I liked it and I think I'll continue to. Not only did I get a chance to advance a character of my own, it kept me super honest with the players. I wasn't overly hard on the pc's, and I made sure I didn't hold back just because I had a player in the game. I think it gave me a barometer to gauge some of my actions. If I didn't want to do something because it was detrimental to my character, that was an even stronger reason to do it.

Playing a character while DMing. Where do fall?

It depends on how many players show up.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Back when I was running a 3.5 game, in the beginning, I had a group of three 1st-level characters, so I brought in a PC 3rd-level Dwarven cleric to be an NPC. As the group grew to 9 at one point and we were switching DMs, I switched him back and forth from a PC to an NPC and gave him 1/2 the XP of the other characters so that he still advanced some.

Personally, I wouldn't play a character as a full character as a DM, simply because it would be too tempting for me to use that character to lead the party to what I wanted them to do, but if it works for you, then by all means, there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[steeldragons]

I would venture to say, in the case you present where the party was "too small"...this was a perfectly legitimate way to go.

I would have, and have, done the same with adding an NPC to help "stabilize" the party's chances.

And I completely agree with your honest assessment of making sure you didn't (or did throw things at the party because having the NPC keeps you honest.

I think it's great.

If you can use it...to good effect...then I see no reason not to...if the party can use the help.

My DMing take on this is that I am often adding NPCs who can help the party...but they do NOT act outside of their assigned role (guide, healer, even added muscle), they act, specifically, under the direction of the party, AND they are with the party fora limited time (the adventure they are sent with them for...or maybe a few if the party wants to keep them.)

Example: I have given my low level party (their trials documented in my Story Hour, Tales of Orea) a slightly higher level priestess who was sent by her temple to aid them in finding/recovering an artifact . She can do things/cast spells the rest of the party can't (the party's all 1st or 2nd level. The priestess is 5th. She can "Locate object" or "Dispel magic" 1/day.)...but her powers are limited and she does not play an "integral" or "decision making" part of the party.

--SD

 

[Puggins]

As long as the character is a background character (e.g. not the main protagonist) and less powerful (not even equally powerful), I'd say it's no problem at all. only when the DMPC (the acronym for such characters) starts being the center of attention does the character become a potential problem.

 

[ValhallaGH]

DM-Player-Characters have a well-earned bad reputation.
Many DMs give their PCs extra treasure, xp, special abilities, cheated dice rolls, and other "favored player" treats. They also try to lead the party, further bossing the player characters, effectively turning the game into their own "interactive" novel that the players are working through. These are bad DMs, or at least are bad when they have a PC in the group.

However, used well DMPCs can add a lot to the game (story hooks, DM sanity checks, a mouth-piece for story points and misinformation, extra actions on the PC side, and other benefits), and give the DM something to do if using multiple DMs for the same campaign.
I'm using one in my Superheroes campaign, to provide a brick. I don't use them in fantasy games because D&D makes running a PC a ton of work, and I'm busy enough running the session.

 

[shadzar]

Considering how distractive it can be to have actual people there that don't contribute to the game but have characters and only roll dice when needed, never would add another of such character by playing one myself.

I play on one side of the DM screen and not the other.

 

[Rel]

I've done it on very rare occasion but I've come to view it as unnecessary.

I enjoy running games with a small number of players and I'd generally prefer to adjust the opposition to provide a challenge for the PC's that are there rather than to bulk out the party to fit a pre-planned opposition.

 

[Haltherrion]

I do it at times. It depends on the circumstances. I certainly did it when ref'ing my son and friend for similar reasons as yours and it worked fine.

In the main campaign, we sometimes set it up to co-ref with the ref swapping at certain times. In some such campaigns, the ref may play his character although more often the character either is "elsewhere" or is played by another PC. Our current campaign is like that and I am the main ref so far. My PC has variously sat out, been run by another player and a couple times been run by me. The latter two cases are when my PC could really round the group out (my PC is a healer and the other healer doesn't always show).

It can be fun in the right games but a lot of the time, it is an extra burden I don't need as a referee. I usually have enough on my plate.


Some things I watch out for:

• Best not to play a smart character or one who knows a lot. The players will try to mine your PC for info.
• It's important to avoid the appearance of favoritism so unless you randomize loot and roll it in front of the players, you will probably end up not giving your PC as much magic over the long run.
• A utility PC that helps around the edges but is not on the front line or making key decisions seems to work best.
• I'll often have other players make key rolls for my PC. I don't cheat the rolls but why have them wonder?

 

[EvilCat]

An interesting time I picked to come back to EN World!
My recent game is exactly in this manner. The system is D&D 3.5, and the characters are wyrmling dragons (level 2 currently, with Savage Species' racial classes option). We play in an online chatroom.

The game is very enjoyable. Four people are much easier to assemble online than five (4 players + DM). While my other game is stuck because we couldn't match our schedules, this one is played regularly twice a week. Because of number-heavy rules, I don't have problems with interactions even when in a social conflict between my PC and an NPC. In a free-form RP, I would have to decide by myself if my character's actions were successful.

My character is bossy, but it's rather comical. Nobody really listens to him unless his words are reasonable. When the party encounters a puzzle or some other situation where they have to be smart, my wyrmling steps back, but drops hints if players are stuck. In social situations, he creates problems more often than not, and the party has to keep him in control among other things. In combat, there are no constraints, except for being in-character, of course.

I think I will make it my regular gameplay.