D&D 5E NPCs Along for the Ride

[Jake Johnson]

I had an interesting conversation with one of the players in my group regarding the DM running a character in the party. I'm a newbie DM, so please forgive any ignorance and/or obviousness.

My first thought is that the DM should refrain from running a character with the party, primarily because the DM knows too much, and might spoil the adventure by doing any one or more of the following:

1. Ruining monster surprises and exposing hiding places
2. Knowing right where to go
3. Solving puzzles that should be left to the party
4. Messing with the adventure's mojo by giving off knowing vibes
5. Having too many good ideas

I also see some benefits to the DM running a character:

1. Rounding out party support roles (Hello, Ms. Cleric.)
2. Providing an appropriate number of characters for a small play group
3. Ensuring that an unavailable player with a critical attribute, ability, spell, object, etc., doesn't hold up the game
4. Facilitating better story telling by providing frame narrative or other plot support

I'm sure there are other pros and cons. What do you think, is it better to ask players to play more than one character if necessary, and maybe request that one or more play characters that can provide support, such as healing?

 

[MortalPlague]

In my games, I'll usually handle this with an NPC. They aren't a full-fledged member of the party, and their interests often differ greatly from the actual PCs. A paid hireling, for instance, is great for extra muscle. A cleric might be along on the condition that he gets to take any religious treasures.

In addition, these characters don't need to share a viewpoint with the DM. I find it fun to send along a brash, loudmouth, braggart warrior with a group to serve as the voice of 'stupid and brash ideas', who the party may have to rein in from time to time. Or a timid, cowardly NPC who will hide when fights break out, and will suggest ways to run away from combat. Or perhaps the rich, know-it-all 'adventurer' who clearly hasn't actually set foot in a dungeon? There are plenty of fun archetypes to play up who will definitely not spoil the dungeon by slipping past challenges.

 

[Evenglare]

I'll run a DMPC if I only have a couple of people playing, I try to keep my character in the background. When a fight comes up he's there to help or if the characters ask him something it's a good way to help the party move forward. Otherwise I'm just kind of there for support. I've personally never had problems with it.

 

[GSHamster]

In general, I would advise against running a DM character. The downsides you mention are too great. As well, it's important that the spotlight remain on the players, and DM needs to avoid cutting into that.

If you must have an NPC (maybe to round out party roles, say a cleric), I think it's best to make them somewhat passive. I.e. if you're adding a cleric, better a shy scholar than a charismatic preacher. The shy scholar is more likely to stay in the background, and keep the spotlight on the main PC characters.

As a DM, you have the entire rest of the world to work with. You must make sure that the "space" the players have is as large as possible.

 

[pkt77242]

I had an interesting conversation with one of the players in my group regarding the DM running a character in the party. I'm a newbie DM, so please forgive any ignorance and/or obviousness.

My first thought is that the DM should refrain from running a character with the party, primarily because the DM knows too much, and might spoil the adventure by doing any one or more of the following:

1. Ruining monster surprises and exposing hiding places
2. Knowing right where to go
3. Solving puzzles that should be left to the party
4. Messing with the adventure's mojo by giving off knowing vibes
5. Having too many good ideas

I also see some benefits to the DM running a character:

1. Rounding out party support roles (Hello, Ms. Cleric.)
2. Providing an appropriate number of characters for a small play group
3. Ensuring that an unavailable player with a critical attribute, ability, spell, object, etc., doesn't hold up the game
4. Facilitating better story telling by providing frame narrative or other plot support

I'm sure there are other pros and cons. What do you think, is it better to ask players to play more than one character if necessary, and maybe request that one or more play characters that can provide support, such as healing?

I don't think a DM should always run a PC but there are times that it is needed and adds to the overall enjoyment. I have played in small groups (1 DM and 2 players) where the players each played 2 PC's and the DM played one. The key is that the DM needs to let the other players make the majority of decisions. If we asked for the DM's PC opinion he would role a wisdom or intelligence check out of our sight and then give an opinion off of that roll, so that we would never know if he was giving us good or bad info. Now if there is plenty of players (4+) it probably isn't needed for the DM to play a PC>

 

[bolo__]

In general, I would advise against running a DM character. The downsides you mention are too great. As well, it's important that the spotlight remain on the players, and DM needs to avoid cutting into that.

If you must have an NPC (maybe to round out party roles, say a cleric), I think it's best to make them somewhat passive. I.e. if you're adding a cleric, better a shy scholar than a charismatic preacher. The shy scholar is more likely to stay in the background, and keep the spotlight on the main PC characters.

As a DM, you have the entire rest of the world to work with. You must make sure that the "space" the players have is as large as possible.

I'm running a DMPC during the current 5e Starter Set campaign I'm running as an introduction for my kids and my wife.
Given that they chose an Archer (will be a ranger), Wizard and Cleric I rolled up a Mountain Dwarf Fighter with a background that included a massive head injury that means he now has cognitive issues including speech, memory and violent mood swings.

That gets me around most if not all of the noted issues as there's no point asking "Tornhed" anything because he won't tell you anything useful.
He also isn't going to be all that perceptive and if there's a monster in sight he goes into a rage and will simply charge in.

It's working well.

 

[Paraxis]

I dislike running DM NPCs for all the normal reasons, and some bad experiences as a player in campaigns where there were some poorly run ones. If I feel like I need to because of small party size I will run one that doesn't contribute in roleplay or investigation scenes much, like a barbarian cursed to be a bear, or a monk with a vow of silence, or a warforged who is oblivious and not sot social at all, pretty much anything that doesn't get in the way of the PC's spotlight time or fun outside of combat and in combat I try not to outshine any of the fighter type.

 

[Li Shenron]

1. Ruining monster surprises and exposing hiding places
2. Knowing right where to go
3. Solving puzzles that should be left to the party
4. Messing with the adventure's mojo by giving off knowing vibes
5. Having too many good ideas

Just don't do these.

If you know there's a hiding monster/place, don't have the NPC go there on purpose.
If you know where to go, let the others decide.
Don't help them solving your puzzles.
Don't give off knowing vibes (whatever they are).
If you have a good idea which is because you know the story, keep it to yourself.

 

[wedgeski]

Just don't do these.

Couldn't agree more. If you *do* these silly things, then running a DM-NPC will be a detriment to the game.

On the other hand an NPC can add flavour, background, drama, and mechanical assistance to the party in all kinds of good ways. I personally find it a bit of a distraction to have to run an entire NPC all the time (I've got enough to do!), and I'll often ask the party to run him/her in combat, as a group, while enjoying the opportunity to join in the roleplaying when I can.

Even there, you have to be careful, because the players will often place too much weight on what the NPC has to say, simply because it's all from the DM's brain.

 

[Shiroiken]

Generally, I find it better to have an NPC than a DM PC. The DM PC feels like it should be more active, and thus falls into many of the traps that spoil adventures. NPCs can be custom designed to aid the game. Usually the best way to implement them is to have them be hirelings of the PCs (and thus not in charge). Another option is to have them be rather dumb (low Int/Wis) so that they just follow the other PCs opinions without really making any of their own. If pressed for opinions, I suggest rolling to determine information so that it's not always correct.