D&D General The "DM's PC"

[TheDelphian]

I frequently have frequently used DM npc's. I like them and often so does my group. I usually try for them to be a servant or otherwise subservient member of the group. This also usually allows them to be weaker in terms of power to the group. They are there to support the group, guard the horses or other sensible duties that do not put them in direct danger or affect the group.

I like them because I can use them as a more natural way to interact with the world, when Players become stuck forget information or otherwise need some help the NPC may offer that help like a good assistant. They don't have information the party didn't unless they (the characters/players) sent them to gather information. They may make light suggestions to redirect the party when they are in a rut. I find this works better, for me, then having to step in as GM when the players/characters are spinning their wheels. A little of that is fine and natural a lot is frustrating. I find players feel less "Dumb/Forgetful" when their servant reminds them of something than I do a a DM. Could just be a matter of perception.

My NPC's try to follow simple set of rules.
1) Clearly defined personality. I and The players know what they will do or how they will act 90% of the time.
2) They are less powerful than the players while maybe shoring a weakness in the group.
3) They don't know anything more about the "Plot" or circumstances than the player.
4) They are not there to rescue players unless that was part of the plan previously established.
5) They mostly avoid combat but if loyal and well treated will perhaps do something. This depends greatly on their skill and abilities. No reason they can't be a lifesaver as long as the players/characters don't count on it or expect it.
6) The Npc spends no more resources they possess on the party then the party has spent on them. If a party got them raised and this is why the Servant feels loyalty and offers service or rescued them then that servant may risk more than one just getting a pay check. I shoot for realism in that sense.

Just some thoughts

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Unless I have a good-sized group of players (at least 5), I almost always end up having a PC for myself when I DM. It has never been an issue. shrug

same. Going back to 1st AD&D and never a problem.

the worst has been on watch. I often ignore important PC features due to focus on DMing.

so at worst the party has a slightly underpowered member in their Group.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One distinction I've seen made in these discussions is: DMPC vs. NPC traveling with the party,

A DMPC in this case is when the DM gets a full player character, who is a main character and a part of the party, and expected to be equal to them, so the dm can get the experience of being a player as well as a DM. This is... easy to mess up, to put it mildly . The meta fact that you are the dm as well as the player will color everything that pc does, and especially any interaction that pc has with other pcs. It can be done, but successful implementation is rare.

The later is when the npc is clearly an npc - a secondary character. This is generally only a problem if the npc outshines a pc at their niche or there are way too many npcs getting turns in combat, but both of those issues are simple to avoid. I don't think I've ever seen them used consistently badly by someone who wasn't a bad dm for a bunch of other, more fundamental reasons.

So the general advice is: if you (the dm) want to have permanent presence in the party, don't do it. Let the PC be the stars of the show. But like all advice, breaking it and getting a success is possible. It's just unlikely.

 

[iserith]

I will occasionally include an NPC that tags along with the party if it makes sense to for the scenario. For example, the PCs needed transport and a guide to accomplish something in the Mournland (Eberron), so they got a drunken, excoriated member of House Orien with an elemental land vehicle. Being able to drive fast across the Mournland was a boon to the party, but the NPC was a bit of a tipsy idiot and got into trouble quite frequently and needed to be bailed out. He died on the way back out of the Mournland when his land vehicle fell into a radioactive crater after a botched attempt at jumping it while being pursued by Lord of Blades' fanatics. That was a pretty good end for him in context. The PCs narrowly escaped.

All that to say, having NPCs tag along is fine, but I prefer to use them sparingly, tie them into the scenario very well, and then let them go when it's time to move on. Also, if they are contributing a great deal to challenges, they should get a share of XP.

 

[payn]

To me GMPC is a pretty specific thing. For example, a retired PC or a contact that gives the party support or info regularly, isnt what I'd consider a GMPC. Now, if the NPC controlled by the GM travels with the party, fights with the party, and anything else like a card carrying party member, they become a GMPC. Often, the GMPC is just there to fill in a role or skill and doesnt make party decisions and gets a lesser take of the loot.

There are a number of pitfalls to GMPCs. The first is the overpowered NPC that shadows the rest of the party. Sometimes this is because the GM wants to create their own version of Gandolf or the GM never gets to play so they are doing so through this misguided effort. The second is the walking healing wand NPC. This figure just heals the party and never argues. This NPC is solely there at the party's command. Sometimes the party takes advantage of this to unfortunate degrees.

I like to avoid any creep between GM domain and party domain. Some might might see this separation as adversarial, but to me as GM, I have control of the entire world, the players should get control over their characters in it. I like those lines to stay distinct. Also, it avoids weird situations where a DMPC interacts with an NPC and the whole table watches the GM role play with their self. Just doesnt feel right.

For some groups, it works out fine. The best example I've heard is the rotating GM table. These games usually have a continuity between sessions, but GMs change at regular intervals. This allows for a smooth transition between the PC and GM exchange.

 

[Mercurius]

It seems there is a sweet-spot between full-blown DMPC and NPC that might work for my purposes. A thought that came to mind after reading the replies is that I could have the PCs either meet a friendly adventuring party that occasionally works with them, maybe lending a member for a time, or have the PCs be part of a larger adventuring group, and on specific quests different NPCs can travel with them.

I hear and agree with the hard-to-avoid problem of the DMPC, and I don't like or intend to use them as an expert on the world, but I also find that--if done skillfully--can bring play experience alive, in a sense give the PCs a "native" of the world to interact with on an ongoing basis.

I doubt anyone really does this, but perhaps the most blatant example of DMPC exploitation is, say, running a ranger and then making the best magic item in a trove be, voila!, a magic longbow! Who might make good use of that, doyathink?

 

[CleverNickName]

Usually my "DM PCs" are recurring hirelings: the party will employ the same professional to escort them safely to the borders of their territory, or show them the way to the Ancient Ruins of Lsdovsdvpbtvoizlzfsgjla, or wherever. This DMPCs provides some background information about the area that the party might otherwise miss (thanks to poor rolls on Survival, Nature, or History), keeps the party from getting lost and keeps them on schedule, and lends a hand against the occasional random encounter. Then, when the job is done, they leave. "I'll be back at the Guild if you need me again," they say.

The DM's PC might be a recurring character, but they aren't intended to be a permanent fixture in the group.

 

[nevin]

depends on the DM. I've never had my players complain about them. In my current game none of us would bat an eye. We trust our DM to give us a fun narrative. and game. Now I've played with DM's who had NPC's that were always the center of the game. That's a problem. I prefer letting players have followers or hirelings. Let my players keep up with them I've got other stuff to do.

 

[LordEntrails]

One of the PCs from the previous campaign--the only continuous one from level 1 to 15 (or whenever we stopped--has actually ascended and become a demigod, and may show up at various times. I might try to be coy and not reveal the connection, and let them figure it out on their own, but it probably will be hard to not make it two obvious.

This, to me, is not a DMPC, it is just an evolving and changing setting. This is good, imo. The fact that the players become aware that the setting changes depending upon what the characters do. Yea Mercurius!

Unless I have a good-sized group of players (at least 5), I almost always end up having a PC for myself when I DM. It has never been an issue. shrug

Are you sure? I certainly can't speak for your players, but just because it's never been a problem for you doesn't mean it hasn't been a problem for your players, maybe they have just never said or don't even know differently.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Are you sure? I certainly can't speak for your players, but just because it's never been a problem for you doesn't mean it hasn't been a problem for your players, maybe they have just never said or don't even know differently.

Yes, I'm sure. And frankly, if people don't voice that they have a problem about something, as far as I am concerned, they don't. It isn't my job or responsibility otherwise. But anyway...

Why would it be? When I am controlling my PC I am just another player. When I am running all the other aspects of the game, I am the DM. Divorcing the two has never been a problem for me.

So, again, why would it be?