D&D General The "DM's PC"

[Lanefan]

my statement has nothing to do with in game and everything to do with out of game.

For stuff like this, I only care about in-game.

A PC is treated differently than every other NPC in the world by other PCs due to the social contract.

Out of game perhaps, but in game they're all members of the same party and would - one assumes - more or less treat each other as equals.

A party deciding they don’t want an NPC around is far different than a party deciding they want a PC to leave.

It is only if asking the PC to leave is accompanied by asking the player to leave. Further, I'm not talking about characters being forced out of a party (which to me is a different issue) but leaving voluntarily to go do something else.

The mere fact that a PC is going to be accepted, trusted and supported simply for being a PC is the biggest difference between an NPC and PC. And A GM should not cross that line to have a character I see their control that gas the sane agency as the other PCs.

Accepting, trusting and supporting PCs just because they're PCs has led to some of the best in-party fights and double-crosses I've ever seen.

Not every PC is trustworthy, and there's no requirement that they be. It's on the party to sort out who they can trust and who not, which is reflective of how things would work in reality.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Why didn't the GM get the players to run the NPCs' turns?

The simple rule of thumb I use, probably 99%+ of the time, is that if it's on the party's side then the players do its rolling and if it's on the opposition side then I roll for it. The rare exceptions occur when something that appears to be on one side is in fact acting for the other; in which case who rolls is based on the side the PCs think the individual is on at the time.

I've gone one further and played where each player had two pc's. It works fairly well, although "find a fourth player" is usually a better option.

It's probably also worth pointing out that which edition you're running can have a huge impact on how important 'party roles' are - in 5e you really don't need to think about them at all, for instance.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

For stuff like this, I only care about in-game.

Out of game perhaps, but in game they're all members of the same party and would - one assumes - more or less treat each other as equals.

It is only if asking the PC to leave is accompanied by asking the player to leave. Further, I'm not talking about characters being forced out of a party (which to me is a different issue) but leaving voluntarily to go do something else.

Accepting, trusting and supporting PCs just because they're PCs has led to some of the best in-party fights and double-crosses I've ever seen.

Not every PC is trustworthy, and there's no requirement that they be. It's on the party to sort out who they can trust and who not, which is reflective of how things would work in reality.

so your position is in most D&D games there’s absolutely no difference between PCs and NPCs?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I currently have a DM PC. It sucks. Don't do this.

I've had party NPC's verging on DM PC's before for small groups, but I've always gone for a mechanically super simple option with a deferential personality who doesn't require brainpower to operate or step on the agency of players. A straightforward Rogue, Fighter, or Barbarian, whom I can make the players operate during combat and who just waits for the players cues in most other situations is fine. If the DM then also sometimes plays that NPC like their own character that can work just fine. Feel free to do this, just use caution.

However, I'm currently DMing a campaign that is a continuation of another campaign I played in, during which a vital macguffin was magically bonded to my character, and said macguffin is needed for the current campaign as well. Removing it from the character requires either killing him or retconning the inseparability of the item, which is disrespectful to the prior campaign's story and at this point doesn't explain why, now that they are once again on a dangerous quest, my character would abandon his friends.

He is a mechanically complicated Wizard-Rogue multiclass who is really just a whole additional layer of additional mechanical crap I have to juggle during any encounter. Whereas a mechanically simple character can be thrown to the players, none of them want the burden of managing this guy. I mostly relegate him to the background which really doesn't fit his character as it existed prior. His presence was justified game-balance-wise when he entered into the current quest rounding out a party with 3 PCs, but then two more players joined and if anything he just makes the party overpowered now. The only part of it all that really works is that he has expertise in Arcana, so he's a great mouthpiece for DM exposition dumps.

I guess if I felt comfortable spending player character spotlight time on my own personal character or telling the group what to do then this would just be a problem of juggling an additional mechanically complicated piece in combat. But I really don't think a DM's character should be taking an active role in group decisions (since the DM knows the actual likely consequences of those decisions) nor should they be in the spotlight unless the players push their character there on some particular occasion. So I'm not really getting to have much of the fun of roleplaying a character, just the mental burden of keeping one more plate spinning the whole time. Hopefully I'll find a way to get rid of him that I'm happy with sooner rather than later.

 

[Lanefan]

I've gone one further and played where each player had two pc's. It works fairly well, although "find a fourth player" is usually a better option.

2 PCs at a time is standard here particularly at low levels where one (or both) could die at any minute. With four players our average party size is 6-10, running modifed 1e.

It's probably also worth pointing out that which edition you're running can have a huge impact on how important 'party roles' are - in 5e you really don't need to think about them at all, for instance.

Interesting - I was under the impression 5e had brought back a bit of niche protection. If differentiation between the classes is really that small, why bother with classes at all?

 

[Lanefan]

so your position is in most D&D games there’s absolutely no difference between PCs and NPCs?

Ideally, yes. The characters are all equally inhabitant in the fictional world and as far as possible I want their mechanics and interactions to reflect that, with the specific intention that unless you somehow know who is playing who (e.g. by looking at game logs or sitting at the table) you can't tell the difference.

For example, take two characters from my current Sunday night game:

Gretta - 8th-level Fighter, Part-Orc, female, N-aligned, specialized in longsword, currently on her third adventure in this game.
Vantos - 8th-level Cleric, Human, male, LG-aligned, deity is a variant on Apollo, currently on his seventh adventure in this game.

Over the last while these two have become the heart and soul of their current party. They're also both stinkin' rich, having come through a couple of very lucrative adventures without too much mishap.

Without looking at my online game records, are they both PCs; or is just one (and if so, which one); or is neither?

 

[jmartkdr2]

2 PCs at a time is standard here particularly at low levels where one (or both) could die at any minute. With four players our average party size is 6-10, running modifed 1e.

Interesting - I was under the impression 5e had brought back a bit of niche protection. If differentiation between the classes is really that small, why bother with classes at all?

It's not that classes play the same - it's that there's nothing essential that a pc can't try to do. Anyone can attempt to pick locks - but a rogue who specializes in that will do it a lot better. So a party without a rogue isn't stuck when they reach a locked door.

Or, more meaningfully: you don't need magical healing. You have a decent-sized pool of self-healing available. Magical healing is helpful but not essential. Ergo, a party for four fighters can complete any adventure. The details wpould look different, but it's possible

 

[Cadence]

For example, take two characters from my current Sunday night game:

I had one where each player had two characters. One was made by usual PC rules, and the other was made with slightly less as a hireling the main party members would pick up in town to help (aka red shirts).

Most players ended up needing to hire someone new every few times. One of the red shirts ended up doing better than the player's main character did.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

Ideally, yes. The characters are all equally inhabitant in the fictional world and as far as possible I want their mechanics and interactions to reflect that, with the specific intention that unless you somehow know who is playing who (e.g. by looking at game logs or sitting at the table) you can't tell the difference.

For example, take two characters from my current Sunday night game:

Gretta - 8th-level Fighter, Part-Orc, female, N-aligned, specialized in longsword, currently on her third adventure in this game.
Vantos - 8th-level Cleric, Human, male, LG-aligned, deity is a variant on Apollo, currently on his seventh adventure in this game.

Over the last while these two have become the heart and soul of their current party. They're also both stinkin' rich, having come through a couple of very lucrative adventures without too much mishap.

Without looking at my online game records, are they both PCs; or is just one (and if so, which one); or is neither?

I didn’t ask your ideal situation, I asked if PCs and NPCs being equal in all ways was the norm at most D&D games.

 

[Lanefan]

I didn’t ask your ideal situation, I asked if PCs and NPCs being equal in all ways was the norm at most D&D games.

And how am I supposed to know that?

I know the case in the games I run and the game I play in (the DM of which shares a similar outlook). Were I to find myself playing at a table where it worked differently I'd raise questions until and unless I was satisfied with the answers.