Can a DM have a PC

[trumbeller]

I'm beginning to put together a D&D group with a bunch of new players. I will be the only person in the group with any familiarity with the game, and as a result I will be the DM. I am also very new to D&D. I started playing with 4th edition, and have only played once a week for about 6 months. I do have a good grasp of the game mechanics, since all I know is 4th edition, so I want to take a shot at running a campaign, or at least some adventures.

At least one other player has shown great interest in being the DM (he's already reading the DMG) and as a result I feel that I could very easily break up the load of running a campaign between two people. The problem is that our group is already pretty small (4 people), and without forcing an npc or two into the group for all encounters, I won't be able to run the adventures the way they are presented.

Basically, I'm just wondering if any of you have experience playing as both a PC & a DM. Aside from me knowing what is going on in the campaign (I can just stay silent and not reveal the correct choices), are there any other issues that can be present playing this way? Should I start by creating just random dungeons and using the Dungeon Delve book for short adventures,
or should I start with Keep on the Shadowfell?

 

[relmskye]

Personally, I find it incredibly awkward to control creatures on both sides of an encounter. Playing against yourself can be very offputting.

If you're comfortable with it, you could have a PC, but relinquish control of your character to the other players while you're DMing. He should probably not say very much during this time, and mostly be there to make up the numbers and allow for some party continuity.

I use NPCs to make up the numbers all the time, relinquishing control of them to my party, and my players have a lot of fun with that. NPCs are a little better for this than full-fledged player characters, of course, as they are a lot less complicated; One extra PC between three players should be easy enough to handle though.

 

[Mesh Hong]

"Can a DM have a PC?"

Short answer - Yes
longer answer - Yes, but they shouldn't

Personally my advice would be for your players to control an extra character between them. This would remove you from any involvement in its development or actions, which would mean that you could never be accused of any bias or favouratism (which might happen it it was your character).

 

[Starfox]

For me, this is a matter of logistics, not role-play. Since I often have helpful NPCs aiding the party, even coming up with all sorts of wild ideas and suggestions (which are far from always wise), I don't have the problem with playing both sides of the screen. However, 4E makes being a player almost as tough-demanding as being the DM. To really run a character right in encounters takes quite a bit of brain power, which you really should be saving for your monsters.

My suggestion is to make two versions of your character - one as a PC you run when the other player GMs, one as an NPC using the rules from the DMG that you play when you are a DM. You might want to give your NPC-self extra healing surges, but otherwise use the NPC rules - you'll find your NPC version is in shorthand and needs much less brain power to run.

 

[WhatGravitas]

...and without forcing an npc or two into the group for all encounters, I won't be able to run the adventures the way they are presented.

Actually, we run KotS with a smaller group as well (3 PCs) - just bump the PC level by 2, it compensates (more or less) for the difference in numbers, though in that case the group should either have a dedicated leader (as a smaller group will draw more fire focussed on single group members).

It's working as well, fits the XP budget and you don't have to handle any hassle. Just tell the players in advance that they might want to keep an eye on their more squishy characters (but they should do that anyway!).

Cheers, LT.

 

[hailstop]

For me, this is a matter of logistics, not role-play. Since I often have helpful NPCs aiding the party, even coming up with all sorts of wild ideas and suggestions (which are far from always wise), I don't have the problem with playing both sides of the screen. However, 4E makes being a player almost as tough-demanding as being the DM. To really run a character right in encounters takes quite a bit of brain power, which you really should be saving for your monsters.

My suggestion is to make two versions of your character - one as a PC you run when the other player GMs, one as an NPC using the rules from the DMG that you play when you are a DM. You might want to give your NPC-self extra healing surges, but otherwise use the NPC rules - you'll find your NPC version is in shorthand and needs much less brain power to run.

This.

I tried running a 10th level cleric as an PC-NPC when the leader in our party was away for awhile. I gave up after the first session. All the different encounter, daily, magic item powers plus feats made running the PC-NPC a nightmare when trying to run the other monsters too.

I was going to try making him an NPC using the rules from the DMG, but then our leader came back, so I didn't have to.

 

[Obryn]

I think my old buddy maddman put it best.

"A DM who runs a PC has violated the mandate of heaven."

Well, I thought it worked, anyway.

I wouldn't, pure and simple. Believe me, you will have enough on your plate as it is. Also, it will ensure you don't walk down the garden path to some really horrible DMing... Really, it's the first step down that road.

Running NPCs is fine, but you should make sure that (1) the PCs are all more skilled and knowledgable than the NPC whenever possible; and (2) the NPC doesn't single-handedly take care of problems and leave the PCs as observers.

Now, skilled DMs can walk the balance beam and make certain they don't make these mistakes. But until you have a good idea of what is or is not fun for your players, I'd avoid it.

Edit: And if your goal is just to help the players out, just step out from behind the screen and help them out directly. Communicating it through a DMPC is pretty transparent and unhelpful, IMO.

-O

 

[FunkBGR]

It can be done.

Make sure it SHOULD be done.

In my case, I had two PC's - one was new to the game, and the other is a roleplayer that hardly remembers the rules. They had DM PC's up the wazoo.

The main thing to remember if you choose to add one is that your character must always take second in a race to first with another PC. You should try to never steal the limelight from the actual PC's.

 

[JoeNotCharles]

I had our striker drop out of my campaign due to other commitments, leaving us with only 3 PC's. Because I already had a bunch of encounters planned that I didn't want to rebalance (especially to compensate for lack of a striker) I brought in an NPC who was one level lower than the rest of the party. I'm making no attempt to play him optimally (in fact, he's a bit of a doofus who's constantly using the wrong power) but that's fine - easier on me, he doesn't take any spotlight off the players (in fact he's the comic relief a lot of the time) but he still contributes so the encounters are only slightly more difficult than they would have been with 4 real PC's.

 

[Derulbaskul]

I'm not a fan of DM PCs. If there is need for another PC I would prefer to create a PC and have the players share responsibility. We did this very successfully a few years ago with the party cleric.

We all agreed the cleric's basic objectives and motivations and the players used him by group consensus. When there was no consensus (or too much time being wasted on achieving consensus), I would step in as DM and make a ruling based on the already agreed basic objectives and motivations of the cleric (I think this happened maybe twice).

I think this is a better option that having a DM PC.