DM's and NPC's.. questions

[Moebius]

I DM a small group, and have a tendency to play a full-time NPC as part of the party. I do that to help beef up the party a bit, and to test out new and different things in 3E. I started out with a monk, and that was subsequently taken up by a player that joined. I then moved to a Bard. I don't particularly enjoy the bard, and feel they are rather underpowered. I'd rather move on to something else.

Do any other DM's do the same? Run an NPC as part of the party? I'm looking for what to move to next. The party I run is a 4th Dwarven Cleric, 5th Elven Wizard, 4th Elven Monk, 5th Elven Rogue. My bard is a 5th human. What would be a good addition to the party that would:
A. be fun to play (even exotic), for me and for the party.
B. not be too unbalancing, or taking a lot away from the party. I don't want to usurp any of their roles.

What all do YOU play, should you do the same?

 

[RogueJK]

How about a Psychic Warrior? Depending on how good the Monk and Rogue are in combat, the party seems to lack a melee fighter. If they handle the melee just fine, consider a Psychic Warrior archer.

Another idea is to introduce something exotic... perhaps a Samurai or Shugenja who has traveled from the Oriental portion of your campaign world.

[Edit] What about a quirky character? Maybe a Gnome Artificer who is always trying to get the party to try out his wacky creations. Or a charismatic swashbuckler who is always getting the party in trouble by hitting on the wrong women. [/Edit]

 

[twjensen]

4 is a typical party

So I'm not sure that I'd play ANYTHING as DM with a group of 4. If I only had three players, I'd play whatever was underrepresented. (The canonical party has a rogue, a fighter, a wizard and a cleric). So if I had three players who were a rogue, a druid, and a monk I might play a wizard or sorcerer to bring some arcane magic into the mix, for example.

DM's generally don't get to play

But DM's do get cosmic power.

 

[Moebius]

Quirky was kinda my thought as well. I have the psionics handbook (haven't read it yet.. no one seemed too interested.) No oriental sourcebooks.

the party does melee fairly well. I'm thinking perhaps an illusionist, or something of the sort. maybe i'll dig through my dragon magazines and see if any PRC's seem to hit the spot (and be balanced!)

 

[poilbrun]

Right now, I DM a campaign with ONE player, and even then, I do not play a NPC. But then, the story is player-driven, not DM-driven... Even in my campaigns with more players, I either try to make the adventures that fit the composition of the party, or, to the contrary, its weakness. My players usually do not like me to give them the solutions to their problems. If they decide to create a party with 4 wizards, they do not want me to add two fighters to the party, that would spoil their fun.

However, to help you and answer your question : I'd play an apprentice of one of the players. It could be great fun both for you and the player to have his apprentice play with him. You could make him level 1 now and use the rules in the FRCS for XP progression so that he slowly reaches a level below his "master" (and is useful : as a level 1, he won't be useful now). This has three benefits : first, it doesn't take anything from the players (if you use an original NPC, the risk is that you'll have to play his "originality" during an encounter with another NPC... and according to my experience, nothing bores the players more than the DM playing all alone!); second, it adds a twist in the story for the master of the NPC; third, it adds power without bringing too much change to the game, since the powers of the NPC will be very much alike the powers of one of the PC...

 

[Crothian]

I have main NPCs that the party can have as part of the group, but I don't require they do. The NPCs do help with the story, but also in combat. Mostly I shy away from characters that excel at areas i want the PCs to cover like the role playing.

I had a half elf ranger that idolized one of the PCs, I've had a dwarven bard who sang the praises of one of the PCs, I even had a gnome who jioned them to write their autobiographies. So, it's good to have a little quirks in the charater.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I usually play with fun and interesting characters as one-shot NPCs, the kind that the party is likely to see once and only once, rather than a character who's going to constantly steal the limelight away from the PCs. As a DM, I get my fun out of creating the world and creating the personalities that fill it, and leave the cool combat maneuvers, etc. to the players to enjoy.

That said, I do currently run two NPCs in the party (my party has three players, who chose wizard, rogue/psion, and bard) so that they have the melee muscle to survive. Right now I have a monk and a druid, but plan to swap out the druid for just plain fighter. I was going to swap out the monk too, (and perhaps only play the one NPC fighter) but the players had already grown attached to the character and told me not to.

 

[mtbdm]

DM characters

DMs playing characters is usually a bad idea. They tend to steal the party's glory. Also, the PCs tend to accuse the DM of favoritism. And finally, how can the DM have the character remain truly objective. The DM KNOWS where the next spiked pit is. The character should not.
In any case, if you want a guiding hand or hint mechanism in the game, why not try a talking item or talking weapon? It skirts the problems nicely.

 

[Moebius]

Number 1. I never give away any plot devices, traps, hidden things, knowledge etc. that is DM knowledge only, while assuming an NPC. Obviously.

Number 2. My players have never once in all my years of DMing accused me of favoritism. Why? Because I do not play favorites.

Number 3. My NPC's help out with firepower, and skills. He/She never makes a suggestion that would not come naturally to a player. I do not draw conclusions for them. If THEY can't draw conclusions, then neither can my character.

I DO like the idea of a squire/apprentice. I don't have the FRCS, but I can come up with something rather good. As a point of note, the party has a hobgoblin that owes them his life, which follows them around. They are slowly educating it. THAT might be a fun avenue, if somewhat limited.

An intelligent weapon is a great idea for a little further on.

I think someting more unique than another "character" would be nice. A spice to their lives. Thanks for all the brainstorms and ideas! They're great!

 

[Magus_Jerel]

Personally, with four players - there are only two situations in which I would consider running a "sleeper NPC" to help the party.

1. There was a need for a guide or "wilderness survival" - in which case the party usually found a Ranger familiar with the area.

2. The party did not have access to healing by magical means, in which case I would consider running a wandering cleric.

For My own personal game -
If there is only one player, I run highly individualized sessions - tailored to what the player wishes to do.

If there are two players - especially now given 3e and depending on their experience at the game, I usually consider letting them each run two characters

If there are three or more players, I STRONGLY encourage the players to design their characters to work together - considering the following elements.

1. Magical Healing
2. Magical Firepower
3. Survival in the wild
4. The ability to stand toe to toe with the "enemy"
5. Stealth and subtlety sometimes work better than kicking in the door.
6. When it is a matter of kicking in the door - timing is everything.


I tell players not to think of themselves as a "one man army" - but rather as members of a "special forces squad".

I once had a partiy of 4 characters sneak up on a fortress - and using a whole lot of sneaking around and dirty tactics - take the entire castle, and kill or capture all 600 defenders. Cloudkill can be a VERY nasty spell, and flaming oil in the right spot can be one heck of a diversion.

It has been My experience that the balance between the "kick in the door style" of play and "deep immersion storytelling" is critical to the ultimate mix of the party. A great deal of "modules" rely upon the former, whereas the latter requires much more of a true campaign setting to work.

Given the party you have mentioned previously, I would consider running a Ranger type character in "wilderness style" adventures - but not much else, unless the PC's ASKED for a particular character to accompany them on a mission.