How do you feel about DM PCs?

[Gnome]

I saw DM PCs listed as an annoyance in the "DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears" thread. As a DM who has occasionally run a character that adventures alongside the party, I'm curious as to why this is annoying to some. Is it the overall concept, or is it a case where the DM is too nice to his own character?

I personally tend to do support types of characters to bolster the party who can fade into the background, like a bard or the like.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

IMO theres a big difference between a DMPC and an NPC who is with the party.

 

[adwyn]

The DM PC or favored NPC has in my experience always either (or more often both) sidelined the other PCs or allowed for poor adventure design because the DM has his Deus ex Machina right there.

In a well run game there is little reason for a perpetual NPC that exists entirely out of the control of the players - if one is necessary make it a PC run henchman and things usually go better.

 

[ElvishBard]

Personally, I have found the DM NPC to be a fantastic thing. The most important thing to remember is that your supposed to enhance the players, not hog the spotlight. So what I do is play a bard. This allows me to heal, enhance damage, and have some useful buffs, not to mention the gathering information that I can tell the players about that they wouldn't have known.

I have seen bad DM NPCs though. One of my friends was DM, and he had a dwarf who joined us, wouldn't talk, ended up attacking us after turning into a werewolf for no reason and running off. Did I mention that he was the only character with magic items?

 

[jmucchiello]

We have three DMs running adventures for the same characters, taking turns every 4-6 weeks. Each DM is thus a player 2/3 of the time and his character becomes a DMPC when he DMs. With two other DMs at the table, the DMPC can't really become the focus of the game which is the usual problem with DMPCs.

 

[Odhanan]

Well I don't mind really, if it's not about the ego of the DM. If you want to run a PC with the players because the character thus can get the sword the other DM didn't want to give the character, or get the long awaited confrontation with villain XX, or do whatever has a remote link to metagame issues, then don't.

Otherwise, why not?

When running the last two games of the Seven Spires, I was actually asked by the players to bring back the PC I was running while not the DM in the game for the last games, so the whole group would be together for the climax. Everyone agreed, so I brought the character back. There was no problem with that.

 

[Fishbone]

I've found that when they are ran as actual party members with flaws, idiosyncracies, acting on the knowledge they would normally have, being in danger with all the other PCs, and so on and so forth that they are pretty fun, and not an ubertastic build meant to show the others up that they are not just appropriate but welcome. The thing is that usually isn't the case. They're strong builds with access to very strong feats, stronger items than they should have, aren't in danger because the DM doesn't want them in danger, and are acting on knowledge they have no right to having.

 

[Shadowslayer]

They don't bother me as a player, and as a DM I use them all the time. Usually in combat, one of the other players takes control of it. (The DM can veto a choice based on RP...but I've never had to)

 

[Psion]

It all depends on the DM.

An immature DM will create a "pet npc" and outshine/annoy the players.

A good DM will create an NPC that becomes actively involved in the party to shore up party weaknesses or for plot reason, but won't lend this NPC more spotlight time than the PCs.

 

[scourger]

Unfortunately, my expereince with it is universally bad--including when I DM. Either the DMPCs are the focus of the adventure in some way or the players think they are. Either way, it's less fun for the players. So, I just stopped doing it. I'm at the game table to play or DM, not both at the same time.