How do you feel about DM PCs?

[Phazzar]

My players actually wanted me to make a DM PC to make it so it was a 4 character group. I didn't want to steal the spotlight from the players or anything so to solve this I made a half-orc barbarian that has 6 INT and 6 CHA.

Temp the barbarian is too stupid to come up with any good ideas, but he is extremely loyal to the PCs, and will do anything they ask usually. Many times I find it alright to let the players' decide Temp's next action. He will try to help when necessary but for some strange reason unknown to the players he never seems to get the finishing blow on any tough enemy. I obviously lie, but they don't know that. When loot is handed out Temp offers to not take any as he doesn't need any magic to slay an orc. He has one +1 greataxe that the players gave to him as a gift. He thanked them greatly.

I find that a DM PC can be alright as long as they hardly do anything to upstage the players.

 

[haakon1]

IMO, there are only two times DM PCs are justified:

- You are introducing brand-new players to the game for the first time, and want a character to help show them the ropes. This should not continue after the first session.

- You have a continuing game with two or fewer players (though with two players, I'd rather see both running two characters than have a DM PC).

You left out the third time it's justified: when the people playing the game decide it's a fun thing to do. Usually, this occurs because the DM likes to play the game and doesn't get a chance to otherwise, or because the players want to rotate who does the DMing.

Luckily, there's no law against doing what you want in D&D.

 

[haakon1]

I agree with this completely. For example, in my Savage Tides game, there is an NPC with the party, Grom Goldenbeard - Cleric of Moradin/5, that has been part of the party since 1st level. He is there to aid the PCs, certainly doesn't hog any spotlight, and also has his own idiosyncracies, history, etc.

It is fun to see them interact with him, and rely on him for healing, but he is likely the lowest party member on the spotlight scale.

He makes mistakes too, and the PCs don't always take what he says as a vehicle for the DM to nudge the party along. He sometimes says the wrong thing when asked.

Nod. I also use the "DMPC" in my email game (a wizard/sorcerer, and no that's not a min/max'dly effective combo) as an in character source for info like "yeah, we could try to walk way back there again to the the cave to spend the night, but since it's 4 pm now, it'll probably be dark before we get there". It's hard for people to remember stuff like that (it's 4 pm, it's winter, the ol' cave is 10 miles away) in a slow moving email game.

 

[Rothe]

PC or constant NPC? PC to means more of an active decision making role. I try to make the game about PC decisions, when I as a DM or another chimes in, it's very hard to decide if your suggestion about the best course of action is based on DM only information.
I generally don't care for them.

 

[haakon1]

PC or constant NPC? PC to means more of an active decision making role. I try to make the game about PC decisions, when I as a DM or another chimes in, it's very hard to decide if your suggestion about the best course of action is based on DM only information.
I generally don't care for them.

Are you asking about mine?

I'd say mine is a PC. Two reasons:
1) He's been with the party since they first recruited him (along with a few others who have died off or retired since) as a NPC in a tavern at the Keep on the Borderlands.
2) I treat him like I would any other PC in the big (8 character, 6 players plus DM) party.
3) Together, that means he doesn't know anything special that the PC's don't already know (though in some cases the players forget). Nobody takes his opinions as being especially right or wrong. I can and do separate my knowledge from his knowledge, as I'd do with any NPC . . . or any PC.

He's definitely not the decision maker -- the party has an elected leader, and it's not him. The leader, who is a lower class grunt fighter, has an "interesting" storm but comradely relationship with my noble-birth (but younger son, didn't inherit anything) educated scholarly type. A bit like O'Neil and Dr. Jackson in StarGate SG1.

He's not the best spellcaster (taking a level of sorcerer means he has more supporting spells to give, but can't cast as high level -- he's limited to 2nd level spells when the party is 5th-7th level). I enjoy role-playing him, and the other players enjoy him too. He's neither the least nor most respected/influential member of the party. Least respected would be the silly druid PC -- who is getting less silly lately -- and most respected is probably the leader/main swordarm or the clever, crafty monk.

Basically, he's one of the gang. It's similar to how one of the players is running two characters (doesn't much matter on email) or how one of the players inherited an NPC now turned PC of a different gender from the player. Essentially, over email, the lines between player and character are sharper, while the line between NPC and PC is more easily crossed. From a role-playing depth POV, it's a neat experiment. From a speed of combat perspective, ugh, it's lucky we're all patient!

 

[Gort]

I'm a DM, and I really wouldn't want to run a DMPC. I'm not very hot on running other players characters for them, either. I'd prefer not to run a session if players can't make it.

Generally speaking, it's enough work running the opposition in a combat already, without having to run the players as well!