How do you feel about DM PCs?

[Psion]

I had something funny happen last night.

For the last month or two, I've been in the player's seat, and playing the DM's character as a second character because we have too few players right now.

But I ran a game last night. The route of "letting a player run the DMs PC" sort of became a norm, and so I let one of the players play my character.

During a combat with a swarm, I couldn't help but think "she would flaming hands the swarm!". But she didn't, and I bit my lip, because I didn't want to be making player-esque decision from behind the DM screen and appear like I am super-heroing my PC.

The player also never re-did the spell selection for my PC; she had a spell selection tuned to mystery-hunting when she really needed an ass-kicking configuration for this adventure. So she came off a little weak.

 

[shilsen]

These PNPCs have been accepted as full party members by the players, and I don’t think they will take too kindly to me having them leave the group without a good reason.

I had a very similar thing happen in an Eberron game I was running. A player dropped out at a point when his PC couldn't really leave, so I NPCed the PC for a few weeks. After that, I tried to make him leave, but the other players refused, both IC and OOC, saying they wanted him around and liked what I'd done with him. I'd keep asking them after every couple of months and they never let him go. So I got to run a DMPC under duress

Yet, since they are NPCs after all (and I have taken a liking to them) and I want to avoid having them become DMPCs, I am going to ask my players at the end of the mission what I should do with them. If they want these PNPCs to stay or leave I will leave up to my players to decide and I will abide by their choice. I think that is only fair for me as a GM and for them as players.

Sounds like a smart plan.

 

[Heathansson]

i think you can make them interesting without being a gloryhog. Also, it makes it easier to insert a scumbag doppelganger or some other npc with wicked designs on the party if every npc that joins the party ISN"T one.

 

[BlackMoria]

As a player, a DM PC doesn't bother me as long as the character is not a Mary Sue or something to stroke the ego of the DM. Our group has always used DM PCs since our group shares DMing duties. Any DM PCs run by any DM of the moment are normal characters - no more intuitive than any other character, no more time in the spotlight than normal PCs and no less in danger (In fact, most of our DMs will have the 'extra' attack or creature go after the DM PC)

As a DM, I find them useful. Then again, my definition of a DM PC may differ than others. A DM PC is a NPC that more than the run of the mill effort is invested in running the character, which a NPC that is going to be a fully contributing member of the party should be run - with more focus and effort than the normal bit part NPCs that all DMs use.

Most DM PCs in our campaign, are characters who usually 'top up' a party by fillling a role than is lacking. If the party needs a cleric because noone wants to play one, then Bob the DM PC cleric is more interesting and more meaningful to the party if Bob the cleric is 'just like them' (has a distinct personality, has goals and ambitions, has fears and reservations)rather than a 'tag-along' walking medic who cast spells on demand and contributes little else.

Of course, everyone's point of view of DM PCs will be colored by their experience with them. Our group's experience with them has been nothing but postive.

 

[jollyninja]

I hate them when they take the position of equal or superior to the PC's. With that said, I have run a knight's squire for him or a wizard's apprentice. If the PC's hire a cleric or some other class to get them through a spot they lack the skills for, I'll run it so it doesn't end up as fodder.

I Played with a GM who played, in a series of campaigns, A gold dragon that was polymorphed, a unicorn that was polymorphed, a Klingon, and a character who was three levels higher then the group each was played all the way through the campaign and given tailor made treasure while the specialized fighter was forced to work with suboptimal weapons, the rogue could never find anyone who sold masterwork thieves tools ect. I was very against the concept of DMPC's after that.

 

[sniffles]

As a player I've never experienced one of the "Mary Sue" type of DMPC, fortunately. I don't generally have much problem with the idea of the GM running a regular NPC. In my experience such characters are there just to shore up holes in party skills or abilities, and they generally recede into the background and let the PCs do most of the work, which is fine with me.

I have run into the DMPC as impediment, though, which I'm not very fond of. I've seen one GM run his as constant irritants that got the party into trouble and used up resources without really contributing anything useful most of the time. That got old.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

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.

You've described what most of us would refer to as an NPC. NPCs that travel with the party -- minor support characters, temporary plot-necessary, hirelings, etc, are fine.

A DMPC, in my definition, is a character that the DM runs as his own, so he can play and DM -- and often, that PC steals the spotlight from other players, does things the players can't, or is otherwise treated in a special manner. I absolutely hate DM PCs. Either play or DM, don't try to do both at the same time. When you do, the other players suffer.

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).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I recently used GMPCs twice.

First time was okay ... but the character was lower level, designed to be useful but incapable of overshadowing the PCs and I let the players control him. It was almost like creating a new "shared and wimpier PC". As a result, they accidentally led him into a trap (that also caught one of the PCs). He got injured but didn't die. (He nearly got caught by a second trap. Sometimes I wonder...)

If I were controlling him, I don't know if I would have made him avoid the trap, subconsciously or not.

The second time, one GMPC was totally useless (had the same skill set as one of the PCs but was lower level), one stole the show too much (had support skills that turned out to be too important), one was deliberately a red shirt, and one was supposed to backstab the PCs. (He avoided detection and tried to attack at the critical moment, but failed due to a massive crit. Ouch.) Based on that experience, my 13 years* of gaming experience are not enough to run a proper GMPC.

* Which probably really only counts as about five years, but whatever.

GMPCs are so hard to do right that a lot of otherwise good GMs mess it up. The desire to do so confuses me, actually. The first case, the GMPC was originally a "base camp" NPC doctor. The heroes went to him for healing and advice. They requested him to go with them on a single quest, and since he had a non-adventuring life, of course they didn't stick around once the quest was complete.

The second was an adventure that I ripped off from a novel - I reduced the cast of GMPCs from sixteen to four, but it still didn't feel right. It wasn't realistic that only the red shirt would get targeted by bad guys, for instance, but I didn't want to waste time controlling three or four additional characters or even put them on the map.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

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.

 

[fusangite]

The PCs are the protagonists in the story. How can you tell? Because they are in every major scene in the story. If someone else is, then they too are a main character.

In my view, a balanced game is one in which the PCs are the main characters. As a DM, I get more than enough enjoyment creating the world, populating it and structuring the plot.

Let the players shine in this one area for God's sake.