Playing as both DM and a player

[BlackMoria]

I am in takyris's camp. I have for years and years, had use what some would call a DMPC in my campaign. We are a small group and there is always gaps in characaters - because everyone wants to play the character they want, not a character they have to because of a need or a lack. My DMPC fill in the gaps.

So, what is a DMPC in my definition?

There is four types of NPCs in my campaign.

The lowest level NPC is simply window dressing characters. They may or may not have a name. They don't have stat blocks. Their purpose is to give the PCs a sense that the fantasy world is dynamic and living. The PCs can interact with them but they usually don't provide any sense of direction for the characters.

The next level is the plot device characters. This NPC will have a name and description. He may or may not have a stat block. His purpose is to inteact with the PCs and provide information (usually plot related) that the PCs may or may not followup on.

The next level is the antagonist/protangonist NPC. These are the villains and friends to the PCs. They always have names and descriptions. They always have stat blocks. They are the NPCs that the PCs are meant to beat upon or interact with with at a level that is more than just casual.

The final level is what many in this thread would call a DMPC. This NPC is a member of the party. Besides a name and stat block, this character has a complete back story and history. He is close friend and comrade of the PCs, sharing their hopes and fears, and their victories and defeats. He is the NPC that I put the most effort into developing and roleplaying his interaction with the party members, because he is a constant companion and a full time member of the party. And I want him to be a fully 3D character, not some rogue or cleric hollow paper doll character who follow around the party to heal them or disarm traps.

The BBEG is someone the PCs don't have conversations with around a fire at night, or to discuss the ramifications of this or that, or to ask his opinion. The BBEG is someone the PCs want to beatdown, not blow the froth off a cold pint in the tavern with.

If this NPC is what most would call a DMPC, then that is what he is then. He never overshadows the other PCs, he never reveals or understands more that what he would know as a party member, and he never is the party lead. He never get special treatment or favoritism as my 'DMPC'. He doesn't get any magic items or treasure unless the rest of the party gives it to him. And he is just a much a punching bag for monsters as the other PCs, if not more so.

I can partition what this NPC knows from what I, as DM knows. Many times, the players would try to pump me (the DM) for information through this NPC but they have never gotten anywhere. To them, he is no different that another PC being run by a player, except, in this case, the player just happens to be the DM.

I have asked time and again over the years if the players have a problem with the DMPCs of mine and they have all repeatedly said no. In fact, they prefer them because it means they can focus on their characters exclusively and adventure with the knowledge that the NPCs are more than just two dimensional tag alongs who cast a cure spell or disarm a trap on cue...

Granted, not all DMs can handle this. And I can understand why some players would have their reservations about DMPCs. But there is no right or wrong about it.... it is dependent upon the DM, the players and the nuances of the campaign if it works or not.

 

[S'mon]

If this NPC is what most would call a DMPC, then that is what he is then.

Well, that's the thing. If the GM regards this character as an NPC, it doesn't matter what you call them, there's no problem. But the title of this thread is "Playing as both DM and a player", and that to me is always a very bad idea.

 

[S'mon]

Incidentally, I often have PC-like NPCs in my games, though they rarely stick with the group for long without becoming a cohort.

 

[pennywiz]

Pennywiz: Good loophole on the Buffy note.

Loophole? Why do you hold your nose and pick up the truth with tongs?

As for DMs not being able to help doing it, that might just possibly say a bit more about you than it says about all DMs everywhere in the whole world. Any DM who doesn't leave the room when his players talk in character about how to attack the big bad guy has to practice information comparmentalization, drawing a line between what he the DM knows and what the big bad guy knows. A DM who can't draw the line between what a tag-along NPC knows and what he the DM knows is going to have problems all across the board. That's no different from a player failing to separate his knowledge from his character's knowledge.

Although you're right -- I did give my DMPC special treatment, now that I think about it. I treated her specially by not taking time for any solo missions with her, not making magical items tailored specifically to her character as I did with all the other PCs, and not spending as much time looking for rules loopholes to keep her alive as I did for the other PCs when a freak critical hit took her down. Yeah, I abused the heck out of that wall of information. My bad.

But I'm sure that the flat "It can't be done" statements carry more weight than the people here who have said, "I do it, and my players don't mind," or "I do it, and my players are happy with it and actually like it." I'm sure everyone here who said that they've done it and not had a problem is deluding themselves.

You're still kidding yourself. PCs, as run by players, have the opportunity during games to have genuine epiphanies as they explore the world revealed by the DM and interact with NPCs. An NPC or PC, as run by the DM, simply cannot ever have such a moment, no true epiphanies. There's no objective way for this to happen and thus no way for a DM to properly run a PC, which needs to have the ability of discovery. It really is that simple.

Couple that with the fact that because a PC run by a DM has the kind of insider knowledge that disallows such moments, PCs run by Players can never interact with a PC run by a DM as part of a party without the fact that it is run by the DM always in their mind. Players treat a PC run by a DM differently and react differently to what a PC run by a DM says and does. A PC run by a DM can never properly lead a party, as any PC in a party should be able to do, for good or ill.

A DM's inside knowledge is not akin to a Player's meta-game knowledge. In an extreme example, even if a Player read through everything a DM ever put on paper, in regard to their campaign world, the DM alone can make actual changes, sometimes right in the moment and during the game.

It is silly for you to continue to claim that a DM, with his particular knowledge, can maintain a level of objectiveity that a player, even in the most extreme of meta circumstances, actually has without even trying. You're still kidding yourself.

 

[pennywiz]

Granted, not all DMs can handle this. And I can understand why some players would have their reservations about DMPCs. But there is no right or wrong about it.... it is dependent upon the DM, the players and the nuances of the campaign if it works or not.

It isn't a matter of handling it or not. It isn't a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of what can be done and what cannot. The objectivity of a Player cannot be held, let alone truly mimicked, by a DM. The ability to have moments of true discovery just doesn't exist for the DM in his own campaign world.

 

[pogre]

As long as the above stays true, you've answered your own question.

joe b.

I was about to denigrate your DMPC, but then I realized jgb is 100% correct! No such thing as bad fun.

 

[caudor]

This thread evolved into a very interesting disussion. Thanks to all for the input.

I think jgb was right in that: it all boils down to having fun. And we've had plenty of that.

I've been reflecting on the discussion--specifically on the "DMPC" vs "NPC" points made. I'd say I view/use him as an NPC in the party to fill a gap--he sometimes cracks jokes, at other times lends support to the party, sometimes gets in trouble, and he adds an element of personality the players enjoy. I'm careful not to allow him to steal the spotlight, but then again he's not apt to stand back and allow his friends die when things get ugly. More often than not, they end up saving him.

I certainly don't view this NPC as 'my player character'. I see him as a very fleshed out, important NPC filling a role that could be replaced by another player should one come along. So I think the title I created for the thread could have been better worded.

I have my own PC which I play on those rare opportunites I get to be an actual player. By the way, one of my players wants to try his hand at DMing and is preparing the Hamlet of Thumble..which I'm excited about. I'll have to roll up new a 1st level character for this one.

Thanks again for the interesting discussion.

 

[reanjr]

1. Do your DMPCs get stories of their own which they pursue and take the lead in solving, like PCs do?
2. Do your DMPCs take the lead and play out scenes where they are the guys doing the talking, driving the scenes and basically have as frequently as the other "PCs" scenes where they are driving the action and the players are all watching the show?
3. Do they get their equal share of screen time and solution relevence?

if the answer to all these is "nah, that would be silly, thats what the PCs are for." then what you are describing are NPCs, right?

What is the difference, the defining traits that set DMPCs apart from NPCs in your games?

When I've done DMCs in the past, they would not get equal share of time, but there were certainly scenese where the character was driving the story, usually through being the primary interactive element with NPCs.

 

[takyris]

Loophole? Why do you hold your nose and pick up the truth with tongs?

Pennywiz, the only time I hold my nose and pick stuff up with tongs is when I'm scooping dog poop. If I'm doing that while dealing with your arguments, well...

You're still kidding yourself. PCs, as run by players, have the opportunity during games to have genuine epiphanies... (snip) ...no way for a DM to properly run a PC, which needs to have the ability of discovery. It really is that simple.

It certainly is that simple, provided that this is your definition of what it means to play a PC. This is obviously your definition of what it means to play a PC. It may not be everyone else's. And by "may not", I mean "is not", since I for one have a different definition, and thus invalidate it being everyone else's definition.

But please, continue to tell me I'm just kidding myself. That level of argument is bound to convince me sooner or later.

Couple that with the fact that because a PC run by a DM has the kind of insider knowledge that disallows such moments, PCs run by Players can never interact with a PC run by a DM as part of a party without the fact that it is run by the DM always in their mind.

You know, I think my players thought the same thing, right up until the point where the DMPC paladin's suggestion turned out to backfire massively. Man, I love playing Low-Intelligence characters. After that, they interacted with her just like anyone else. She had good suggestions involving evil outsiders and religious stuff, since she was a paladin, and otherwise, she was pretty much your basic Low-Int character.

More seriously, are you trying to say that there is only one form of interaction in the game? I'd suggest that there are at least two -- Plot-Based and Character-Based. Or that, at the very least, this is a useful classification to make.

NPCs tend to be better at plot-based information than PCs. The players rarely look to other PCs for information about where the duke's men are hiding or whether there's been unusual goblin activity lately -- although the judicious use of knowledge checks allows a slightly clumsy version of this, with the DM rolling, telling a given player what his PC knows, and then having the PC pass that information on. In a story hour, that would come across as the PC having plot-based interaction with another PC, but at the table, it's obvious that the DM is just feeding the PC the lines. (Which is unfortunate, as it puts a crimp in the style of a knowledge-based character, particularly a bard who enjoys using Lore -- but that's another thread.)

PCs tend to be better at character-based interaction, since they are a bit more free to banter and talk about their lives. The DM rarely has the childhood memories of Bridge Guard Number Two plotted out, and really, the players don't care about Number Two's childhood memories unless it directly relates to the plot (hence, Plot-based interaction). But two PCs can go back and forth without worry, since most of them have a decent background already, and are free to make up siblings or experiences on the spot without other worries.

A DMPC may or may not be any good at plot-based interaction with PCs -- that depends on what the DM is willing to do. Personally, I avoid it unless it's obvious that that's what the players want -- they want someone else to give them the information, rather than hunting it down from other folks in the town. Most of the time, my players would rather actually find the information out from NPCs. I don't want my players to abuse that, and my players have no interest in abusing it, any more than they'd be interested in using their money to hire mercenaries to go clear out the dungeon for them.

A DMPC can be the equal of a PC in the character-based interaction, however. That's the kind of interaction I enjoy when using a DMPC -- the interaction I don't get with the NPCs. If you read some of the other posts here, you'll note that I said flat-out that a DMPC was a self-interest thing, rarely if ever a for-the-good-of-the-group thing. As a DM in a group with nobody else who wants to play, the DMPC is my chance to get the relaxed back-and-forth dialogue around the campfire instead of just having NPC interactions involving the location of the monster, the weaknesses of the monster, and the treasure of the monster.

If you read the other posts, you'll also note that the conversation has evolved a bit. I don't believe anyone is saying that they actually want to run a PC while being the DM -- even the original poster, I believe, clarified his position. Saying DMPC instead of just PC was specifically to differentiate between a real PC and the DMPC -- and after answering some clarification questions, it seems clear to me that a DMPC is just an NPC that lets you have talks around the campfire. It can be played badly, of course, but so can any other NPC, from the "Blacksmith who is also a 20th level fighter and wears his Ring of Protection +5 and Bracers of Armor +10 while working, so you can't rob him" to "Serving girl who refuses to let the party into the lord's house without even allowing a Diplomacy or Bluff check, much less listening to our logical reasons for needing to get inside, because the DM has decided that the adventure module requires you to go clear the temple of Pelor before getting in to see the mayor, and heaven forbid we do the module out of order".

A PC run by a DM can never properly lead a party, as any PC in a party should be able to do, for good or ill.

Aside from the fact that we're not referring to PCs, but DMPCs, see earlier post in which I noted that my DMPC was designed to have a personality that made sure she wouldn't lead the party.

And since when is "able to lead the party" a requirement for being a PC? I'm interested in knowing how you go there. Are NONE of your PCs dedicated followers?

A DM's inside knowledge is not akin to a Player's meta-game knowledge. In an extreme example, even if a Player read through everything a DM ever put on paper, in regard to their campaign world, the DM alone can make actual changes, sometimes right in the moment and during the game.

You're assuming (incorrectly, in my case, at least) that the DM is attempting to play his DMPC in order to "win the game". In fact, forget the DMPC. If the DM is trying to "win the game" at all, he's kinda lost sight of what DMing is actually about. The evil warlock is trying to win the game. The ogre blackguard is trying to win the game. The DM is trying to give his players an enjoyable evening.

You're still kidding yourself.

Keep going, Penny. Just two or three more of those, and I'm gonna see the light.

 

[pennywiz]

Pennywiz, the only time I hold my nose and pick stuff up with tongs is when I'm scooping dog poop. If I'm doing that while dealing with your arguments, well...

Not arguing, explaining. I'll be succinct, point out where you're arguing with your own strawmen, and point out some key areas where you simply make false statements. Hopefully that will help you to understand so you don't need to rationalize your position by propping up strawmen to knock down.

It certainly is that simple, provided that this is your definition of what it means to play a PC.

Strawman. Arguments over semantics you use to obfusticate particular issues is not something on which I'll waste time.

But please, continue to tell me I'm just kidding myself. That level of argument is bound to convince me sooner or later.

. o O (I wonder if you have read my whole post and will refer back to this in a faux-extemporaneous manner to try and cut me to the quick?)

You know, I think my players thought the same thing, right up until the point where the DMPC paladin's suggestion turned out to backfire massively.

Remember, "for good or ill." The DM misleading the party into a trap or situation in the guise of playing a character as "unknowing" doesn't mean the NPC is truly unknowing. It's really just a semi-elaborate form of railroading.

More seriously, are you trying to say that there is only one form of interaction in the game?

Strawman. I'll skip the section where you argue with yourself and move along to-

A DMPC can be the equal of a PC in the character-based interaction, however.

Not with DM knowledge, it can't.

And since when is "able to lead the party" a requirement for being a PC?

Being able to lead the party IS an option ALL true player characters have, even if they don't choose to ever lead.

You're assuming (incorrectly, in my case, at least) that the DM is attempting to play his DMPC in order to "win the game".

Strawman. As you may or may not understand, there is no "winning the game" but there is a succession of moments within the game where success or failure figure into the progression of the game. (For starters, read a bit about DCs and you'll begin to grasp that.)

Keep going, Penny. Just two or three more of those, and I'm gonna see the light.

I didn't see that coming? Oh, if only I could pretend during my posts to not have read your entire post before beginning my own post as you so cleverly do.

I understand it must be tough for you, as a "writer" to let go and allow the PCs to have the full range of options available to them. I've seen that before where "writers" feel the need to guide a game toward safe areas that fall within what they would like to handle in regard to plot. I've heard that for some "writers" it can be frustrating when they see a chance to add in some clever element, and then feel the need to steer the game toward that end. It's also true that sometimes when a DM settles back into comfortably allowing the players their full range of options (without the subtle or not-so-subtle influence of a DM-run-PC) players sometimes squander opportunities or go off into areas of exploration where a "writer" might not be comfortable. It's part of the game and once you give up the training wheels of a DM-run-PC you'll get better at handling such situations, and won't feel the need to rationalize it any longer. (In case you didn't recognize it, that's the kidding yourself part, btw. )