Playing as both DM and a player

[caudor]

Currently, my regular group only has three players (I'm the DM). However, many of the published adventures are designed for a party of four characters at a specific level.

Rather than scaling the down adventure (which I tend to dislike), what I do is run a forth member of the party myself so that in effect--I'm playing and DM'ing at the same time. This requires more preparation and special attention to be sure the character I'm playing gets no special insight or grabs the spotlight from the real players. This also allows me to fill in a gap to help balance out the party as far as classes.

My players seem to enjoy this approach. So I'm wondering...does anyone else to do this? If not, do you feel this approach is a poor remedy to balance things for an adventure?

 

[Crothian]

I'm not a big fan of the DM played character. I perfer to give the players an extra level so they can stand against the encounters. Sure it might still be a little tough but they can be smart and get by. Another option that i do like is have the three characters hire a NPC that they control. They choose how he acts and what he does based on what they all want so no one person controls him.

 

[Mallus]

DM's play characters called NPC's.

They can (and should) be memorable. But they should never be the same thing as the DM playing a PC.

 

[Stormborn]

I have added DMPCs (basically DM as PC) for story reasons, but if its pure mechanics I make other adjustments. We regularly only have 3 players, so I have gotten good at that. We frequently have DMPCs, but I tend to find that they are more trouble than they are worth, but since we have a story driven group, they tend to stick around longer than I intended.

 

[jgbrowning]

My players seem to enjoy this approach.

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

joe b.

 

[shilsen]

What jgbrowning said. I've had situations where I wanted to remove an NPC from the party and the PCs upped and (in-character) said that they were going to stick with the NPC, come what may.

 

[IronWolf]

I have always avoided it at all costs. I've even run only two characters through adventures before as opposed to running a DMPC. I feel as a DM I have enough to keep track of NPC and combat wise that something is bound to suffer if I were to try playing a PC. Because of that I try to keep that divider between DM and player up.

But, if your group is having fun - both players and DM then it seems to be working for you. And that is the most important thing.

 

[punkorange]

I don't particularly like the DM having his own character, and I don't do it. If you don't care to run a pc and more importantly your player's enjoy it, then whatever floats your boat.

My players have told me they some of their best sessions are with only one or two players though.

 

[John Morrow]

My players seem to enjoy this approach. So I'm wondering...does anyone else to do this? If not, do you feel this approach is a poor remedy to balance things for an adventure?

In my experience, the players tolerate recurring NPCs travelling with them so long as the NPC doesn't outshine the PCs, make the final decisions, or constantly serve as the GM's biased voice in the game to lead the players down the train tracks of the adventure. Even then, recurring NPCs can bother some players.

For my primary campaign, I have four players but nobody in the group wanted to play a Rogue, which seemed like a critical omission. In response, I created an NPC to travel with the group who was a Rogue/Wizard. Since the party already had a Sorcerer, I purposely crippled the NPC so she couldn't do flashy damage spells. She's a Transmuter who can't do either Evocations or Necromancy so she'll never be throwing the big damage spells. She also had a 9 Wisdom, so I played her as a bit of a passive ditz so that nobody would turn to her as a major decision-maker for the party. The NPC is intelligent so I sometimes use her to pass along important obvious observations or warnings to the party but try not to go overboard with that.

Since that Sorcerer died early on, the Druid has stepped up to do most of the ranged damage spells. That gives him something nifty to do. And the decisions are made by two "alpha" characters in consultation with the other two. The NPC pretty much goes along with whatever the rest of the party decides and is primarily used for traps, support casting, and role-playing involving a romantic involvement with one of the PCs.

Even then, one of the players has made some complaints, primarily about how that NPC sucks up a portion of the treasure and XP just like a PC would. As a result, the "B" campaign (for the players who can usually play) has no tagalong NPCs.

 

[caudor]

Wow, thanks for the replies. I suspected the approach might be taboo at many tables, but I thought would ask for feedback about it. The feedback has been great...thanks.

In the past, I've tried using NPCs for hire but my players are so involved in their own character development that they don't seem to be interested in directing the actions of hired hands.

However, I have noticed that my players do bond with the character I run with them. At times, they have put themselves at risk to rescue or protect this player/NPC. I've even seen them imitate the voice/accent I use for him while joking around out of game. It does seems to work.

I do feel better about it now, although if they stop enjoying this approach then I'll definately try something else. Thanks again for all the replies.