Playing as both DM and a player

[reanjr]

I've rarely felt the need to flesh out a party by adding another character, though occasionally an NPC will join up very briefly to fill some necessary role.

On the other hand, a few campaigns had tag-team DMs, so we each had a character in the party. His character was pretty active in the party while he DMed (some might say a bit TOO active), but when I DMed my character was used mostly as a story element, minor combat backup (he was a bard) and a source for fixing player mistakes or bad rolls - bardic knowledge and the occasional "I found this while I was scouting" go a long way towards this.

I personally think a DM controlled character should be kept almost as an afterthought in the party. It works best if he is not always there and doesn't do a lot of talking. Also, using him for combat backup is rarely necessary. If the characters are fighting creatures of appropriate CR, they can generally mop the floor on an individual encounter. Losing a single PC doesn't make things too challenging in the short term. Over the long term, it is very easy to modify things on the fly by removing an incidental encounter here and there and by lowering the number of minor combatants in large battles.

 

[takyris]

To clarify what I said earlier: Although I will make a DMPC whose abilities bolster some weakness in the party makeup, I rarely feel the need to do so for the good of the group. I try to be up front about the fact that when I make a DMPC, it's for me. It's me, the DM, saying that while I'm fine with being the guy who runs the game, I'd also like to run a PC -- even if I have to limit the PC by making sure he doesn't solve any of the important puzzles or defeat any of the big enemies. I'd like to experience the camraderie and grief-giving of the group, even though my PC can't voice suggestions or ideas except when the players have obviously stalled out and are ready for a hint. I'd like to be able to make humorous side comments like everyone else during the fight-planning scenes without having to add, "...uh, says the wall," because I don't have a character in the room.

So, while my character-building decisions involve the current makeup of the group and where another character would help, the decision to have a DMPC is straight-up a self-interest one. And I don't consider that a bad thing. The decision for the rest of the group to show up is a self-interest one for them. The decision to have me GM because I'm the best person in the group at it is self-interest for all of us. The GM shouldn't turn the game into a story where his pet character is the hero, but if he wants a strong supporting role, and there's room for that, and he doesn't abuse it, I don't see how that hurts the game.

Which probably all boils down to what everyone else has said: If you do it well, it's not a deal. If you do it badly, it's a pain.

 

[takyris]

Other side note: To the people who post saying, "I wouldn't be able to be impartial with my own PC," or "I wouldn't trust my DM to be impartial with his own PC," I'd like to ask the following: If the DM in question can't be trusted not to cheat in favor of his own PC, what makes you think he's going to be better at anything else? I mean, a close second to "The DM made his own pet NPC who is better than us at everything" is "The DM's best friend just joined the group and is getting all the best treasure." After that, do a search on "The DM doesn't let any of our plans work because it messes up his plot." A failure to be impartial is rarely limited to one's own PC, and if this is your chief complaint with the idea of a DMPC, that may be an indication of an issue with your DM, not the concept of a DMPC.

Not to say that a given DM couldn't be good in all other respects but lousy with a DMPC -- just like a different DM could be great with a DMPC (totally impartial, makes sure the DMPC doesn't shine, really just a cute support role) but awful with regard to one player over another, allowing one player to do completely non-rules-supported stuff and making magical items just for that character while shooting down every idea that the other player might come up with. There are different forms of bad-DM-ness. But this is, I think, one of them -- not a bad idea in and of itself, but examples of bad execution.

 

[Li Shenron]

Am I the only one who doesn't get the difference between a NPC and a DMPC? And by the way, this is the first time I ever heard the name "DMPC".

Whatever is played by the DM, to me is always the same, classic NPC. It can be friendly and help the group instead of being an adversary, there has never been a problem with that. It can be designed by the DM to match the party, that's not bad and probably that would be the same if the players were to choose it. It can stay for a long time with the party, or change at every adventure, it can be good and loyal or otherwise untrustworthy.

The only issue with DM-played characters is the old one that the DM shouldn't help the players by using his DM knowledge. That applies to any NPC no matter how you call it.

I really don't see the point in making a distinction between NPC and "DMPC". The DM knows the story, so in no way he's going to have the same "full fun" as the players, he doesn't have the chance for discovering anything. (Eventually, the DM could have fun with the NPC in combat, if for some reason he's not having fun enough with the monsters)

edit: IOW, there is no such thing as a "DM-played PC"... you know PC="PlayerCharacter", NPC="NonPlayerCharacter".

 

[robberbaron]

I don't do it as a rule but in my current campaign the PCs all chose to be fighters or arcane casters so I added an NPC Cleric to keep them alive for the first few levels.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I have done this several times for different reasons, some good and some bad.

As a rule, any party NPC should be geared towards becoming a cohort and therefore be a little less powerful than any PC and have an attachment to one of the PC's - perhaps the most charismatic by default.

DM & players need to agree on this and come to some agreement on running the NPC. You don't want to have "character rape" where the NPC is turned into a trap clearing meatshield. If a player intends to take the leadership feat, I would gear the NPC to be the head cohort and in that respect the player would have much input.

For personality, I would give the NPC a rather simplistic outlook that any given player could run consistently. I would do the same with the combat stats so that the players can run them in combat.

 

[Runesong42]

As a DM of some experience (going on 12 years' worth), I've always found DMPC's to be fun for everyone involved. In my favourite campaign I've ever run, I only had one player. I tells ya, nothing says epic campaign or even old-school RPGing like the one main hero.

We started the campaing to kick off our newly acquired d20 3.0 books, which "commanded" us to have four players in the game. So, I did what every clever DM did and made a whole slew of support characters, and borrowed heavily of the mindset of Final Fantasy X and the old-school RP series of Wizardy. You're one guy - you get to control your own player and 3 NPC's!

What I did, is made up SIX NPCs, each with a distinct one-class job. Each had their own personality, goals, and role to fill in the adventures to come. And, at any point, my player could "head back to town" and decide which 3 NPC's he'd bring with him on the next adventure. He has played for nearly as long as I've DM'd, so we worked well with that story caveat. It provided a wealth of hilarity, and, at one point, he intended to stick them all into some sort of power base once he began to build his nation.

He and I don't talk much anymore - reality is a harsh mistress - and I miss him and our classic RPing days... but I have a new group of three players, and I hope to duplicate the same success with these new wet-behind-the-ears players.

FYI (and because I love them all), they are:

Jaana Proudmorn (fiery red-headed 'tomboy' and hero love interest): Priestess
Deithan Proudmorn (her older, wiser "big brother"): Warrior/Spear Specialist
Stanya (slutty assassin-turned-good girl and hero love interest): Rogue
Vince Ortega ("token ethnic bald guy"): Monk
Feria (quiet and demure historic researcher and hero love interest*): Sorceress
Zisk (lizard-man savage but surprisingly intelligent): Barbarian
Sinyc Blayze (rival of hero, just as alike as they are different): Blackguard**

* Notice the three love interests? We were going for comedic scenarios involving the hero and three girls: one passive, one aggressive, and one assertive. Guess who's who?
**In my campaign, I don't use alignments. A Blackguard is essentially a Paladin whose powers come from Shadow rather than Light.

And of course, the Hero: Aidyn Spier, Aasimar Paladin

*wistful sigh*

 

[jinx crossbow]

So I'm wondering...does anyone else to do this?

I want to counterquestion you:
So I'm wondering...does anyone else to do this NOT?
In the most campaigns I've played or mastered there was always a NPC.

Best NPC class for me ist the bard. He can support the group with some
information you want give the players and a helps a little in figthing.

It wouldbe a interesting poll to ask if the masters run an NPC.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Please understand that I mean no offense by this, but that's not how everyone plays their characters.

Really? WOW!!!

I guess i should have said "i" and "my" instead of "everyone", "everyone", "everyone" repeatedly to have made it clear i wasn't saying or thinking everyone did that.

otherwise, people might get confused.

thanks for pointing out my error. in the future i will try and say things like "See, as a GM, an NPC is not something i am attached to" and "and basically he is my eyes into thw world." so that its clear.

If that was how you felt about every character you played, then heck yeah, you shouldn't play a DMPC.

It is how i feel about every PLAYER character i played, yes. For the non-player characters i played, see the second paragraph in the quote you made. one is "my extension" into the world, the other is a tool for my story and plots, whose primary purpose is to facilitate the role of the player characters getting their stories in play. The former, i have emotional investment in, the latter, is only valuable in how enjoyable he makes the run.

So, its not that i shouldn't run my own PC as a GM, its that i don't. my roles as Gm vs player are very different roles, different job descriptions.

But if your primary interest in playing was to help out other people and provide a valuable support role, possibly adding in some intraparty play or comic relief... well, you might do just fine with a DMPC.

If i am GMing, and i need a supporting NPC, i have one. if i am playing and want to play a supporting PC, i do so. there is however a world of difference in the two. I like to keep them straight.

A PC is the star or protagonist of a story. An NPC is not. The player of the PC should expect his share of spotlight, screentime and plot. the GM of an NPC should be focused on giving that to the PCs not to his own "PC".

I've played a few DMPCs. The first was a paladin -- she added combat and light healing ability to a cleric-light party that needed another tank. The second was a rogue/shadowdancer who was versatile and powerful, but who was philosophically lazy and pretty much did whatever the bard PC wanted her to do -- so she was helpful, but didn't overpower anybody (until she got a certain magical item, which I then had her lose when her power with it became obvious). The third, in a d20 Modern campaign, was a Strong Hero with a medical focus through occupations and such -- he was, unfortunately, far too flashy and cool, so I got rid of him after two sessions and replaced him with a Dedicated Hero with an absurdly high Intelligence, a lot of skills at a few ranks apiece, and the intention of eventually maxing out the "Improved Aid Another" talent tree, getting him to the place where he could give the PCs a +6 on just about any roll they could get help on.

To be honest, in how you play them, how you limit their role and your willingness to have them go away if they are an issue or step outside their box, you are describing NPCs to me.

So, let me ask, what makes these "DMPC" and not just NPC in your eyes?

And that would be your loss, if you did that before you checked to see if this was actually a problem.

or it could be a bigger loss if i dove into something that I know is a problem more than not. better to find a game i expect to be good than for some reason pursue one i expect to be bad, right?

My general rules, things I try to keep in mind for myself, are:
snip...

Ok some questions...

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?

 

[MonsterMash]

Personally I try to avoid running anything like a DMPC usually if NPC's are with the party when combat comes up I'll get a player to run the character, but I'll try to keep up with NPC outside combat when there is a greater need to express the NPCs personality.