Playing as both DM and a player

[kolikeos]

Playing as both DM and a player

tried that once, it doesn't work.

 

[scourger]

I haven't played a DMPC in years, since AD&D 2e. For one thing, I have enough to do running the wqorld and everyone else in it--usually foes for the PCs. Also, I find it is too tempting for a DM to try to "play too" with DMPCs. I have seen many times that the DMPC in other DM's hands was a tricked-out PC just the way the DM wanted him or her. Players, including me, really resent it when the DMPC dominates the action or the story. I am sure I was guilty of the same things when I played DMPCs, so I just stopped doing it.

I don't like playing in games with DMPCs, either. I've just had a couple of bad expereinces with DMPCs. I like the DM, but he shouldn't be allowed to mix DMing & playing. I would even extend that to NPCs. If an NPC is traveling with the party, they're an ally or a cohort (to use d20 vernacular); and 1 of the players should run that character.

The litmus test I suggest is whether the DM would allow a player to totally run the character (NPC or DMPC or whatever), including giving over a character sheet and allowing the player to make all decisions for the character. If not, it's a "DM's pet" character. Alternatively, if it makes the DM unhappy when the player decides that the character does something that the character "wouldn't do"--it's a "DM's pet"; especially if the DM "over-rules" the player.

I just have little use for this as a DM or as a player.

 

[Thanatos]

Hmmm.

I've never had problems running a DMPC in any of my games. I've gotten requests to reprise old characters even. Nor have I ever expereinced a DM who didn't run one well.

Well, like so many things...what works for one group and campaign does not work for another. I just don't think this is as big an issue as some people try to make it.

If everyone is having fun, go with it.
If everyone is not having fun, scrap it and move on to something else.

There's no right or wrong here. We all play the game differently because there are so many variables involved. No amount of pesudo-professional babble is going to change the fact that all anyone is saying is their own personal opinion of what works for them.

No one's REALLY going to change their mind about whether or not this is a good practice to use or a bad one. Test it out and see for yourself, because thats the only way you are going to know if it works for you or not.

 

[pennywiz]

If everyone is having fun, go with it.
If everyone is not having fun, scrap it and move on to something else.

No doubt. Have fun it if works for you. My quibble is with the apologists who would try to have others believe that the continuous plot device that constitutes a PC played by the DM is no different from a PC run by a player. I don't think even most DMs who run PCs fall for that bit of tripe.

 

[fusangite]

So, it seems that DMPC is not a real category in anyone's view. It's just a particular role an NPC can take on.

So, the real question is: how helpful is it to have an NPC who adventures regularly with the party? Surely this is not a new question. Really, all you're dealing with is a free cohort for the whole party instead of a cohort for an individual character through the leadership feat.

What's the big deal?

 

[Thanatos]

I understand where you are coming from Penny. On a personal level, I agree with you. I think that a PC played by the DM is different then a PC run by a player.

No matter how perfectly objective and fair you are when playing that PC, you are still the DM and there's no getting around it. It is irrefutable fact. You can take short-cuts that players simply can't (i.e. you don't have to ask rules-questions aloud...because you know how you're going to rule anyway, etc.).

On another level though, in the right hands, a PC run by a DM can be similiar enough in nature to a PC run by a player so as it really doesn't matter. Well, at least in my opinion.

But hey, just in case...

I reserve the right to be wrong

 

[fusangite]

What is a PC? A PC is a character run by a player not the GM. What is an NPC? An NPC is a character run by the GM and not by a player. These categories are mutually exclusive. And from both a GM's point of view, and a player's point of view, they are fundamentally and irreconcilably different.

 

[Thanatos]

...

And a DMPC is a bridge between the two, then, I suppose.

If you are saying a DM can't run a PC
and a PC can't run an NPC

The facts of my DM'ing and playing experience do not support that line of reasoning.

or perhaps I missed your point?

 

[ThoughtBubble]

No doubt. Have fun it if works for you. My quibble is with the apologists who would try to have others believe that the continuous plot device that constitutes a PC played by the DM is no different from a PC run by a player. I don't think even most DMs who run PCs fall for that bit of tripe.

And, aside from a little quibble at the beginning of the thread, we're all past that. In fact, I don't think that was ever an issue. So we all agree.

I think there's some interesting discussion about objectivity, leading the party, and allowing the full range of options, but I'm not sure if that's something that's really topical here.

 

[S'mon]

So, the real question is: how helpful is it to have an NPC who adventures regularly with the party?

I think such NPCs can be useful, esp in smaller groups, but should not overshadow the party - like you said, they should either be cohorts or of similar power. In combat the GM should let a player run them when practicable. Out of combat the GM should play them - in fact I've come to realise that the GM should play cohorts also, I've had some bad experiences, eg a player who wouldn't let the GM play his (sex object) cohort because "that would be weird".