im sure that this has been covered somewhere but my searchfu is not strong. My friend group is thinking about starting a game and we all want to play, no one has any experience on either side of the screen and the player side just seems more fun. I’ve volunteered to gm if we can’t find someone else to do it but I was wondering if there was any etiquette on the gm also having a character. I know that some adventures have a guide that the gm plays but from what I’ve seen on YouTube they are mostly a “I’ll take you as far as the the first ‘waypoint’ to get started and then your on your own” type of character that just gets the party started. Is it ok for the gm to have a party role of its played fairly? Or does that get into meta gaming and becomes too hard to differentiate between what the character knows and what the gm knows? I’ve got an idea for a character that I think could be really interesting on either side of the screen but don’t know whether I should start with it or save it for when I get a chance to be in the actual party. Thanks in advance for any advice.

pancho

DMs do not play PCs. There is far too much knowledge in game that a DM has that cannot be separated from being a player. The possible instances of DMs "playing" a character are probably, in fact, DMs playing NPCs - quest givers, incidental characters, enemies, townsfolk, etc. There are maybe highly specific and rare instances where they do, but in those cases, it's more likely the game is "running itself" in a highly scripted, contained environment, ala more like a board game, eg. the games Wizards released around 4th ed. such as Wrath of Ashardalon.

That’s what I figured, once we find a steady dm I’ll probably try this character idea. Just figured I’d ask those in the know. Thanks JCAUDM.

Quote from JCAUDM>>

DMs do not play PCs. There is far too much knowledge in game that a DM has that cannot be separated from being a player.

There's literally no difference between a DM roleplaying an NPC, a monster, and a PC. In all 3 cases they have to consider what the creature knows, and how they'd react to any given situation. DMs pretend not to know things all the time.

The more practical reason not to do this, in my opinion, is that you'll quickly find that you have to keep track of a lot of things mid-game as a DM. Unless it's a really small party (2-3 players) I wouldn't create additional work for myself by adding a full-blown PC to the workload. NPC stat blocks are easier for DMs to manage because they have much fewer moving parts (unless it's a spellcaster).

PCs are for players.  That's why they are called playable characters.  NPCs non playable characters are for DMs.  There is no reason why you couldn't have a regular NPC.  Just make sure that when they show up, they don't outshine the party

I am DM in a game and have a PC. The reason is because I find it very easy to separate what the character knows to what I know and have been using this skill for stories and games since the age of 3. I have no problems with tracking my PC along with NPCs too in a story. Ours is a small group and my PC makes a group of 4 which is much easier for me as a new DM to create balanced encounters quickly if I need to on the fly by just using creature CR: a creature's CR is basically "a group of 4 PCs can have a good fight but ultimately win against this if all PCs are at a level matching the CR" -- so I instantly know a CR 3 creature can be a reasonable but not deadly challenge for a group of 4 Level 3 characters. It's not a perfect way, but it's an easy way if I need to come up with something unexpected on the fly. If I did not have a PC I would have to adjust things and I don't yet to have the skill to make such an adjustment quickly as improv.

Out of combat my PC adds little to the story progression, is no different than any NPC, and never "leads" anything unless there is the unanimous decision from the group for him to do so. He generally takes a backseat to everything and will add conversation, non-meta opinions, and assistance in battle. Even as a combatant I do not optimise and made him a Life Cleric with minimal offensive options, the rest of the party is not focused on healing, even the Paladin will be focusing his build on damage rather than healing. This also lets me be less guilty if I mess up and make a combat encounter more difficult than intended.

I have often played a regular character in games with my players. He was able to fill gaps in skills that the party lacked and when one of the other players wanted to GM, I had my character right there.

Same here. I just make it clear to the players (not the characters) ahead of time that my guy will not be the one making important decisions. He's just along for the ride to help out in combat and lend his skills to the party. It's still on them to drive the story.

One has to be careful because when a discussion about individual approaches reaches "You're doing it wrong", one runs the risk of that discussion losing its usefulness.

It takes a certain amount of skill to run a character along with the PCs. Generally speaking it should only be done to fill gaps in the party makeup.

Thanks for all the replies. Main reason I was wondering is that I’m in a similar boat to cloudseeker and we’re not spoiled for choice on finding people to fill the party. My current plan is to do a couple oneshots just to get everything figured out and see if me running the game works for everyone or if someone else ends up wanting to do it. I’m wanting to keep a party together and have a character for myself that would level with the others and have a relationship with the others instead of dumping a level 1 into a lvl 3 or 4 party if I get to change sides. Having no personal experience I’d think I could just run the character as an npc until I got to actually use it and maybe give it a divergent personality trait or something similar.

Quote from Cloudseeker42>>

There actually is. Lets say I am playing Curse of Strahd while having a character I play in the party. I know that the wine in the Wizards of Wine Winery have been poised, but none of my players even try to figure that out. That is meta gaming, meta gaming that you have as the DM but something you might not have if you was a PC. How exactly do you separate those things?

The same way you do it for the NPCs they've likely accumulated by the time they get to the winery, like Ireena, Ismark, Kasimir and Ezmerelda. Again, there's literally no difference other than what the stat blocks looks like.

 However there is a seriously big difference between a PC and a NPC. The difference between a NPC and a PC is that a NPC should only react as they should react to make the story feel alive, a PC uses your own mind in order to try to figure stuff out.

That's a pretty arbitrary distinction. They're all just characters in a story. I don't treat NPCs any differently from PCs.

Cloudseeker42, I mean this in the nicest way I can but please do not fall into the mistake that we are you. Just because you don't know how to separate character knowledge from player knowledge does not mean we do not know how to. In one form or another I have been doing this, successfully, for 30 years. D&D is a custom game, you game how you want. You have no authority whatsoever to tell us how we play is wrong. Thank you for the concern, though, I guess.