So, one thing I noticed as I begun playing D&D (I'm still a noob, my apologies) is that DM don't seem to have a character of their own, something which I found odd coming from a place where in virtually all roleplays the GM always uses a character themselves. So I was wondering if anyone uses a character of their own when they DM or perhaps would consider that viable, and if yes or no then why? What are your thoughts on this matter? I may want to try DMing soon, as I did come here to get experience with D&D and it's various aspect however not being able to use a character myself sounds... problematic in terms of my motivation, let's put it that way.
So, without further ado, I'll let the experts (you XD) do the talking!
I can offer a few reasons why I would not advise any DM to use and play a player character.
1) Conflict of knowledge: it will surely come to a situation where you, as a DM, know everything in the game (minds of NPCs, plans, foes, traps...) where you, as a character, shouldn't know those things. This issue might lead to awkward situations where it seems that you easily solve problems for the party. Granted, you can play that character as fairly as you can, but the other non-DM players might not perceive always that fairness.
2) Too much work for you: Developing a character and keep track of everything is a fair amount of work. As a DM, you have already (probably) more work than your players combined.
3) The fun of being a DM: one of the many tasks a DM is to fairly challenge the players. Being on both sides, it might feel lame in the long run.
DMs have millions of characters - every NPC, monster, or individual outside of the Player Characters. I find even the best DMs have a hard time playing characters in a world where they as a person running the game know everything - it's very difficult to make a fun enjoyable experience for the players when the DMs character is always the one saving the day (with insider knowledge).
I heavily dislike games with a DM PC. To the point that I would advise the DM that I dont think Im suited to the group. It's a personal choice and one that determines whether Im having fun.
And trust me - when you are running the game as a DM, not having to worry about your own PC makes your life a million times easier. We juggle enough with monsters, encounters, NPCs, general world happenings (and ensuring the people we are playing with don't decide to go off randomly and ignore all your wonderful crafted plot hooks).
it's very difficult to make a fun enjoyable experience for the players when the DMs character is always the one saving the day
Hey, thanks for the feedback! I just wanted to clarify that I was talking about a GM with some respect for the game itself. So, you know, the assumption is they won't try to make themselves the main character and cheat like that. Not saying it never happens, unfortunately it does, but it's just the assumption for this particular discussion that they won't.
I have run a DM PC at times when the player group was very small, and, in one family game, when I was really wanting to be a player myself. It's worked ok, but I work really hard to stay out of the limelight and let the players choose how to approach encounters. That said, the DM has a lot to keep track of, and any number of monsters and NPCs to role play. In my experience, the more complex and sand boxy the adventure, the harder it is. I'm running TOA right now, and the party has been joined by two NPCs (from the adventure, not DM PCs). I struggle to role play them and manage the rest of DM tasks. During combat I've taken to handing one of them off to one of the players to run.
Having character as DM is imho like playing chess with yourself. Yes you can but why? Ofcourse you can have some NPC in "Gandalf" style that will try to help players and do some heroic things #shellnotpass. Cast some iconic spells or open some doors to mines . This npc can even levelup again like Gandalf from gray to white. But still this should be something you planned before the game
I almost always have characters I run that I consider "mine" when doing campaigns. Most of the games I have are too small and need NPC members in their team (one game I run is just me and someone else, I run their team of NPCs). Simply put, you just need to keep in mind that the story is communal, and making sure your players have the first attempt at anything before your proxy does. It is good way to give a team abilities they may lack, such as a lock picking rouge or a healer. Some campaigns do give you good options for temporary companions, but it is also nice for the players to have constant teammate who can grow with them.
Current game I'm playing, the idea is that every player takes a turn as DM. So when it's your turn to DM, your PC becomes a DM PC. It's best with experienced and honest players (it's trivial to "cheat" when you're the DM and have a character in the party, give your character the best loot, know the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies, etc.), could be a problem for newer players. Before, in "regular" games, the DM would often play a character to fill in any roles they'd feel were missing (back in the day, a party without a cleric was a doomed party, so the DM would play a cleric if no player wanted to, for example), but they were mostly there to fill in.
Well, I'm running a game with 2 friends and since we're only 3 people, DM included, two of us take turns as DM and also have two characters (so're a group of 5 advanturers). Since we're taking turns as DMs, we do not know the entire story, and when I'm the DM for the session, I actively encourage the others to derail me so I don't know everything that is gonna happen in that session. It worked well enough so far. Because we're taking turns, even the DM doesn't necessarily know that much more than the rest. At least not in the long run.
Me and the friend who takes turns DMing with me exchange some notes, but they're more ideas for the next session rather than strict plans, so we can change things up if we want. All we knew when we started the campaign was some basic idea of direction and some themes so we wouldn't contradict each other too much.
I usually prefer to have my characters take a bit of a backseat whenever I'm the DM tho, because I want for the others to have the choice to be creative and figure things out without being potentially spoiled by me. I also work with some variables where I let the dice decide between some options that may happen so I don't know everything that's gonna happen in the sessions that I'm DMing for.
I'm running a campaign for a group of first time players, in the beginning I was meant to be a player but our DM had to go to hospital. I talked with the DM and we had planned that I would start the campaign for them (because the other players were really excited to start playing) and then later they would come in play a PC for a couple sessions and take over DMing. Unfortunately they haven't been well enough to join at all so I've been running the game and at this point a change in DM would really derail the campaign.
However I had put a lot of thought and effort into my PC and didn't want them to be wasted so I decided to use them as sort of a guide/support character (they are a rogue/wizard) and without my character the party wouldn't have any support or stealth, so when we started I tried my best to encourage the players to be the driving force behind the story and my DMPC would take a backseat. Its gone quite well and on the occasions that my players have gotten totally lost and have no idea what is next I can use this character to give them an easy nudge in the right direction. Recently we've gotten another 2 players so I've started to change my DMPC into more of a generic NPC.
Overall I disagree with the idea that a DMPC automatically makes a campaign bad but I do think that you shouldn't plan to have one from the start, if your party is missing something that you feel is essential try to get a new player and if you can't make a DMPC. Ive really enjoyed the challenge of trying to work my character into the world without making him the centre of attention. Its also an opportunity to create someone that your party can bond to and has significant character growth.
I can offer a few reasons why I would not advise any DM to use and play a player character.
1) Conflict of knowledge: it will surely come to a situation where you, as a DM, know everything in the game (minds of NPCs, plans, foes, traps...) where you, as a character, shouldn't know those things. This issue might lead to awkward situations where it seems that you easily solve problems for the party. Granted, you can play that character as fairly as you can, but the other non-DM players might not perceive always that fairness.
2) Too much work for you: Developing a character and keep track of everything is a fair amount of work. As a DM, you have already (probably) more work than your players combined.
3) The fun of being a DM: one of the many tasks a DM is to fairly challenge the players. Being on both sides, it might feel lame in the long run.
I completely agree, though in some respects, a DMPC may be somewhat necessary. For example, I used to run a one-on-one game with a friend that was out of state. He played an artificer that primarily used long-ranged weaponry, and typically relied on tact to get through situations rather than brute force; this was mainly due to the fact that his character was 12 years old. In response, I made a monk to accompany his adventure. The reason I say a DMPC is a good idea-especially for small groups-is because it gives the players a resource. For example, in Pathfinder where some skills are restricted unless you are trained in them, having a disposable rogue or bard can be very useful.
In the end, it depends on the DM's preference, as I have found it necessary only in small groups thusfar, and primarily for new players to give them an idea on how to play and voice characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For every moment of truth, there's confusion in life."
If you need to add dmpc to help the team.. Well then someone here did not prepare adventure for his players. DM role is to scale up and dowm each encounter that it will be "win-able" for players.
Plan the adventure for pc to use their skills and feats as much as possible but do not give them obstacles that chance of succed is 0% due to d&d mechanics.
We are only 3 people, and we do not have a fixed DM, we switch every one or two sessions, which means ofc all of us have characters, even the DM, because the DM isn't DM all the time. And rather than come up with some excuse for why the current DMs characters aren't around right now, we decided to keep them in the party as DM PCs but more in the background. It has worked well so far for all of us, and we're having fun.
I mean, if you have a fixed DM and they have a PC who constantly overshines the other players, than you have a problem, but that isn't the case with us because the DM PC only becomes one temporarily and takes a backseat whenever it's their players turn to DM.
I mean, sure, you can play DnD with two people of whom one becomes a permanent DM but it can be difficult for a player to juggle several characters at once and to give that player an NPC or DM PC ally makes it a bit easier for the player to focus on one or maybe two character (if they're feeling comfortable with playing more than one), plus that character has someone to interact with even if they're out in the wilderness with no NPC in sight.
It's a balance act, sure but a DM PC isn't necessarily a bad thing, it all depends on the circumstances and how it's handled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello everyone!
So, one thing I noticed as I begun playing D&D (I'm still a noob, my apologies) is that DM don't seem to have a character of their own, something which I found odd coming from a place where in virtually all roleplays the GM always uses a character themselves. So I was wondering if anyone uses a character of their own when they DM or perhaps would consider that viable, and if yes or no then why? What are your thoughts on this matter? I may want to try DMing soon, as I did come here to get experience with D&D and it's various aspect however not being able to use a character myself sounds... problematic in terms of my motivation, let's put it that way.
So, without further ado, I'll let the experts (you XD) do the talking!
I can offer a few reasons why I would not advise any DM to use and play a player character.
1) Conflict of knowledge: it will surely come to a situation where you, as a DM, know everything in the game (minds of NPCs, plans, foes, traps...) where you, as a character, shouldn't know those things. This issue might lead to awkward situations where it seems that you easily solve problems for the party. Granted, you can play that character as fairly as you can, but the other non-DM players might not perceive always that fairness.
2) Too much work for you: Developing a character and keep track of everything is a fair amount of work. As a DM, you have already (probably) more work than your players combined.
3) The fun of being a DM: one of the many tasks a DM is to fairly challenge the players. Being on both sides, it might feel lame in the long run.
I prefer not to, because it seems to tend to run the risk of overshadowing the PCs and making the players bored.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
DMs have millions of characters - every NPC, monster, or individual outside of the Player Characters. I find even the best DMs have a hard time playing characters in a world where they as a person running the game know everything - it's very difficult to make a fun enjoyable experience for the players when the DMs character is always the one saving the day (with insider knowledge).
I heavily dislike games with a DM PC. To the point that I would advise the DM that I dont think Im suited to the group. It's a personal choice and one that determines whether Im having fun.
And trust me - when you are running the game as a DM, not having to worry about your own PC makes your life a million times easier. We juggle enough with monsters, encounters, NPCs, general world happenings (and ensuring the people we are playing with don't decide to go off randomly and ignore all your wonderful crafted plot hooks).
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
I have run a DM PC at times when the player group was very small, and, in one family game, when I was really wanting to be a player myself. It's worked ok, but I work really hard to stay out of the limelight and let the players choose how to approach encounters. That said, the DM has a lot to keep track of, and any number of monsters and NPCs to role play. In my experience, the more complex and sand boxy the adventure, the harder it is. I'm running TOA right now, and the party has been joined by two NPCs (from the adventure, not DM PCs). I struggle to role play them and manage the rest of DM tasks. During combat I've taken to handing one of them off to one of the players to run.
Trying to Decide if DDB is for you? A few helpful threads: A Buyer's Guide to DDB; What I/We Bought and Why; How some DMs use DDB; A Newer Thread on Using DDB to Play
Helpful threads on other topics: Homebrew FAQ by IamSposta; Accessing Content by ConalTheGreat;
Check your entitlements here. | Support Ticket LInk
I can't up vote this comment enough :)
Having character as DM is imho like playing chess with yourself. Yes you can but why? Ofcourse you can have some NPC in "Gandalf" style that will try to help players and do some heroic things #shellnotpass. Cast some iconic spells or open some doors to mines . This npc can even levelup again like Gandalf from gray to white. But still this should be something you planned before the game
I almost always have characters I run that I consider "mine" when doing campaigns. Most of the games I have are too small and need NPC members in their team (one game I run is just me and someone else, I run their team of NPCs). Simply put, you just need to keep in mind that the story is communal, and making sure your players have the first attempt at anything before your proxy does. It is good way to give a team abilities they may lack, such as a lock picking rouge or a healer. Some campaigns do give you good options for temporary companions, but it is also nice for the players to have constant teammate who can grow with them.
Current game I'm playing, the idea is that every player takes a turn as DM. So when it's your turn to DM, your PC becomes a DM PC. It's best with experienced and honest players (it's trivial to "cheat" when you're the DM and have a character in the party, give your character the best loot, know the strengths and weaknesses of the enemies, etc.), could be a problem for newer players. Before, in "regular" games, the DM would often play a character to fill in any roles they'd feel were missing (back in the day, a party without a cleric was a doomed party, so the DM would play a cleric if no player wanted to, for example), but they were mostly there to fill in.
I don't create a character to play, but apparently my npc are bad ass? Because they want everyone to join them and they become super attached.
Well, I'm running a game with 2 friends and since we're only 3 people, DM included, two of us take turns as DM and also have two characters (so're a group of 5 advanturers). Since we're taking turns as DMs, we do not know the entire story, and when I'm the DM for the session, I actively encourage the others to derail me so I don't know everything that is gonna happen in that session. It worked well enough so far. Because we're taking turns, even the DM doesn't necessarily know that much more than the rest. At least not in the long run.
Me and the friend who takes turns DMing with me exchange some notes, but they're more ideas for the next session rather than strict plans, so we can change things up if we want. All we knew when we started the campaign was some basic idea of direction and some themes so we wouldn't contradict each other too much.
I usually prefer to have my characters take a bit of a backseat whenever I'm the DM tho, because I want for the others to have the choice to be creative and figure things out without being potentially spoiled by me. I also work with some variables where I let the dice decide between some options that may happen so I don't know everything that's gonna happen in the sessions that I'm DMing for.
That's a really interesting way of running things! We are a small group, and if fluctuates from 2-5 players. Maybe we'll give that a shot!
I'm running a campaign for a group of first time players, in the beginning I was meant to be a player but our DM had to go to hospital. I talked with the DM and we had planned that I would start the campaign for them (because the other players were really excited to start playing) and then later they would come in play a PC for a couple sessions and take over DMing. Unfortunately they haven't been well enough to join at all so I've been running the game and at this point a change in DM would really derail the campaign.
However I had put a lot of thought and effort into my PC and didn't want them to be wasted so I decided to use them as sort of a guide/support character (they are a rogue/wizard) and without my character the party wouldn't have any support or stealth, so when we started I tried my best to encourage the players to be the driving force behind the story and my DMPC would take a backseat. Its gone quite well and on the occasions that my players have gotten totally lost and have no idea what is next I can use this character to give them an easy nudge in the right direction. Recently we've gotten another 2 players so I've started to change my DMPC into more of a generic NPC.
Overall I disagree with the idea that a DMPC automatically makes a campaign bad but I do think that you shouldn't plan to have one from the start, if your party is missing something that you feel is essential try to get a new player and if you can't make a DMPC. Ive really enjoyed the challenge of trying to work my character into the world without making him the centre of attention. Its also an opportunity to create someone that your party can bond to and has significant character growth.
It's a fine line between DMPC and NPC that stands with and grows beside the players
Yeah, during the sessions that I'm DMing, my characters usually take a backseat and I let the other characters take the lead.
It's important to keep a strict line between DM knowledge and character knowledge. Your DM PCs do not know what you as the DM know.
If you need to add dmpc to help the team.. Well then someone here did not prepare adventure for his players. DM role is to scale up and dowm each encounter that it will be "win-able" for players.
Plan the adventure for pc to use their skills and feats as much as possible but do not give them obstacles that chance of succed is 0% due to d&d mechanics.
We are only 3 people, and we do not have a fixed DM, we switch every one or two sessions, which means ofc all of us have characters, even the DM, because the DM isn't DM all the time. And rather than come up with some excuse for why the current DMs characters aren't around right now, we decided to keep them in the party as DM PCs but more in the background. It has worked well so far for all of us, and we're having fun.
I mean, if you have a fixed DM and they have a PC who constantly overshines the other players, than you have a problem, but that isn't the case with us because the DM PC only becomes one temporarily and takes a backseat whenever it's their players turn to DM.
I mean, sure, you can play DnD with two people of whom one becomes a permanent DM but it can be difficult for a player to juggle several characters at once and to give that player an NPC or DM PC ally makes it a bit easier for the player to focus on one or maybe two character (if they're feeling comfortable with playing more than one), plus that character has someone to interact with even if they're out in the wilderness with no NPC in sight.
It's a balance act, sure but a DM PC isn't necessarily a bad thing, it all depends on the circumstances and how it's handled.