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.
I feel I must contest this standpoint, actually. In my opinion, no encounter need be 'winable,' rather a struggle that makes sense to the plot. Granted, you want to try to match the challenge to the PCs' levels, but the players should also know when to run.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For every moment of truth, there's confusion in life."
I have gamed for many years and have ran some campaigns where I also had a character. I usually would only do this if there were not enough characters or where it seemed to suit the group and never if the group felt it unfair. I started playing in the 80's and found that it is very possible to separate out the DM role and the PC role. That said, I try not to do this so I can spend more time managing the game and making it fun for the players. Having an NPC help the group when needed is a fair compromise but you cannot always bail out your group if they make a poor decision. Running away is a valid response when faced with enemies you have no business trying to fight.
On the matter of a DM having / not having a character that he or she controls is not bad per say. But here is my thoughts on this topic.
First Opinion. I will admit that a DM's job does become more harder when they run a character because they need to focus on the campaign and the groups fun / good time. And they cant really do that if they have alot on their plate. Such as running the campaign, dealing with NPC monsters / towns people, setting up traps / encounters for the players to experience, not to mention they also have to make sure that they dont put the group into situations that they may not be able to handle, such as overpowered enemies that kills them the minute it sees them. Then again a DM cannot make the campaign to easy...If that happens the game becomes dull / lame.
Second Opinion. If a DM does run a character there is a chance they may often be the hero of the moment alot of the time, or the person who solves 90 percent of the game trials, traps, puzzles, obstacles because they have knowledge of things they shouldnt know. Which makes the game less fun for the others. So those DM's who do run a character should try to stay out of the limelight as possible. But at the sametime they cant just sit back and be a lazy member of the party. This is a situation most DM's run into on both accounts. So with that said, if a DM runs a character, then they need to find a way to be supportive yet not take the spotlight away from the others...
It is tough to do. The whole purpose of the DM should be to ensure a fun, good campaign to all involved.
I made a post similar to this recently and since then I have stopped playing my DMPC and i am GLAD! I let them occasionally to pop in like a glowing quest giver in an MMO, but I have stopped actually keeping them in game. The party tended to lean on my character for things (ideas of where to go and what to do), plus as a DM like it was said earlier... there is plenty for a DM to do without adding their own playable character. I tend to rp some of the NPCs in the adventures so I get my own bit of fun doing that in itself.
I used to use a DMC (DM character) but I found it too hard to keep the players at the centre of action, and the DMC doesn't end up doing much, since the DM knows all the little secrets. So I stuck with keeping myself as a DM, with no character. It gets too messy.
In regards to Devlins comment, I would like to say this. Running a character while being a DM is indeed hard but doable. Personally speaking I use a character while being a DM, but i only use them for combat situations and or in support cases. I never have my character make decisions of any kind unless the group is in one of those situations where they want to vote on what to do. Here is an example of what i mean: Say the group is in a temple and there is 3 passage ways the group can go. I then ask the party on which way do they want to go. If, they all want to go different ways, then i ask them to vote on it. The decision must be a majority vote. So lets say there is six players. Whichever path gets the most votes, is the way the group goes. The DM should be the last to vote.
For me personally, i live for the combat situations. Its the one time, I can really get into. Especially if the group is fighting something big or powerful. But getting back to the point of the topic. A DM shouldnt really have a character because as stated by myself and a few other people because the DM does have alot on their plate and they need to focus on running the campaign while making it fun for the group. But if the DM wants to run a character they should have the option to. As long as they remember these few things:
1. a DM should never put themselves in the limelight over the other players
2. a DM should never be the one to solve riddles, disarm traps or be the one who gets the other members past the obstacles in the campaign
3. a DM should never be the hero of the group / adventure
4. a DM should never make their character more powerful than the others
5. finally the DM should never be the one who makes choices for the group, regardless of the situation
If a DM can stay away from those things while running the campaign effectively to all players enjoyment then i see no reason why they cant have a character
I'm new to D&D-specific roleplay, and tabletops in general, and am in a very NPC-heavy homebrew campaign. Outside of a few fights that were kind of "well, players do that" and unplanned, we tend to have some kind of NPC fighter from our DM - usually just one, but for a couple fights we had a crew of 6-7 NPCs in ADDITION to the cast of 5-6 PCs, and usually another 5-6 goblins/hobgoblins/zombies/etc we are fighting. It's obviously kind of stressed out the DM, but when I took to trying to DM a game after wanting to offer a fun setting to play in for a subset of the group I'm with, I kind of thought "well, this must be how it's done?"
Thankfully between starting to plan the campaign, getting a year of being a player under my belt, listening to other players talk about games and starting to watch stuff like Critical Role, I took a LOT of notes and pointers. When I actually started the campaign, however, I had the "healer" in the party drop out, leaving me DMing for 2 people. I've been writing and working with them for almost a decade on and off, so thankfully we all trust each other enough for me to bring in a DMPC, and I'm confident my characters don't BOTHER them. So hopefully, this is kind of stuff that help if it isn't a no-brainer, already!
1. Quest Givers - I think this has worked out really well for my group. Someone who needs to get through somewhere "dangerous to go alone" and so forth. It establishes that the character isn't some going-it-alone badass, shows they will put confidence in the abilities of the players, and foreshadows that there is real danger in the location. It's always helpful to have anything you include have functionality!
2. Pacifist Healers - As stated above, our healer in the party dropped out, and I don't know if they'll be back. I have rolled characters appropriate to the setting they're traveling through, from a Druid who is afraid to charge the front lines, to a Monk with Ki healing who will only attack if attacked first, etc. They never feel like they're stealing kills, and I keep their actions very brief.
3. Nerfed DMPC - My party of level 6's are going to be guiding a level one cleric through a temple to receive a traditional blessing before they're a "real" cleric. I've not gotten to this, yet, but it feels like something that works; the character being personalized makes it more than wandering around defending a cardboard cut-out, and the more wide-eyed baby-level character has good reason to just want to trust the judgment calls of what these grizzled adventurers say.
And as always, READ THE ROOM AND KNOW THE PLAYERS. I feel comfortable with this group, and I think it's kind of important to balance the party out with the choices I made. I'd talk about it with other players in a different group to make sure they hadn't had off experiences with it before.
There is two school of thought on this matter... While both sides have great arguments... None of them both brings the only argument that is worth talking about.
- knowledge of the character.
Most people think the dm cant differentiate his knowledge from what his character knows... Same with players... But reality is that any veteran players already knows how to do this. Otherwise that would mean every character you do subsequently even if level would know about every gods and monsters the others met before him. Thats ridiculous. As a dm if you are not capable of that much how can you even manage a village all by yourself ? So dm are even more capable of knowledge compartment.
So the only question really is... Are you bad enough that you ever only roleplay yourself ? To pretty much every dms the answer is no. Thus they can easily make a pc. Because its no different then any other npc they did to begin with.
As for me... I have 3 campaigns im in... 2 i dm... I play two pcs in one of them and dm the other two. In one of the two i dm. I actually play a pc. That pc is usefull for a bunch of stuff. He directs the players toward the end goal if they are lost. Allow me to have fun with them and also serve as stealthy guy they didnt have before.
But i refuse to create an npc in my friday game as there is already 9 players in it.
Scenario...
One of the player throws his sentient weapon. You look at it. Do you grab it to give it back or are you not because as a player you know its capable of taking you over.
My answer... There is no way my barb is knowing that while i know for sure as a player that the blade is chaotic evil and wants to take over a character. So i did grab the blade to give it back. Got controled was awesome !
If character or dm knowledge is a problem then clearly someone is doing it wrong ? The same way players metagame when they say they know everything about vampires and lycanthropes because of real world knowledge.
Ask yourself that instead... Would my character know it in that world ?
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I don't see it as a great idea. If you were set on the idea, what I would do is add recurring NPCs that join the party. You can make characters, that are involved, but because they're NPCs, they won't add anything to puzzles or outside knowledge, unless prodded by the characters.
One of the player throws his sentient weapon. You look at it. Do you grab it to give it back or are you not because as a player you know its capable of taking you over.
My answer... There is no way my barb is knowing that while i know for sure as a player that the blade is chaotic evil and wants to take over a character. So i did grab the blade to give it back. Got controled was awesome !
If character or dm knowledge is a problem then clearly someone is doing it wrong ? The same way players metagame when they say they know everything about vampires and lycanthropes because of real world knowledge.
Ask yourself that instead... Would my character know it in that world ?
You could also decide things like this with a roll of the die. When the DM vs Player knowledge interferes, a good even/odd roll can be the most fair way to do it, if you have trouble separating DM and Player mindsets that is.
Again the point is.. an NPC is the inverse of what you are implying here... an NPC aka Non-Playable Character is defined by the fact it doesn'T play the actual game. if hat NPC becomes a member of the group even temporary, then it becomes a PC, Playable Character or in the case of D&D a Player Character because the DM at that very point becomes a player as well since he has to do battle with the group. which leads me again to the argument that DMs do this all the time, so why would it be bad if every single DM do it at least once or twice per adventures.
Rolls are not the solution to everything, rolls are bad because they remove player agency in that regard. Imagine a rogue wanting to talk his way into a fortress... if he just rolls 3 times he's in the kings chamber and if he rolls a fourth time on stealth he actually backstab a king... that's not very enticing if you go by rolls only. that is truth to about everything that happens in the game. so if you really need to roll something just to differentiate player knowledge from character knowledge, then those players have a real metagaming problem there and i fear you have higher priorities to solve then the DM playing a character.
Of course the argument itself has always been presenting itself from the point of players not being actors or not knowing how to actually portray a character other then themselves. i have 2 players in one of my group who just never ever can do antyhing else then themselves. reguardless of which class they pick or race. in the end they all have the very same mentality. now let's take these exemples, these players would be horrific DMs because there would be no differences between any NPCs. from that stand point, the argument falls apart instantly. nope, any DMs have at least some semblances of secrecy, some semblance of keeping things secrets. pretty much all DMs even though they may not be able to voice act all NPC differently, have all been accustomed to playing varied characters. so they are used to compartmenting things. sure there are those DMs who just want the story to unfold and acts as if their story was a book or a movie. but those games rarely go for a long time. so int he end, the argument is moot... because DMs do this all the time, otherwise you are not a good DM.
aside from beginnners mistake, i have yet to see any DMs not able to differentiate their NPCs knowledge. and since most NPCs can all of a sudden turn into a temporary group member, i don't really see the difference between an NPC turning into a PC and then back into an NPC after that mission. its the very same thing then a PC.
the only argument i can understand in all of these argumentations about it... is the Experience one. a PC from the DM would take away experience from the players. but then again isn't that solved by milestones ? or simply taken care of by adding more experience into your encounters to compensate for the added character ? Thinking about it, having heard this since the 90ies, i often get the impression that this whole argument about player DMs as only stemmed from players who didn't want to lose precious experience points.
i can only give my games as exemples... but in my games my players consider every single NPC in the city as potential help for their quest. and thus its like i have literally thousands of playable characters i can play to help them. to them its awesome because it makes the world around them more real. more immersive ! i've also created other adventuring groups in that world. because those heroes are not the only ones in existence. it made for awesome role play experiences and team ups that were just cinematics.
concluding that, i'd give this advice to anyone trying to become a better DM and gain the ability to just play anything... learn to ask the right questions for your characters (btw characters means PC and NPC) that way knowledge will never be a problem to begin with. its the role play in role playing games after all !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Those are some very good points. If the issue with a DMPC is that they know things they shouldn't just by virtue of being played by the DM, that's true of every NPC in the game, and it's on the DM to make the distinction between character knowledge and their own knowledge for every character the same way players always have to.
For instance, the DM knows the party want to get into the keep to kill the king, but when the DM assumes the role of the guard at the keep's gate, the guard doesn't know that. So if the party walk up and tells the guard they just want an audience with the king, he has no reason to doubt them (unless they're acting suspiciously, security is aware of a plot, so on and so forth).
Similarly, if the issue is that these characters have their own motivations, goal and traits outside of interactions with the players, that's also true of all NPCs. If the party is accompanied by a reckless Dwarf fighter, he might say that he wants to charge the current issue head-on and hit it with an axe. That doesn't mean the DM is acting on their knowledge or saying it's a good idea, just that the Dwarf is acting in character. Likewise, if the party is escorting a cowardly wizard who is intent on not moving into the next room because he thinks it's too dangerous, there might be a powerful monster or there might just be a couple of goblins; the character is a coward, so will not risk it either way.
The players have to trust the DM to separate that knowledge just as they do. Good player characters will act illogically or irrationally even when the players know that's a bad idea, a good NPC will do the same. If you have a fleshed-out character, the only real difference between a DMPC and a good NPC is whether the DM says 'I' (DMPC) or whether they say 'he/she/they/it'. I'd stick to the latter just for the sake of clarity, and then this confusion is largely avoided.
To be honest, I think the distinction between a DMPC and a fleshed-out NPC is something of a construct, I can't see a situation where it'd cause trouble in and of itself. If the DM decides to hog the glory or metagame using their own knowledge, that's a problem, but it's a problem with that DM rather than the concept of DMPCs.
I currently use a system that has a sort of quest giving NPC which shows up and the group is either helping gather information with or for the NPC. This all started when a player of ours stopped showing up and I had to play as the character for a while and he eventually became a straight NPC. I never think of these guys as DMPCs, they are almost always a support role character which is either helping the plot or the party. The NPCs cycle through along with the quests and at the end of it all the players know the character really well and like to go back and visit them. This allows me to solve pacing problems, lore problems, and in the event a PC dies a ready made lore excuse for them to keep playing. It works for me and I see both side of the coin equally, it can be bad or good, just depends on your campaign.
I've had 2 characters that I've considered to be dmpcs. The first one, Yana, was meant to be filler because one of my players couldn't make it to the first session. After session 1 my players wanted to keep her around so I fully flushed out her story and played her constantly. I actually plan on giving her a send off in a few more sessions because my players adopted another character and constantly playing 2 characters plus all of my other npcs and monsters and narrating is exhausting.
My second dmpc is Bertrand. He started as an improved blacksmithy tech guy that i made up on the fly. One of my players came to Bertrand constantly to the point that he became genuine friends and decided to fight by my players' side. Both yana and Bertrand ended up being supportive to the party's decisions(yana not caring about whatever the plan was and Bertrand being a nervous wreck).
A well-run DMPC can add to rather than detract from your game. As others have noted, the key is to make sure this character doesn't overshadow the PCs in any way.
That said, I disagree somewhat with those who said a DMPC should never have an opinion about what the party does. In fact, if a DMPC is never going to say or do anything interesting, I would question why the DMPC exists at all.
The most important thing a DMPC can provide isn't combat assistance, it's story. A DMPC is an extension of your campaign setting and the things you're trying to say about it. Having an NPC that travels with and experiences all the same things the PCs is an opportunity to provide an additional perspective that the PCs might not otherwise consider. A DMPC can be a source of relevant exposition and can provide valuable advice, just so long as theirs isn't the final say.
To me, the fun of being the DM is developing the world and playing the monsters and other NPCs, putting obstacles in the players' paths and watching them overcome them (or not.) When necessary, I'll run an NPC with an adventuring party, but I prefer to let my players run such NPCs or to scale back the encounters so such NPCs are not needed. I guess the fun of being the DM is different from the fun of being a player. I think my motivation to DM is rooted in my desire to create a story and to entertain my friends at the table. I don't need (or even want) a PC of my own for that.
Creating NPCs and letting the players play them, creates a huge problem in your game though... the simple fact that the npc you give them is not acting as it should because they don't know how to role play a charcater you did. that alone, everytimes i tryed it, only made the players use that NPC as a meat shield or as a tactical advantage more then a person folowing them. i preffer true immersion, and thus i do not mind having that more job as to role play a an NPC along them. more often then not, my npcs don't want the adventurers life and thus my players knows they can't stay long with such NPCs.
as for the DMPC, sometimes you are so often DM that you need to find a way to actually play as well. since compartmenting that knowledge isn't hard for me, it gives me that little oomph and that fix for playing while DMing. But honestly... if you are a DM and don't like making world and listening to your players solves shit, then you shouldn't be a DM. that's what i think. Those DMs who think their story is more important, just don't really want to play, i guess they often more want anaudience and thats not what the players are there for. at least thats what my experience with different DMs told me.
i like creating immersive world, i like watching my players toy around and solve my problems that i throw them. i just love character development. i just love them making backgrounds and just caring for it. that's why i'll never be bored of DMing. but i also want to play, i also have a need to have my own character development and while that is possible for an NPC, having to time skip that NPC to make it evolve makes it much less fun then actually playing the adventure. in those moments... i will create a DMPC. but my rule of thumb is... only do that if there is 5 or less players. otherwise it gets crowded for no reasons.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Creating NPCs and letting the players play them, creates a huge problem in your game though... the simple fact that the npc you give them is not acting as it should because they don't know how to role play a charcater you did. that alone, everytimes i tryed it, only made the players use that NPC as a meat shield or as a tactical advantage more then a person folowing them. i preffer true immersion, and thus i do not mind having that more job as to role play a an NPC along them. more often then not, my npcs don't want the adventurers life and thus my players knows they can't stay long with such NPCs.
as for the DMPC, sometimes you are so often DM that you need to find a way to actually play as well. since compartmenting that knowledge isn't hard for me, it gives me that little oomph and that fix for playing while DMing. But honestly... if you are a DM and don't like making world and listening to your players solves shit, then you shouldn't be a DM. that's what i think. Those DMs who think their story is more important, just don't really want to play, i guess they often more want anaudience and thats not what the players are there for. at least thats what my experience with different DMs told me.
i like creating immersive world, i like watching my players toy around and solve my problems that i throw them. i just love character development. i just love them making backgrounds and just caring for it. that's why i'll never be bored of DMing. but i also want to play, i also have a need to have my own character development and while that is possible for an NPC, having to time skip that NPC to make it evolve makes it much less fun then actually playing the adventure. in those moments... i will create a DMPC. but my rule of thumb is... only do that if there is 5 or less players. otherwise it gets crowded for no reasons.
I agree with this. I've been DMing since I started actually playing in 2012, and I'm only just now going to be a player for the first time. The campaign is probably going to start next month, but I'm very excited about it.
I also agree that DMPCs are more troublesome with a group of 6 plus, maybe even 5 if there are some big personalities.
hmm... Well depends what you call a DMPC. A fully statted, with character sheet, NPC played by a DM then I'm not a fan of that. If you want to be a player then just do that instead of DM. However, as DM, you will eventually have NPC's that (temporarily) accompany the players. Could be allied NPC's that have their own personal goals and assist since the goals align for the time being. Or a henchman that the players hired. But they usually have simple monster stat cards.
When running an adventure with 3 players they allied with a kobold and later freed a gnome. Suddenly the three players had aid from 2 NPC's. Kobold simply followed a long and attacked same targets they did. And the gnome sucked in combat, but RP'd him taking notes and doing investigation. When the players got stuck they asked the NPC's if they could contribute, but I never did unless the players explicitly asked what they needed help with. And then it still was a d20 roll to see if the NPC knew/was capable of it. Depending on how your roleplay these NPC's can contribute to group dynamic and roleplay possibilities. Or if you play them pro-actively offering information, before the group asks themselves, will destroy the dynamic. On top of that the NPC's can be used by the DM as well. Players debate about situations, but if they overlook or forget something the NPC can remind them. Adding to the discussion, but not making any decisions.
When there is a more fleshed out NPC that (permanently) joins the group. Then I'll just give the statblock to the players. They can boss the NPC around asking it to do specific tasks. But I still do the roleplay/personality bit of that character. This also lets a player play another class besides his own. Especially helpful if you, for example, have a ranger that is having second thoughts about wanting to actually be a rogue instead. Giving the players the mechanical control also helps to alleviate the workload on the DM.
I hate puzzles and riddles in D&D. My players as well apparently. So when they asked the NPC to solve it for them was just a nice way to make sure they didn't get stuck in making progress within that adventure module. In homebrew I simply wouldn't have added such a scenario myself.
In case of Daryl's voting example. Even if a DM speaks through a character, in that way it is still seen as the absolute bit of information. That is why I'd opt using a die roll so the character would give information. However it is still up to the players to decide if its worth following. Instead of just assuming that the DM said it through the NPC so it must be fact.
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.
This is presented as a fact. It is not and depends on the group and playstyle. I do NOT scale anything in favor to my players. I told them from the start that even though they're just 3 characters...the content is for 5. I make situations "realistic" and believable. The bad guys have their own agenda's and matching resources. It is up to the players to decide how they want to approach situations. They want to rush in head on? go ahead and they will most likely die in such a case. Smart players will gather information, set up ambushes and do other things to turn the situation to their advantage. It makes them feel smart and adds thrill to when they "win". We're not playing videogames here where everything is catering to the players and the world is paused and waiting for them to show up. One of the reason I love D&D is because its nothing like that. Unlike videogame worlds a DND world actually has depth and isn't instant gratification.
There is literally only 5 DMs that we know of in my area for literally 100 players. Regardless of where you look there is always a lack of DMs. So what you are telling me is that i should not mix my fun even though its easy to do. What you are telling me is to stop what i love... Dming to do another i love... Playing...
Again as a dm... Its easy to do both... Because you already do it on a constant basis... The only question id have to ask you is... What the big difference between a full pc and a barely fleshed out npc if not a severe lack of abilities ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have gamed for many years and have ran some campaigns where I also had a character. I usually would only do this if there were not enough characters or where it seemed to suit the group and never if the group felt it unfair. I started playing in the 80's and found that it is very possible to separate out the DM role and the PC role. That said, I try not to do this so I can spend more time managing the game and making it fun for the players. Having an NPC help the group when needed is a fair compromise but you cannot always bail out your group if they make a poor decision. Running away is a valid response when faced with enemies you have no business trying to fight.
On the matter of a DM having / not having a character that he or she controls is not bad per say. But here is my thoughts on this topic.
First Opinion. I will admit that a DM's job does become more harder when they run a character because they need to focus on the campaign and the groups fun / good time. And they cant really do that if they have alot on their plate. Such as running the campaign, dealing with NPC monsters / towns people, setting up traps / encounters for the players to experience, not to mention they also have to make sure that they dont put the group into situations that they may not be able to handle, such as overpowered enemies that kills them the minute it sees them. Then again a DM cannot make the campaign to easy...If that happens the game becomes dull / lame.
Second Opinion. If a DM does run a character there is a chance they may often be the hero of the moment alot of the time, or the person who solves 90 percent of the game trials, traps, puzzles, obstacles because they have knowledge of things they shouldnt know. Which makes the game less fun for the others. So those DM's who do run a character should try to stay out of the limelight as possible. But at the sametime they cant just sit back and be a lazy member of the party. This is a situation most DM's run into on both accounts. So with that said, if a DM runs a character, then they need to find a way to be supportive yet not take the spotlight away from the others...
It is tough to do. The whole purpose of the DM should be to ensure a fun, good campaign to all involved.
I made a post similar to this recently and since then I have stopped playing my DMPC and i am GLAD! I let them occasionally to pop in like a glowing quest giver in an MMO, but I have stopped actually keeping them in game. The party tended to lean on my character for things (ideas of where to go and what to do), plus as a DM like it was said earlier... there is plenty for a DM to do without adding their own playable character. I tend to rp some of the NPCs in the adventures so I get my own bit of fun doing that in itself.
I used to use a DMC (DM character) but I found it too hard to keep the players at the centre of action, and the DMC doesn't end up doing much, since the DM knows all the little secrets. So I stuck with keeping myself as a DM, with no character. It gets too messy.
In regards to Devlins comment, I would like to say this. Running a character while being a DM is indeed hard but doable. Personally speaking I use a character while being a DM, but i only use them for combat situations and or in support cases. I never have my character make decisions of any kind unless the group is in one of those situations where they want to vote on what to do. Here is an example of what i mean: Say the group is in a temple and there is 3 passage ways the group can go. I then ask the party on which way do they want to go. If, they all want to go different ways, then i ask them to vote on it. The decision must be a majority vote. So lets say there is six players. Whichever path gets the most votes, is the way the group goes. The DM should be the last to vote.
For me personally, i live for the combat situations. Its the one time, I can really get into. Especially if the group is fighting something big or powerful. But getting back to the point of the topic. A DM shouldnt really have a character because as stated by myself and a few other people because the DM does have alot on their plate and they need to focus on running the campaign while making it fun for the group. But if the DM wants to run a character they should have the option to. As long as they remember these few things:
1. a DM should never put themselves in the limelight over the other players
2. a DM should never be the one to solve riddles, disarm traps or be the one who gets the other members past the obstacles in the campaign
3. a DM should never be the hero of the group / adventure
4. a DM should never make their character more powerful than the others
5. finally the DM should never be the one who makes choices for the group, regardless of the situation
If a DM can stay away from those things while running the campaign effectively to all players enjoyment then i see no reason why they cant have a character
This is a really helpful thread!
I'm new to D&D-specific roleplay, and tabletops in general, and am in a very NPC-heavy homebrew campaign. Outside of a few fights that were kind of "well, players do that" and unplanned, we tend to have some kind of NPC fighter from our DM - usually just one, but for a couple fights we had a crew of 6-7 NPCs in ADDITION to the cast of 5-6 PCs, and usually another 5-6 goblins/hobgoblins/zombies/etc we are fighting. It's obviously kind of stressed out the DM, but when I took to trying to DM a game after wanting to offer a fun setting to play in for a subset of the group I'm with, I kind of thought "well, this must be how it's done?"
Thankfully between starting to plan the campaign, getting a year of being a player under my belt, listening to other players talk about games and starting to watch stuff like Critical Role, I took a LOT of notes and pointers. When I actually started the campaign, however, I had the "healer" in the party drop out, leaving me DMing for 2 people. I've been writing and working with them for almost a decade on and off, so thankfully we all trust each other enough for me to bring in a DMPC, and I'm confident my characters don't BOTHER them. So hopefully, this is kind of stuff that help if it isn't a no-brainer, already!
1. Quest Givers - I think this has worked out really well for my group. Someone who needs to get through somewhere "dangerous to go alone" and so forth. It establishes that the character isn't some going-it-alone badass, shows they will put confidence in the abilities of the players, and foreshadows that there is real danger in the location. It's always helpful to have anything you include have functionality!
2. Pacifist Healers - As stated above, our healer in the party dropped out, and I don't know if they'll be back. I have rolled characters appropriate to the setting they're traveling through, from a Druid who is afraid to charge the front lines, to a Monk with Ki healing who will only attack if attacked first, etc. They never feel like they're stealing kills, and I keep their actions very brief.
3. Nerfed DMPC - My party of level 6's are going to be guiding a level one cleric through a temple to receive a traditional blessing before they're a "real" cleric. I've not gotten to this, yet, but it feels like something that works; the character being personalized makes it more than wandering around defending a cardboard cut-out, and the more wide-eyed baby-level character has good reason to just want to trust the judgment calls of what these grizzled adventurers say.
And as always, READ THE ROOM AND KNOW THE PLAYERS. I feel comfortable with this group, and I think it's kind of important to balance the party out with the choices I made. I'd talk about it with other players in a different group to make sure they hadn't had off experiences with it before.
There is two school of thought on this matter... While both sides have great arguments... None of them both brings the only argument that is worth talking about.
- knowledge of the character.
Most people think the dm cant differentiate his knowledge from what his character knows... Same with players... But reality is that any veteran players already knows how to do this. Otherwise that would mean every character you do subsequently even if level would know about every gods and monsters the others met before him. Thats ridiculous. As a dm if you are not capable of that much how can you even manage a village all by yourself ? So dm are even more capable of knowledge compartment.
So the only question really is... Are you bad enough that you ever only roleplay yourself ? To pretty much every dms the answer is no. Thus they can easily make a pc. Because its no different then any other npc they did to begin with.
As for me... I have 3 campaigns im in... 2 i dm... I play two pcs in one of them and dm the other two. In one of the two i dm. I actually play a pc. That pc is usefull for a bunch of stuff. He directs the players toward the end goal if they are lost. Allow me to have fun with them and also serve as stealthy guy they didnt have before.
But i refuse to create an npc in my friday game as there is already 9 players in it.
Scenario...
One of the player throws his sentient weapon. You look at it. Do you grab it to give it back or are you not because as a player you know its capable of taking you over.
My answer... There is no way my barb is knowing that while i know for sure as a player that the blade is chaotic evil and wants to take over a character. So i did grab the blade to give it back. Got controled was awesome !
If character or dm knowledge is a problem then clearly someone is doing it wrong ? The same way players metagame when they say they know everything about vampires and lycanthropes because of real world knowledge.
Ask yourself that instead... Would my character know it in that world ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I don't see it as a great idea. If you were set on the idea, what I would do is add recurring NPCs that join the party. You can make characters, that are involved, but because they're NPCs, they won't add anything to puzzles or outside knowledge, unless prodded by the characters.
Published Subclasses
Published Subclasses
Again the point is.. an NPC is the inverse of what you are implying here... an NPC aka Non-Playable Character is defined by the fact it doesn'T play the actual game. if hat NPC becomes a member of the group even temporary, then it becomes a PC, Playable Character or in the case of D&D a Player Character because the DM at that very point becomes a player as well since he has to do battle with the group. which leads me again to the argument that DMs do this all the time, so why would it be bad if every single DM do it at least once or twice per adventures.
Rolls are not the solution to everything, rolls are bad because they remove player agency in that regard. Imagine a rogue wanting to talk his way into a fortress... if he just rolls 3 times he's in the kings chamber and if he rolls a fourth time on stealth he actually backstab a king... that's not very enticing if you go by rolls only. that is truth to about everything that happens in the game. so if you really need to roll something just to differentiate player knowledge from character knowledge, then those players have a real metagaming problem there and i fear you have higher priorities to solve then the DM playing a character.
Of course the argument itself has always been presenting itself from the point of players not being actors or not knowing how to actually portray a character other then themselves. i have 2 players in one of my group who just never ever can do antyhing else then themselves. reguardless of which class they pick or race. in the end they all have the very same mentality. now let's take these exemples, these players would be horrific DMs because there would be no differences between any NPCs. from that stand point, the argument falls apart instantly. nope, any DMs have at least some semblances of secrecy, some semblance of keeping things secrets. pretty much all DMs even though they may not be able to voice act all NPC differently, have all been accustomed to playing varied characters. so they are used to compartmenting things. sure there are those DMs who just want the story to unfold and acts as if their story was a book or a movie. but those games rarely go for a long time. so int he end, the argument is moot... because DMs do this all the time, otherwise you are not a good DM.
aside from beginnners mistake, i have yet to see any DMs not able to differentiate their NPCs knowledge.
and since most NPCs can all of a sudden turn into a temporary group member, i don't really see the difference between an NPC turning into a PC and then back into an NPC after that mission. its the very same thing then a PC.
the only argument i can understand in all of these argumentations about it... is the Experience one. a PC from the DM would take away experience from the players. but then again isn't that solved by milestones ? or simply taken care of by adding more experience into your encounters to compensate for the added character ? Thinking about it, having heard this since the 90ies, i often get the impression that this whole argument about player DMs as only stemmed from players who didn't want to lose precious experience points.
i can only give my games as exemples...
but in my games my players consider every single NPC in the city as potential help for their quest. and thus its like i have literally thousands of playable characters i can play to help them. to them its awesome because it makes the world around them more real. more immersive ! i've also created other adventuring groups in that world. because those heroes are not the only ones in existence. it made for awesome role play experiences and team ups that were just cinematics.
concluding that, i'd give this advice to anyone trying to become a better DM and gain the ability to just play anything... learn to ask the right questions for your characters (btw characters means PC and NPC) that way knowledge will never be a problem to begin with. its the role play in role playing games after all !
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Those are some very good points. If the issue with a DMPC is that they know things they shouldn't just by virtue of being played by the DM, that's true of every NPC in the game, and it's on the DM to make the distinction between character knowledge and their own knowledge for every character the same way players always have to.
For instance, the DM knows the party want to get into the keep to kill the king, but when the DM assumes the role of the guard at the keep's gate, the guard doesn't know that. So if the party walk up and tells the guard they just want an audience with the king, he has no reason to doubt them (unless they're acting suspiciously, security is aware of a plot, so on and so forth).
Similarly, if the issue is that these characters have their own motivations, goal and traits outside of interactions with the players, that's also true of all NPCs. If the party is accompanied by a reckless Dwarf fighter, he might say that he wants to charge the current issue head-on and hit it with an axe. That doesn't mean the DM is acting on their knowledge or saying it's a good idea, just that the Dwarf is acting in character. Likewise, if the party is escorting a cowardly wizard who is intent on not moving into the next room because he thinks it's too dangerous, there might be a powerful monster or there might just be a couple of goblins; the character is a coward, so will not risk it either way.
The players have to trust the DM to separate that knowledge just as they do. Good player characters will act illogically or irrationally even when the players know that's a bad idea, a good NPC will do the same. If you have a fleshed-out character, the only real difference between a DMPC and a good NPC is whether the DM says 'I' (DMPC) or whether they say 'he/she/they/it'. I'd stick to the latter just for the sake of clarity, and then this confusion is largely avoided.
To be honest, I think the distinction between a DMPC and a fleshed-out NPC is something of a construct, I can't see a situation where it'd cause trouble in and of itself. If the DM decides to hog the glory or metagame using their own knowledge, that's a problem, but it's a problem with that DM rather than the concept of DMPCs.
I currently use a system that has a sort of quest giving NPC which shows up and the group is either helping gather information with or for the NPC. This all started when a player of ours stopped showing up and I had to play as the character for a while and he eventually became a straight NPC. I never think of these guys as DMPCs, they are almost always a support role character which is either helping the plot or the party. The NPCs cycle through along with the quests and at the end of it all the players know the character really well and like to go back and visit them. This allows me to solve pacing problems, lore problems, and in the event a PC dies a ready made lore excuse for them to keep playing. It works for me and I see both side of the coin equally, it can be bad or good, just depends on your campaign.
Dungeon Master for Heroes of Agarra
I have a growing library of Homebrew: Subclasses | Races | Feats | Items
You check out my newest Homebrew: Doctor - The Survey Corps - Order of the Shadow Master
I've had 2 characters that I've considered to be dmpcs. The first one, Yana, was meant to be filler because one of my players couldn't make it to the first session. After session 1 my players wanted to keep her around so I fully flushed out her story and played her constantly. I actually plan on giving her a send off in a few more sessions because my players adopted another character and constantly playing 2 characters plus all of my other npcs and monsters and narrating is exhausting.
My second dmpc is Bertrand. He started as an improved blacksmithy tech guy that i made up on the fly. One of my players came to Bertrand constantly to the point that he became genuine friends and decided to fight by my players' side. Both yana and Bertrand ended up being supportive to the party's decisions(yana not caring about whatever the plan was and Bertrand being a nervous wreck).
A well-run DMPC can add to rather than detract from your game. As others have noted, the key is to make sure this character doesn't overshadow the PCs in any way.
That said, I disagree somewhat with those who said a DMPC should never have an opinion about what the party does. In fact, if a DMPC is never going to say or do anything interesting, I would question why the DMPC exists at all.
The most important thing a DMPC can provide isn't combat assistance, it's story. A DMPC is an extension of your campaign setting and the things you're trying to say about it. Having an NPC that travels with and experiences all the same things the PCs is an opportunity to provide an additional perspective that the PCs might not otherwise consider. A DMPC can be a source of relevant exposition and can provide valuable advice, just so long as theirs isn't the final say.
To me, the fun of being the DM is developing the world and playing the monsters and other NPCs, putting obstacles in the players' paths and watching them overcome them (or not.) When necessary, I'll run an NPC with an adventuring party, but I prefer to let my players run such NPCs or to scale back the encounters so such NPCs are not needed. I guess the fun of being the DM is different from the fun of being a player. I think my motivation to DM is rooted in my desire to create a story and to entertain my friends at the table. I don't need (or even want) a PC of my own for that.
Recently returned to D&D after 20+ years.
Unapologetic.
Creating NPCs and letting the players play them, creates a huge problem in your game though...
the simple fact that the npc you give them is not acting as it should because they don't know how to role play a charcater you did. that alone, everytimes i tryed it, only made the players use that NPC as a meat shield or as a tactical advantage more then a person folowing them. i preffer true immersion, and thus i do not mind having that more job as to role play a an NPC along them. more often then not, my npcs don't want the adventurers life and thus my players knows they can't stay long with such NPCs.
as for the DMPC, sometimes you are so often DM that you need to find a way to actually play as well. since compartmenting that knowledge isn't hard for me, it gives me that little oomph and that fix for playing while DMing. But honestly... if you are a DM and don't like making world and listening to your players solves shit, then you shouldn't be a DM. that's what i think. Those DMs who think their story is more important, just don't really want to play, i guess they often more want anaudience and thats not what the players are there for. at least thats what my experience with different DMs told me.
i like creating immersive world, i like watching my players toy around and solve my problems that i throw them. i just love character development. i just love them making backgrounds and just caring for it. that's why i'll never be bored of DMing. but i also want to play, i also have a need to have my own character development and while that is possible for an NPC, having to time skip that NPC to make it evolve makes it much less fun then actually playing the adventure. in those moments... i will create a DMPC. but my rule of thumb is... only do that if there is 5 or less players. otherwise it gets crowded for no reasons.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I agree with this. I've been DMing since I started actually playing in 2012, and I'm only just now going to be a player for the first time. The campaign is probably going to start next month, but I'm very excited about it.
I also agree that DMPCs are more troublesome with a group of 6 plus, maybe even 5 if there are some big personalities.
Published Subclasses
hmm... Well depends what you call a DMPC. A fully statted, with character sheet, NPC played by a DM then I'm not a fan of that. If you want to be a player then just do that instead of DM. However, as DM, you will eventually have NPC's that (temporarily) accompany the players. Could be allied NPC's that have their own personal goals and assist since the goals align for the time being. Or a henchman that the players hired. But they usually have simple monster stat cards.
When running an adventure with 3 players they allied with a kobold and later freed a gnome. Suddenly the three players had aid from 2 NPC's. Kobold simply followed a long and attacked same targets they did. And the gnome sucked in combat, but RP'd him taking notes and doing investigation. When the players got stuck they asked the NPC's if they could contribute, but I never did unless the players explicitly asked what they needed help with. And then it still was a d20 roll to see if the NPC knew/was capable of it. Depending on how your roleplay these NPC's can contribute to group dynamic and roleplay possibilities. Or if you play them pro-actively offering information, before the group asks themselves, will destroy the dynamic. On top of that the NPC's can be used by the DM as well. Players debate about situations, but if they overlook or forget something the NPC can remind them. Adding to the discussion, but not making any decisions.
When there is a more fleshed out NPC that (permanently) joins the group. Then I'll just give the statblock to the players. They can boss the NPC around asking it to do specific tasks. But I still do the roleplay/personality bit of that character. This also lets a player play another class besides his own. Especially helpful if you, for example, have a ranger that is having second thoughts about wanting to actually be a rogue instead. Giving the players the mechanical control also helps to alleviate the workload on the DM.
I hate puzzles and riddles in D&D. My players as well apparently. So when they asked the NPC to solve it for them was just a nice way to make sure they didn't get stuck in making progress within that adventure module. In homebrew I simply wouldn't have added such a scenario myself.
In case of Daryl's voting example. Even if a DM speaks through a character, in that way it is still seen as the absolute bit of information. That is why I'd opt using a die roll so the character would give information. However it is still up to the players to decide if its worth following. Instead of just assuming that the DM said it through the NPC so it must be fact.
This is presented as a fact. It is not and depends on the group and playstyle. I do NOT scale anything in favor to my players. I told them from the start that even though they're just 3 characters...the content is for 5. I make situations "realistic" and believable. The bad guys have their own agenda's and matching resources. It is up to the players to decide how they want to approach situations. They want to rush in head on? go ahead and they will most likely die in such a case. Smart players will gather information, set up ambushes and do other things to turn the situation to their advantage. It makes them feel smart and adds thrill to when they "win". We're not playing videogames here where everything is catering to the players and the world is paused and waiting for them to show up. One of the reason I love D&D is because its nothing like that. Unlike videogame worlds a DND world actually has depth and isn't instant gratification.
There is literally only 5 DMs that we know of in my area for literally 100 players. Regardless of where you look there is always a lack of DMs. So what you are telling me is that i should not mix my fun even though its easy to do. What you are telling me is to stop what i love... Dming to do another i love... Playing...
Again as a dm... Its easy to do both... Because you already do it on a constant basis... The only question id have to ask you is... What the big difference between a full pc and a barely fleshed out npc if not a severe lack of abilities ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)