I run a PC as DM because the party needs the support. (2 rangers and a paladin.) I added 2 more NPCs in the current dungeon because I knew they'd want to just go hog wild killing everything and didn't want to TPK them on any of the possible sets of baddies. (2 red wizards, a half-black dragon, a vampire (with possibility of two spawn), etc.) My first DMPC was my player when we were going through LMoP. Then we switched to me as DM. So I made her into the thing that pulled my characters to a dungeon I added into the adventure to spice up a boring bit. Killed her off not long after.
By nature of our game (DMing for my brother and two of his kids), I keep my DMPCs at the same level as the party. But any loot/good items go to them first. And when I killed off my first character, I let them take the magic items she had and redistribute them amongst themselves.
Current DMPC is a bard. Mild healing capabilities (to augment the paladin) and lots of support stuff. Not a lot of good in combat so doesn't outshine anyone.
I never understand this. If a DM has an NPC character join the party for a while... isn't it still just an NPC?
The only time I've experienced this at a table, was a DM wanted to roll a character when we did, and the whole thing quickly descended into a farce. Try as he might, the DM simply couldn't navigate the divide between player and DM. Simply knowing the meta information caused any decision their DMPC made to have a foresight that rubbed us all up the wrong way.
It essentially boiled down to the fact that the DM would rather be playing as a PC.
A core principle, for me at least, in playing a PC (I usually DM), is that players don't know the bigger picture. They don't know what happens next, the encounters they'll face, or any of that meta information. And so when the DMPC starts making party affecting decisions, it's hard to ratify those decisions.
Is the DMPC suggesting we check out the ruins because that's what the DM wants us to do? Or is it a red herring? The very fact we have to think about this, destroys the immersion.
And if the DMPC doesn't do anything to influence the party's decisions... then aren't they just an NPC anyway?
I think it's far better for the DM to simply have an NPC join the party if it needs it for a plot or purpose. I understand that sometimes the party simply has to have a certain role. But I'd rather the DM simply have an NPC join the party to fill that role - or of course, design a better campaign more tailored to the players that are at the table, rather than those that aren't.
The only time I've used a DMPC was when I had a terrifyingly dangerous situation for the campaign planned ahead and intended to have the DMPC go into the situation first to die horribly and quickly so the players weren't blindsided by a possible TPK. It allowed a character that they had some attachment to to die, giving a very real sense of danger to the players in a way that finding a recently killed stranger never quite seems to manage, without having a player have to sit out from early in a situation (or considering the attachment my players have with 'not losing anyone' not upset someone by targeting their character). The DMPC didn't do much but did allow for "DM Tips" when the players didn't know what they wanted to do/which way they should go, so they could in character ask the DMPC and I could give details that they ignored/forgot without it breaking immersion as much. Like, in a temple and there's a trap room with letters carved into the floor, helpfully guiding (when asked in character) towards the solution without giving the players the feeling that they've needed to ask for it to be easier (the safe way across the room was to spell the name of the patron of the temple by walking those letters).
In terms of campaign level guidance I tended towards having the DMPC have some motivation to be with the party but not pushing them towards a solution/direction, so he's going with them because he needs to study X, Y, or Z and it's best to do that with a party of adventurers, so they don't care where the party go that much and that hopefully avoids the feeling that it's a tool for railroading.
There's a big difference between a DM with an NPC that shows up and joins the party for a time, and the DM with the Player that is with the party from the beginning and will be there until the end. It can be done... and done very very successfully if you have the right DM. That DM has to be able to separate themselves from the character. Generally it is best to have a character that is not a face-character (because no one wants to listen to the DM talk to themselves on behalf of the party), but is a real genuine character. You don't want to do this in an Adventure League atmosphere where in-character actions just bog down the storyline and everyone is wondering if they'll finish the adventure in time. This needs to be a group of people that all have in-depth characters with lots of backstory, motivation and desire to get to the heart of their characters. I had a campaign that lasted nearly 9 years that the DM had a main character in. You totally forgot that he was also the one running the story. When he was Percival... he was just one of us. He had his own reasons for wanting to do things, but it wasn't all about him. In fact, it was rarely about him. I miss that guy... he was taken all too soon. But, he was an exceptional DM / Storyteller. He would draw you in and then we would all interact with each other.
In general, it is best not to try this. It is difficult... it requires attention to detail in extremis... and it requires you to give up yourself for other people at nearly every session you will play. And there are times where you will have to talk to yourself, so you need distinct voices and mannerisms or it doesn't feel genuine. Having seen it done exceptionally well, I would be very hesitant to run a true PC while running my NPCs. Even though I know the rules and have been doing this for almost four decades, I know that I do fairly well as one-NPC-at-a-time without mixing in a PC to the mix. I am better at having deeper backstories than I was twenty years ago. And I might could pull it off, but I have a high bar of expectation and I would hold myself accountable...
Yeah I have a DM PC (Although I run him much more like an NPC) that my party has enjoyed for the very reason that jwgz said- one of my players was first time playing any tabletop RPG and it was already a small party (3, so right around a normal party I can balance around easily) but I included this PC/NPC early more to just push the brand new player at times. I absolutely do not have him make party altering decisions, he's a sidekick. And in fact, to ensure my players didn't get any ideas about trying to game the system and get 'DM' knowledge out of this PC I made him an incredibly dumb barbarian. I made him a Lenny. I put in a situation where he could leave but the party has enjoyed having him around so I let them succeed on keeping him-so now they have a dumb, amusing barbarian around who will very occasionally nudge them if needed (only time I really did that is when they were essentially discussing doing a 60 square mile grid search to find something and weren't really putting together what kind of distance that was, or if someone forgets something incredibly obvious) but he is mostly just around for amusing plot points (challenging the quiet player to a drinking contest in a tavern for instance to push him to interact with other NPCs) or to get the ball rolling on some inter-party role-play if silence starts to drag where the players are out in the wilderness and it's more difficult for a random NPC to get things going.
I think with all things in DnD there is no absolute 'right or wrong' answer. It all depends on the group of players you have, the dynamic your campaign has, and how you as the Dm utilize it. Personally I would never give my players a character that's going to solve puzzles or challenges for them. They know he is dumb enough to walk into traps that they didn't catch, and I often have him mirror the party's front line player's stealth rolls and stuff so they don't have a plan succeed or fail because of him.
I will say it's also nice to have him be a bit of a tanky character because if I misbalanced an encounter I would much rather be able to 'fix' it on the fly by having a few more enemies target the barbarian and down him then by fudging rolls. It allows the sense of danger to still be there and the party is attached to him now so they don't want him to die either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I run a PC as DM because the party needs the support. (2 rangers and a paladin.) I added 2 more NPCs in the current dungeon because I knew they'd want to just go hog wild killing everything and didn't want to TPK them on any of the possible sets of baddies. (2 red wizards, a half-black dragon, a vampire (with possibility of two spawn), etc.) My first DMPC was my player when we were going through LMoP. Then we switched to me as DM. So I made her into the thing that pulled my characters to a dungeon I added into the adventure to spice up a boring bit. Killed her off not long after.
By nature of our game (DMing for my brother and two of his kids), I keep my DMPCs at the same level as the party. But any loot/good items go to them first. And when I killed off my first character, I let them take the magic items she had and redistribute them amongst themselves.
Current DMPC is a bard. Mild healing capabilities (to augment the paladin) and lots of support stuff. Not a lot of good in combat so doesn't outshine anyone.
My Homebrew Backgrounds | Feats | Magic Items | Monsters | Races | Subclasses
I never understand this. If a DM has an NPC character join the party for a while... isn't it still just an NPC?
The only time I've experienced this at a table, was a DM wanted to roll a character when we did, and the whole thing quickly descended into a farce. Try as he might, the DM simply couldn't navigate the divide between player and DM. Simply knowing the meta information caused any decision their DMPC made to have a foresight that rubbed us all up the wrong way.
It essentially boiled down to the fact that the DM would rather be playing as a PC.
A core principle, for me at least, in playing a PC (I usually DM), is that players don't know the bigger picture. They don't know what happens next, the encounters they'll face, or any of that meta information. And so when the DMPC starts making party affecting decisions, it's hard to ratify those decisions.
Is the DMPC suggesting we check out the ruins because that's what the DM wants us to do? Or is it a red herring? The very fact we have to think about this, destroys the immersion.
And if the DMPC doesn't do anything to influence the party's decisions... then aren't they just an NPC anyway?
I think it's far better for the DM to simply have an NPC join the party if it needs it for a plot or purpose. I understand that sometimes the party simply has to have a certain role. But I'd rather the DM simply have an NPC join the party to fill that role - or of course, design a better campaign more tailored to the players that are at the table, rather than those that aren't.
The only time I've used a DMPC was when I had a terrifyingly dangerous situation for the campaign planned ahead and intended to have the DMPC go into the situation first to die horribly and quickly so the players weren't blindsided by a possible TPK. It allowed a character that they had some attachment to to die, giving a very real sense of danger to the players in a way that finding a recently killed stranger never quite seems to manage, without having a player have to sit out from early in a situation (or considering the attachment my players have with 'not losing anyone' not upset someone by targeting their character). The DMPC didn't do much but did allow for "DM Tips" when the players didn't know what they wanted to do/which way they should go, so they could in character ask the DMPC and I could give details that they ignored/forgot without it breaking immersion as much. Like, in a temple and there's a trap room with letters carved into the floor, helpfully guiding (when asked in character) towards the solution without giving the players the feeling that they've needed to ask for it to be easier (the safe way across the room was to spell the name of the patron of the temple by walking those letters).
In terms of campaign level guidance I tended towards having the DMPC have some motivation to be with the party but not pushing them towards a solution/direction, so he's going with them because he needs to study X, Y, or Z and it's best to do that with a party of adventurers, so they don't care where the party go that much and that hopefully avoids the feeling that it's a tool for railroading.
There's a big difference between a DM with an NPC that shows up and joins the party for a time, and the DM with the Player that is with the party from the beginning and will be there until the end. It can be done... and done very very successfully if you have the right DM. That DM has to be able to separate themselves from the character. Generally it is best to have a character that is not a face-character (because no one wants to listen to the DM talk to themselves on behalf of the party), but is a real genuine character. You don't want to do this in an Adventure League atmosphere where in-character actions just bog down the storyline and everyone is wondering if they'll finish the adventure in time. This needs to be a group of people that all have in-depth characters with lots of backstory, motivation and desire to get to the heart of their characters. I had a campaign that lasted nearly 9 years that the DM had a main character in. You totally forgot that he was also the one running the story. When he was Percival... he was just one of us. He had his own reasons for wanting to do things, but it wasn't all about him. In fact, it was rarely about him. I miss that guy... he was taken all too soon. But, he was an exceptional DM / Storyteller. He would draw you in and then we would all interact with each other.
In general, it is best not to try this. It is difficult... it requires attention to detail in extremis... and it requires you to give up yourself for other people at nearly every session you will play. And there are times where you will have to talk to yourself, so you need distinct voices and mannerisms or it doesn't feel genuine. Having seen it done exceptionally well, I would be very hesitant to run a true PC while running my NPCs. Even though I know the rules and have been doing this for almost four decades, I know that I do fairly well as one-NPC-at-a-time without mixing in a PC to the mix. I am better at having deeper backstories than I was twenty years ago. And I might could pull it off, but I have a high bar of expectation and I would hold myself accountable...
Yeah I have a DM PC (Although I run him much more like an NPC) that my party has enjoyed for the very reason that jwgz said- one of my players was first time playing any tabletop RPG and it was already a small party (3, so right around a normal party I can balance around easily) but I included this PC/NPC early more to just push the brand new player at times. I absolutely do not have him make party altering decisions, he's a sidekick. And in fact, to ensure my players didn't get any ideas about trying to game the system and get 'DM' knowledge out of this PC I made him an incredibly dumb barbarian. I made him a Lenny. I put in a situation where he could leave but the party has enjoyed having him around so I let them succeed on keeping him-so now they have a dumb, amusing barbarian around who will very occasionally nudge them if needed (only time I really did that is when they were essentially discussing doing a 60 square mile grid search to find something and weren't really putting together what kind of distance that was, or if someone forgets something incredibly obvious) but he is mostly just around for amusing plot points (challenging the quiet player to a drinking contest in a tavern for instance to push him to interact with other NPCs) or to get the ball rolling on some inter-party role-play if silence starts to drag where the players are out in the wilderness and it's more difficult for a random NPC to get things going.
I think with all things in DnD there is no absolute 'right or wrong' answer. It all depends on the group of players you have, the dynamic your campaign has, and how you as the Dm utilize it. Personally I would never give my players a character that's going to solve puzzles or challenges for them. They know he is dumb enough to walk into traps that they didn't catch, and I often have him mirror the party's front line player's stealth rolls and stuff so they don't have a plan succeed or fail because of him.
I will say it's also nice to have him be a bit of a tanky character because if I misbalanced an encounter I would much rather be able to 'fix' it on the fly by having a few more enemies target the barbarian and down him then by fudging rolls. It allows the sense of danger to still be there and the party is attached to him now so they don't want him to die either.