Hello! I am very new to D&D. I am enjoying it immensely, but as a writer with an overly active imagination I am quite intrigued by the idea of being a DM. I totally understand that you cannot DM and have a playable character in the same campaign, but I'm getting a lot of conflicting information about whether or not you can DM one campaign and play in another. I would like to continue playing my wizard with my friends, but I was thinking of learning to DM so I can also do that for other people. Is this allowable? Allowable but frowned upon? Forbidden? I feel like a lot of the D&D world is pretty flexible and up to the people playing.
Not only allowable but strongly encouraged. Personally, I'm of the opinion that someone who's never Mastered the Dungeon has only played half of D&D.
My own personal group has a two campaign rotation - we have two games running concurrently and switch between them every week specifically so the DM for one can play in the other.
Don't let anyone tell you not to learn to DM, or that you have to give up playing to do it. Anyone who says so is being a silly boob and lying to you. Go forth and enjoy both sides of the screen.
There's no D&D police who will come and take your dice away. Do what you want and have fun. Most people in my group are either playing or DM'ing in a different group. The cross-pollination of ideas from one table to the other is great. Though I have heard of people who play too much and burn out a bit, same as really any other activity.
Why shouldn’t you DM in one campaign and play in another?!? I am currently DMing one campaign, playing in another campaign with all the exact same people, and playing in another campaign with a bunch of other folks at the same time.
I am liking these replies! Like I said, we're still on our first campaign and very much beginners, but once we get through this I am definitely going to start learning about DMing! :D
I have to disagree with your friend. You can’t do both in the same campaign, but wholly different campaigns?!? Why should it matter?
If anyone can give an example of how that would be a negative thing to do, I would be happy to consider it. However, I honestly cannot think of any negatives from that.
Learning how to DM makes people better players, and learning how to play makes people better DMs. A breadth of experiences will always yield a better understanding of any subject than a narrow field of experience. I love DMing, but if I could never play I would have quit a long time ago. I love to play, but it doesn’t quite scratch that DM itch. And I know for a fact I am a better DM because I know how things seem from the other side of the screen, and I know I’m a better player because I understand the workload from the DM’s perspective. Am I the bestest at either? Heck no! Am I better at both than I was when I started because of the accumulated experiences from both sides of the screen? Absolutely.
I am liking these replies! Like I said, we're still on our first campaign and very much beginners, but once we get through this I am definitely going to start learning about DMing! :D
Don’t wait. DMing is a lot of work, getting a head start can never hurt:
Technically you can be the DM and have a player in the same campaign, but that is somewhat frowned upon.
People call that concept a "DMPC" (dungeon master player character). Some DMs use it when there are too few players. It's generally a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't go into here. I'm sure you can Google DMPC and find many hits explaining why it's a bad idea. But I think it's okay to use from time to time. It's just not a way to get the experience of playing the game, since the experience is very different when you are also the DM. But it can be a tool for the DM to make a better game for the rest of the players, if used well.
There is absolutely no reason not to play in multiple games, and be the DM in one or more and a player in others. I am a DM of one game, and a player in my game is the DM of a game I play in. Another player in the game I play in is a DM in a game I don't play in.
One thing to be careful of is if you're playing the same published module. It's not great if you read in the book about what's coming up in the game you're playing in.
Technically you can be the DM and have a player in the same campaign, but that is somewhat frowned upon.
People call that concept a "DMPC" (dungeon master player character). Some DMs use it when there are too few players. It's generally a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't go into here. I'm sure you can Google DMPC and find many hits explaining why it's a bad idea. But I think it's okay to use from time to time. It's just not a way to get the experience of playing the game, since the experience is very different when you are also the DM. But it can be a tool for the DM to make a better game for the rest of the players, if used well.
There is absolutely no reason not to play in multiple games, and be the DM in one or more and a player in others. I am a DM of one game, and a player in my game is the DM of a game I play in. Another player in the game I play in is a DM in a game I don't play in.
Anyway, there are really no rules to D&D.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between a DMPC and a PNPC. A DMPC is a DM playing in their own campaign. That never works out for tons of reasons. A PNPC is an NPC that basically tags along with the party and is at their disposal. Some DMs do this when there aren’t enough players and it is totally a fantastic idea for many reasons.
The significant differences are in the degree of active RP and amount of autonomy the character has. If the character is an active participant in the campaign that is a DMPC. If instead the character only really pipes up to maybe point out something that the PCs ready know but maybe the players forgot;* or they only help when asked by a PC, or if the players get genuinely stuck and have stopped having fun; and in combat they get narrated as helping but don’t really do much but buff the party,** so all they really do is help the PCs feel more epic to their players. A PNPC is not he one that gets sent to deliver a message so the PCs can do something more interesting. A PNPC is the one that gets left behind to cast identify all afternoon so the PCs can go do something more interesting. A PNPC gets kidnapped periodically so the PC have something interesting to do. *(Because for example from the PC’s perspective it was 4 hours ago but for the players it was 4 weeks.) **(Because maybe things went pear shaped and there’s no cleric for example.)
Starting to see a pattern? A DMPC takes away stuff to do from the PCs and therefore saps their players’ fun. A PNPC enables the PCs to do more stuff and therefore their players get to have more fun. A PNPC is basically like a sidekick for the entire party and run by the DM so nobody gets to bicker over who’s turn it is to run Fred the Ostler. The biggest problem with a PNPC is the risk of it accidentally morphing into a DMPC. Avoiding that can be tricky.
The only three downsides I can think of (beyond work load), are:
As mentioned by pavilionaire, if you do the same module, you can wreck your player experience.
Looking at the monster's stats could giveaway weaknesses and encourage metagaming (rather than thinking about what a character would know and perceive, you try to win by knowing and accounting for things that you as a player knows).
Seeing the monster's stats could break your immersion.
Still, the solutions are simple:
Just do a different module.
This is pretty weak sauce, it's upto you to not metagame. I'm sure you can manage it.
Again, I'm sure you can control yourself enough to suspend your knowledge so you can be immersed again.
In reality, so long as you don't run the same module and thereby get the spoilers, then there's no real reason I can see why you can't DM and play in different campaigns, simultaneously or otherwise. In fact, by DMing, you could be a better player - you'll know exactly what the DM needs to make thegame better and so forth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I have to disagree with your friend. You can’t do both in the same campaign, but wholly different campaigns?!? Why should it matter?
If anyone can give an example of how that would be a negative thing to do, I would be happy to consider it. However, I honestly cannot think of any negatives from that.
Learning how to DM makes people better players, and learning how to play makes people better DMs. A breadth of experiences will always yield a better understanding of any subject than a narrow field of experience. I love DMing, but if I could never play I would have quit a long time ago. I love to play, but it doesn’t quite scratch that DM itch. And I know for a fact I am a better DM because I know how things seem from the other side of the screen, and I know I’m a better player because I understand the workload from the DM’s perspective. Am I the bestest at either? Heck no! Am I better at both than I was when I started because of the accumulated experiences from both sides of the screen? Absolutely.
This. You shouldn't mix things by playing and dming in the same game IMO (though if you want to I'm not going to stop you.)
But if you have the time for two games, DMing and playing in different games, even with the same group of people, can be a lot of fun.
I do tend to recomend someone 'play' D&D before running a game to help them get used to the game's basics, learn the basics of the game and get a handle for things while only having to worry about your one character. But once you have all that down, if you have the time feel free to branch out into DMing. Or dive right into it if you really prefer to.
Technically you can be the DM and have a player in the same campaign, but that is somewhat frowned upon.
People call that concept a "DMPC" (dungeon master player character). Some DMs use it when there are too few players. It's generally a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't go into here. I'm sure you can Google DMPC and find many hits explaining why it's a bad idea. But I think it's okay to use from time to time. It's just not a way to get the experience of playing the game, since the experience is very different when you are also the DM. But it can be a tool for the DM to make a better game for the rest of the players, if used well.
There is absolutely no reason not to play in multiple games, and be the DM in one or more and a player in others. I am a DM of one game, and a player in my game is the DM of a game I play in. Another player in the game I play in is a DM in a game I don't play in.
Anyway, there are really no rules to D&D.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between a DMPC and a PNPC. A DMPC is a DM playing in their own campaign. That never works out for tons of reasons. A PNPC is an NPC that basically tags along with the party and is at their disposal. Some DMs do this when there aren’t enough players and it is totally a fantastic idea for many reasons.
The significant differences are in the degree of active RP and amount of autonomy the character has. If the character is an active participant in the campaign that is a DMPC. If instead the character only really pipes up to maybe point out something that the PCs ready know but maybe the players forgot;* or they only help when asked by a PC, or if the players get genuinely stuck and have stopped having fun; and in combat they get narrated as helping but don’t really do much but buff the party,** so all they really do is help the PCs feel more epic to their players. A PNPC is not he one that gets sent to deliver a message so the PCs can do something more interesting. A PNPC is the one that gets left behind to cast identify all afternoon so the PCs can go do something more interesting. A PNPC gets kidnapped periodically so the PC have something interesting to do. *(Because for example from the PC’s perspective it was 4 hours ago but for the players it was 4 weeks.) **(Because maybe things went pear shaped and there’s no cleric for example.)
Starting to see a pattern? A DMPC takes away stuff to do from the PCs and therefore saps their players’ fun. A PNPC enables the PCs to do more stuff and therefore their players get to have more fun. A PNPC is basically like a sidekick for the entire party and run by the DM so nobody gets to bicker over who’s turn it is to run Fred the Ostler. The biggest problem with a PNPC is the risk of it accidentally morphing into a DMPC. Avoiding that can be tricky.
Never heard of a PNPC. What does the first P stand for? Hopefully not player. Player Non-Player Character?
Technically you can be the DM and have a player in the same campaign, but that is somewhat frowned upon.
People call that concept a "DMPC" (dungeon master player character). Some DMs use it when there are too few players. It's generally a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't go into here. I'm sure you can Google DMPC and find many hits explaining why it's a bad idea. But I think it's okay to use from time to time. It's just not a way to get the experience of playing the game, since the experience is very different when you are also the DM. But it can be a tool for the DM to make a better game for the rest of the players, if used well.
There is absolutely no reason not to play in multiple games, and be the DM in one or more and a player in others. I am a DM of one game, and a player in my game is the DM of a game I play in. Another player in the game I play in is a DM in a game I don't play in.
Anyway, there are really no rules to D&D.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between a DMPC and a PNPC. A DMPC is a DM playing in their own campaign. That never works out for tons of reasons. A PNPC is an NPC that basically tags along with the party and is at their disposal. Some DMs do this when there aren’t enough players and it is totally a fantastic idea for many reasons.
The significant differences are in the degree of active RP and amount of autonomy the character has. If the character is an active participant in the campaign that is a DMPC. If instead the character only really pipes up to maybe point out something that the PCs ready know but maybe the players forgot;* or they only help when asked by a PC, or if the players get genuinely stuck and have stopped having fun; and in combat they get narrated as helping but don’t really do much but buff the party,** so all they really do is help the PCs feel more epic to their players. A PNPC is not he one that gets sent to deliver a message so the PCs can do something more interesting. A PNPC is the one that gets left behind to cast identify all afternoon so the PCs can go do something more interesting. A PNPC gets kidnapped periodically so the PC have something interesting to do. *(Because for example from the PC’s perspective it was 4 hours ago but for the players it was 4 weeks.) **(Because maybe things went pear shaped and there’s no cleric for example.)
Starting to see a pattern? A DMPC takes away stuff to do from the PCs and therefore saps their players’ fun. A PNPC enables the PCs to do more stuff and therefore their players get to have more fun. A PNPC is basically like a sidekick for the entire party and run by the DM so nobody gets to bicker over who’s turn it is to run Fred the Ostler. The biggest problem with a PNPC is the risk of it accidentally morphing into a DMPC. Avoiding that can be tricky.
Never heard of a PNPC. What does the first P stand for? Hopefully not player. Player Non-Player Character?
No idea what the P stands for either, but if I had to hazard a guess it's Party - a Party NPC as opposed to a DM NPC. If I bring in such a character, I create one with a very specific role that it's very adept at performing, at the exclusion of pretty much anything else. If the party needs a meat shield they get a tank with little or no hitting power or skills, but an uncanny ability to draw the enemy's attention; if they need something of a survival guide they get someone who can navigate all sorts of terrain without getting lost, find food and water in any environment and take a turn on watch at night, but who will go in full stealth mode the moment combat breaks out; a skill monkey will know enough about any and all skills the party is lacking in to be able to provide help (read: advantage), but usually not enough to to perform a skilled task instead of them; things like that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Technically you can be the DM and have a player in the same campaign, but that is somewhat frowned upon.
People call that concept a "DMPC" (dungeon master player character). Some DMs use it when there are too few players. It's generally a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't go into here. I'm sure you can Google DMPC and find many hits explaining why it's a bad idea. But I think it's okay to use from time to time. It's just not a way to get the experience of playing the game, since the experience is very different when you are also the DM. But it can be a tool for the DM to make a better game for the rest of the players, if used well.
There is absolutely no reason not to play in multiple games, and be the DM in one or more and a player in others. I am a DM of one game, and a player in my game is the DM of a game I play in. Another player in the game I play in is a DM in a game I don't play in.
Anyway, there are really no rules to D&D.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between a DMPC and a PNPC. A DMPC is a DM playing in their own campaign. That never works out for tons of reasons. A PNPC is an NPC that basically tags along with the party and is at their disposal. Some DMs do this when there aren’t enough players and it is totally a fantastic idea for many reasons.
The significant differences are in the degree of active RP and amount of autonomy the character has. If the character is an active participant in the campaign that is a DMPC. If instead the character only really pipes up to maybe point out something that the PCs ready know but maybe the players forgot;* or they only help when asked by a PC, or if the players get genuinely stuck and have stopped having fun; and in combat they get narrated as helping but don’t really do much but buff the party,** so all they really do is help the PCs feel more epic to their players. A PNPC is not he one that gets sent to deliver a message so the PCs can do something more interesting. A PNPC is the one that gets left behind to cast identify all afternoon so the PCs can go do something more interesting. A PNPC gets kidnapped periodically so the PC have something interesting to do. *(Because for example from the PC’s perspective it was 4 hours ago but for the players it was 4 weeks.) **(Because maybe things went pear shaped and there’s no cleric for example.)
Starting to see a pattern? A DMPC takes away stuff to do from the PCs and therefore saps their players’ fun. A PNPC enables the PCs to do more stuff and therefore their players get to have more fun. A PNPC is basically like a sidekick for the entire party and run by the DM so nobody gets to bicker over who’s turn it is to run Fred the Ostler. The biggest problem with a PNPC is the risk of it accidentally morphing into a DMPC. Avoiding that can be tricky.
I have always called what you describe as an NPC... never really saw a need for a qualifier prefix to it.
Yeah never seen the distinction there. Personally though that is something I employ in both of the games I run. Basically serving two functions.
A. Providing some sort of use to the party NOT COVERED BY THE PCs. I don't want to outshine the PCs or make it my npc's story. But say, a bard who buffs the pcs in a party without a support caster, or someone to take a few hits if the party all rolled squishy characters without a sold 'tank.' Or even just things like a tinker that can make useful stuff for the party.
B. Providing more consistent RP possibilities. It's fun to be able to RP with the party with an NPC that's around consistently and not just there for a few moments at a time.
You don't see a distinction? Most NPCs don't need any kind of stat block. Maybe six basic stats, proficiencies, and saves, in case any kind of checks come up. If you're going to have them in combat on the players' side or against, you need actions, spells, etc., if not a full character built with levels in a class. And then you have those that will be involved in a single combat, and those that will join the players in whatever combat they encounter. Are they all NPCs? Yes, because NPC is negative definition. Every character that's not a PC is an NPC.
DM your game and play in the other game. The admonition about DMs not making good players is an extension of the "meta gaming" knowledge which can lead to "back seat DMing." You run your game your way. The DM runs your game their way. Sure you're going to notice differences, and that might be helpful for you as a DM in thinking about your own DMing. But don't use what you know, or think you know, about DMing as a means to challenge or "intervene" when you think the game you're playing in is being done "wrong." Yes, as a player you can question, politely, a DMs ruling or handling. Just don't do it in way that disrupts the game or undermines the DMs running.
If at all possible, I'd recommend playing as a player through an adventure in the other DMs group before establishing yourself as a DM. The reason why I say that as if you actually spend some time as a player, it helps you build your game as DM with actual player perspective in mind. A lot of folks who start out as a DM without player experience build adventures that are more catered to a story the DM wants to tell rather than an adventure that gives players an opportunity to play. It's a subtle thing, but incorporating "player perspective" into the game is something that's often overlooked by starter DMs.
One quick tip about DMPCS and NPCs- if you need them (duet campaigns, for example) you can always have the players take control of the DMPC/NPC at crucial moments. ‘What do you think so and so should do?’ In a duet, let the player be the clear party leader and make the decisions while at the same time having the DMPCs to support the player. In a normal campaign, have the DMPC/NPC be shy or something and let the players take the stage.
In the end, the campaign belongs to you and your players. If you want DMPCs and your group likes playing with them, that’s fine. If you don’t, don’t play with them.
One quick tip about DMPCS and NPCs- if you need them (duet campaigns, for example) you can always have the players take control of the DMPC/NPC at crucial moments. ‘What do you think so and so should do?’ In a duet, let the player be the clear party leader and make the decisions while at the same time having the DMPCs to support the player. In a normal campaign, have the DMPC/NPC be shy or something and let the players take the stage.
In the end, the campaign belongs to you and your players. If you want DMPCs and your group likes playing with them, that’s fine. If you don’t, don’t play with them.
I usually do this by having the NPC ask "so what's the plan?" then having them follow the instructions as best they can. (BTW this works even in larger groups as well as 1-on-1 games).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello! I am very new to D&D. I am enjoying it immensely, but as a writer with an overly active imagination I am quite intrigued by the idea of being a DM. I totally understand that you cannot DM and have a playable character in the same campaign, but I'm getting a lot of conflicting information about whether or not you can DM one campaign and play in another. I would like to continue playing my wizard with my friends, but I was thinking of learning to DM so I can also do that for other people. Is this allowable? Allowable but frowned upon? Forbidden? I feel like a lot of the D&D world is pretty flexible and up to the people playing.
Not only allowable but strongly encouraged. Personally, I'm of the opinion that someone who's never Mastered the Dungeon has only played half of D&D.
My own personal group has a two campaign rotation - we have two games running concurrently and switch between them every week specifically so the DM for one can play in the other.
Don't let anyone tell you not to learn to DM, or that you have to give up playing to do it. Anyone who says so is being a silly boob and lying to you. Go forth and enjoy both sides of the screen.
Please do not contact or message me.
+1 to what Yurei said.
There's no D&D police who will come and take your dice away. Do what you want and have fun. Most people in my group are either playing or DM'ing in a different group. The cross-pollination of ideas from one table to the other is great. Though I have heard of people who play too much and burn out a bit, same as really any other activity.
Why shouldn’t you DM in one campaign and play in another?!? I am currently DMing one campaign, playing in another campaign with all the exact same people, and playing in another campaign with a bunch of other folks at the same time.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am liking these replies! Like I said, we're still on our first campaign and very much beginners, but once we get through this I am definitely going to start learning about DMing! :D
I have to disagree with your friend. You can’t do both in the same campaign, but wholly different campaigns?!? Why should it matter?
If anyone can give an example of how that would be a negative thing to do, I would be happy to consider it. However, I honestly cannot think of any negatives from that.
Learning how to DM makes people better players, and learning how to play makes people better DMs. A breadth of experiences will always yield a better understanding of any subject than a narrow field of experience. I love DMing, but if I could never play I would have quit a long time ago. I love to play, but it doesn’t quite scratch that DM itch. And I know for a fact I am a better DM because I know how things seem from the other side of the screen, and I know I’m a better player because I understand the workload from the DM’s perspective. Am I the bestest at either? Heck no! Am I better at both than I was when I started because of the accumulated experiences from both sides of the screen? Absolutely.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Don’t wait. DMing is a lot of work, getting a head start can never hurt:
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Technically you can be the DM and have a player in the same campaign, but that is somewhat frowned upon.
People call that concept a "DMPC" (dungeon master player character). Some DMs use it when there are too few players. It's generally a bad idea for many reasons, which I won't go into here. I'm sure you can Google DMPC and find many hits explaining why it's a bad idea. But I think it's okay to use from time to time. It's just not a way to get the experience of playing the game, since the experience is very different when you are also the DM. But it can be a tool for the DM to make a better game for the rest of the players, if used well.
There is absolutely no reason not to play in multiple games, and be the DM in one or more and a player in others. I am a DM of one game, and a player in my game is the DM of a game I play in. Another player in the game I play in is a DM in a game I don't play in.
Anyway, there are really no rules to D&D.
One thing to be careful of is if you're playing the same published module. It's not great if you read in the book about what's coming up in the game you're playing in.
I would like to point out that there is a difference between a DMPC and a PNPC. A DMPC is a DM playing in their own campaign. That never works out for tons of reasons. A PNPC is an NPC that basically tags along with the party and is at their disposal. Some DMs do this when there aren’t enough players and it is totally a fantastic idea for many reasons.
The significant differences are in the degree of active RP and amount of autonomy the character has. If the character is an active participant in the campaign that is a DMPC. If instead the character only really pipes up to maybe point out something that the PCs ready know but maybe the players forgot;* or they only help when asked by a PC, or if the players get genuinely stuck and have stopped having fun; and in combat they get narrated as helping but don’t really do much but buff the party,** so all they really do is help the PCs feel more epic to their players. A PNPC is not he one that gets sent to deliver a message so the PCs can do something more interesting. A PNPC is the one that gets left behind to cast identify all afternoon so the PCs can go do something more interesting. A PNPC gets kidnapped periodically so the PC have something interesting to do.
*(Because for example from the PC’s perspective it was 4 hours ago but for the players it was 4 weeks.)
**(Because maybe things went pear shaped and there’s no cleric for example.)
Starting to see a pattern? A DMPC takes away stuff to do from the PCs and therefore saps their players’ fun. A PNPC enables the PCs to do more stuff and therefore their players get to have more fun. A PNPC is basically like a sidekick for the entire party and run by the DM so nobody gets to bicker over who’s turn it is to run Fred the Ostler. The biggest problem with a PNPC is the risk of it accidentally morphing into a DMPC. Avoiding that can be tricky.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The only three downsides I can think of (beyond work load), are:
Still, the solutions are simple:
In reality, so long as you don't run the same module and thereby get the spoilers, then there's no real reason I can see why you can't DM and play in different campaigns, simultaneously or otherwise. In fact, by DMing, you could be a better player - you'll know exactly what the DM needs to make thegame better and so forth.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This. You shouldn't mix things by playing and dming in the same game IMO (though if you want to I'm not going to stop you.)
But if you have the time for two games, DMing and playing in different games, even with the same group of people, can be a lot of fun.
I do tend to recomend someone 'play' D&D before running a game to help them get used to the game's basics, learn the basics of the game and get a handle for things while only having to worry about your one character. But once you have all that down, if you have the time feel free to branch out into DMing. Or dive right into it if you really prefer to.
Never heard of a PNPC. What does the first P stand for? Hopefully not player. Player Non-Player Character?
No idea what the P stands for either, but if I had to hazard a guess it's Party - a Party NPC as opposed to a DM NPC. If I bring in such a character, I create one with a very specific role that it's very adept at performing, at the exclusion of pretty much anything else. If the party needs a meat shield they get a tank with little or no hitting power or skills, but an uncanny ability to draw the enemy's attention; if they need something of a survival guide they get someone who can navigate all sorts of terrain without getting lost, find food and water in any environment and take a turn on watch at night, but who will go in full stealth mode the moment combat breaks out; a skill monkey will know enough about any and all skills the party is lacking in to be able to provide help (read: advantage), but usually not enough to to perform a skilled task instead of them; things like that.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I have always called what you describe as an NPC... never really saw a need for a qualifier prefix to it.
Yeah never seen the distinction there. Personally though that is something I employ in both of the games I run. Basically serving two functions.
A. Providing some sort of use to the party NOT COVERED BY THE PCs. I don't want to outshine the PCs or make it my npc's story. But say, a bard who buffs the pcs in a party without a support caster, or someone to take a few hits if the party all rolled squishy characters without a sold 'tank.' Or even just things like a tinker that can make useful stuff for the party.
B. Providing more consistent RP possibilities. It's fun to be able to RP with the party with an NPC that's around consistently and not just there for a few moments at a time.
You don't see a distinction? Most NPCs don't need any kind of stat block. Maybe six basic stats, proficiencies, and saves, in case any kind of checks come up. If you're going to have them in combat on the players' side or against, you need actions, spells, etc., if not a full character built with levels in a class. And then you have those that will be involved in a single combat, and those that will join the players in whatever combat they encounter. Are they all NPCs? Yes, because NPC is negative definition. Every character that's not a PC is an NPC.
DM your game and play in the other game. The admonition about DMs not making good players is an extension of the "meta gaming" knowledge which can lead to "back seat DMing." You run your game your way. The DM runs your game their way. Sure you're going to notice differences, and that might be helpful for you as a DM in thinking about your own DMing. But don't use what you know, or think you know, about DMing as a means to challenge or "intervene" when you think the game you're playing in is being done "wrong." Yes, as a player you can question, politely, a DMs ruling or handling. Just don't do it in way that disrupts the game or undermines the DMs running.
If at all possible, I'd recommend playing as a player through an adventure in the other DMs group before establishing yourself as a DM. The reason why I say that as if you actually spend some time as a player, it helps you build your game as DM with actual player perspective in mind. A lot of folks who start out as a DM without player experience build adventures that are more catered to a story the DM wants to tell rather than an adventure that gives players an opportunity to play. It's a subtle thing, but incorporating "player perspective" into the game is something that's often overlooked by starter DMs.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
One quick tip about DMPCS and NPCs- if you need them (duet campaigns, for example) you can always have the players take control of the DMPC/NPC at crucial moments. ‘What do you think so and so should do?’ In a duet, let the player be the clear party leader and make the decisions while at the same time having the DMPCs to support the player. In a normal campaign, have the DMPC/NPC be shy or something and let the players take the stage.
In the end, the campaign belongs to you and your players. If you want DMPCs and your group likes playing with them, that’s fine. If you don’t, don’t play with them.
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
I usually do this by having the NPC ask "so what's the plan?" then having them follow the instructions as best they can. (BTW this works even in larger groups as well as 1-on-1 games).