Help Support Nerdarchy by Shopping at YOUR Favorites Places on the Internet. Just use these links and shop as usual. Nothing changes for you- Amazon- amzn.to/2jf0boA Nerdarchy the Store- goo.gl/M4YZEQ Drive Thru RPG- goo.gl/6nf5zh Easy Roller Dice- goo.gl/1n0M1r D&D and Think Geek Gear- goo.gl/LZAV5z
Nerdarchy my players are playing a very squishy party (a bard and a rogue only the two of them) normally this wouldn't be an issue but they pick fights with just about everyone so I was thinking of making a barbarian NPC that's really stupid and bad at pretty much everything except for dealing damage and tanking, what do you think? Just the generic meatshield NPC so the players can still figure out all the puzzles and I won't have to half the challenge rating of the encounter
Okay, so my response to why a DM would want a character is this: In all my years of RPGs, which is about 30... I have actually played as a character once. No joke. Once. For one game. The GM was a huge dick and utterly crushed my character along with everyone else's character and then he never felt like running another game. So for every other game I've ever played, I've had to be the DM. I feel like it's a job no one else wants and I can't be the only person who never gets to play the game. So I take pity on any DM/GM out there who feels like he/she should be allowed to make a character to stick into the group. As for micromanaging the group by having your own PC, no. I don't agree with that at all. Let the players do whatever they want. My games are all open world. They wanna go off the rails and kill important NPCs, then I put my writing skills to the task and teach them the ramifications of their actions or reward them for outsmarting my campaign. I've even had players play my whole campaign backwards because they wanted to go straight into the heart of a dungeon, rather than visit a town first. I love being a DM. I do... but sometimes, I wish I could just play. Sometimes I'd envy my players because they just have to show up and have a good time, solve puzzles and do cool stuff. Being god isn't easy, even if it is awesome.
Mikael Bloomqvist I agree man I feel for you and I’m sorry and I hope some day soon you can play again if you want a buddy a mine is running a campaign on discord if you have it there are slots still open to play
I used to be a DM with a NPC in the party. I just did it because I liked being a player way more than a DM, and it worked pretty fine. The way I handled it was leaving all the talking to the players, I only talked when asked or to do some irrelevant and funny commentaries. If asked what should we do as a party I would say what, in my mind, my character would say, which may or may not what I expected the players to do. In combat, I usually just smash some skulls or help they execute their plan. In fact, it actually led to some great moments, where the party saved my careless npc more than once. The trick is to not steal their spotlight and help them archieve greatness
I have a few NPC allies the players can call on in my campaigns, right now they've requested a healer so I've made the town cleric dust off her mace and she'll go with them for their current dungeon crawl for as long as they need her help and aren't being murder hobos (with the up front expectation that it will reduce their exp and material rewards but make the dungeon easier). As always I make the NPC (or NPCs) the party takes with lower level unless there's a specific plot reason otherwise Frankly the attitude that the party shouldn't have NPC allies is a little baffling to me as every campaign I've played has had NPCs the party likes to call on when they need extra help
Yea I have simply had my party request help. They were In an arena and forcibly befriended an npc that was supposed to die. Or my first campaign ever level three guard captain they wanted to go with them. I said no. The paladin asked if he could roll persuasion. I said sure why not thinking maybe he would maybe give supplies or something. He rolled a freaking nat 20.
Giving the players the option to have NPC`s helping them indeed make great campaign moments and even characters that the players get attached to. Its strange Nerdarchy were against it so firmly. Btw, in my tables, I make everyone on the same level and they level up as a group.
IMO any NPCs should not be more powerful than the PCs if they are helping the PCs,aka hirelings. That said if they are the one getting help from the PCs then that makes sense as the PCs would be his hirelings. But they should be no more powerful than the PCs will be by the end of the quest. (Assuming a short quest of 1-2 levels)
C Moore in my case I just make it make sense a guard captain of a small town is around level three. A captain for a city around 5th. The overall general of a nation's army 10 to 12. It has to make sense. I'm not saying the crazy wizard they are working for is level 2 or 3 because the party is that low.
multieyedmyr I run a DmPc in my starfinder game and he is almost non-involved, he is there if the party is getting wrecked or if they don’t recon at all.
I introduced a Future PC, as an NPC for one of my short story run. It was basicly a dungeon crawl with a backstory to why they were there. I also tied in some secrets to the dungeon that may or may not be discovered. The NPC was the task giver, the task was to accompany him to get something back from inside the dungeon. The NPC assisted in combat but rarely ever "found clues" unless at the partys request.( he is a ranger so they would request him to use his tracking skills to discover there are drag marks that just abruptly end at a wall) which may reveal there is a passage. In a future game when i get to PC I may consider pulling him out as he'll also have some backstop they can relate to. If the DM is truly there to enjoy and not dictate or take full control of the game from the players I cant see a difference in GMPC and running an NPC that was in the material or you came up with. He was also 2 levels below the party members. ( its a two man party and I knew going in i was going to need to throw some help in, but didn't want to fudge rolls or have to make a few enemies "vansish" from the dungeon.
Only time I used a DMPC was for our first 1-20 campaign. I had never played or run a level 1-20 campaign before, and I wanted to be a part of the group for the adventure, so I added my character as a member. He was a socially awkward wizard and didn’t talk with other NPC’s, and more or less functioned as the party’s walking encyclopedia for the world.
For me, running a DMPC sincerely helps with DM burnout. I play a character that's simple in combat and isn't the face of the party so that my players keep the spotlight, but having my guy be able to chime in here and there is fun and keeps me wanting to make the next session.
Why? You get every monster. You get every boss. You get every room. You get every puzzle. Why do you need to be part of the party? Do you need to be on the winning team? Maybe not DM, then.
I was running a game for my son's and their friends. I filled in with a wondrous item living armor that had a fighter spirit trapped in it. It didn't speak or have opinions it just followed and killed things to fill in that hole in the party.
This is actually a really good idea! You can have a niche filled if no players wanted to play that type of character without dominating the game. Just have an automaton to do that.
I've had DM PCs for many reasons, mostly to carry a story to conclusion. My rule with DM PCs is "I don't care if it's Superman himself, he/she/it cannot do anything useful without the party's help." It's all about moving the spotlight onto players that need it or deserve it, never to "Mary Sue" my own ego. That's what the master villains are for.
controlling everything else in the game is not the same as having a PC and you guys should know it, you're also fortunate enough to have a lot of people willing to DM not everyone has that luxury so if the DM wants a PC just let him as long as he doesn't do what the DM in the GM911 did making himself more powerful because that is bullshit, their character should be on par with the rest of the group and not take centerstage too often especially in social encounters they should take the backseat in combat they can do their thing and play to their characters strengths (as long as it isn't a social encounter). i've been lucky enough to have had a group where everyone was willing to DM and we rotated DM duties so no single person had to take all of that responsibility all the time so we all also had DM PC's in that game because ofcourse we would and it worked fine.
Honestly even a social encounter isnt that bad as long as they are avoiding the one hour monologue. the golden rule of DMPC is "Dont talk to yourself. If your DMPC needs to have an interaction have it happen off screen or better yet plan it ahead and have it happen off screen. But you are talking to a Wizard or something and your DMPC knows something that is relevent "Balgruff the Red hastily swallows his wine "Wait! I know that sigil, isnt that the sigil of the legendary knight who slew the Terrible Red Dragon of Gark?!?". The wizard perks up "Ah! A student of history I see, or at least of the classic epics. Yes now that you remind me that is indeed his symbol. So we must be dealing with..." is really fine.
@@mechaulfr9600 recent events in my gaming life have only strengthened my belief that DMPC's should be kept in the background if I'm entirely honest, the example you give is fine if that is the extent of the interaction and the rest is left to the PC's, however the situation i was in recently involved a DM who unfortunately made his DMPC's the centerpoint of the campaign, including overpowered custom character classes, that has really soured my view on DMPC's. However we took a break from that campaign and had a talk with the DM and he's promised to do better going forward, time will tell if that is the case.
@@Daredhnu I hope it tells well. DMPCs can go VERY bad. My horror story was a DM who ran.... wait for it... THREE DMPCS. A Dwarven Fighter with a frigging OP weapon (it was at least legal; but he dumped his int to 4 so he could have a super high strength and picked all the right feats.) A cleric that was a glorified bandaid box and oddly was.... available... to any member of the party who wants to know what sex with a dwarf woman is like. And then a Wizard who was kinda just standing in the back doing nothing. There were 3 of us. One day we just started playing another game on our phones waiting for him to finish monologuing. And yeah, that sounds terrible. If I run a DMPC they are a middling build, with the same rules and levels as other PCs And generally in a roll that the party wants. Sometimes I even say "Hey guys Im planning a DMPC, any request on class/role?"
I think there is an underlying problem that needs to be addressed, and that is the DM wants to be a player. I have been running a game for years now, and have only played a handful of times since then. My players have begun to consider DMing and one actually has ran a session and wants to run more when I start to get a little burnt out. It may be time for the group’s sake to switch DM’s for a bit to allow the DM to roll for fun. If no one is willing, consider taking a break and let the DM catch his breath.
I never even knew EMs with PCs (not DMPCs, that seems to be something more specific and what this video technically talks about) was some kind of taboo until I started reading D&D stuff on the internet, so maybe a year or two. I'vs been playing for 20 years and every DM I've ever had - including myself - had their own PC. Everyone in the group gets a character, with a backstory and everything. As a DM, you learn to compartmentalize between who your character is and who you need to be for all the NPCs. It's never been that difficult for us, so it shocks me to learn that the idea is so hated because of some bad apples. I had really hoped, by the title of this video, the I would finally have found someone who advocated the idea. It would probably take pages for me to really go into all the reasons why I think every DM should get the opportunity. Suffice to say, when you can know how to split your brain into your two roles and you have a group of players who all trust each other implicitly, this works 100% of the time.
I used basically a DM PC, because I was doing a campaign with only one player. Used a Paladin so any thing he had to do was cut and dry, but he didn't make any game decisions, and the player had to request him use certain powers (detect evil for example). It went well, but you have to be very careful
I personally don't like having a PC when I DM. I even make the other players in my games run each others hirelings. I just feel like the energy I would spend on that particular character would be better served in further developing a solid NPC or BBEG. Besides, why in the world would I need a PC anyways? I get to be Strahd Von Zarovich, Hallaster Blackcloak, Azalin Rex, (insert cool NPC here).
Playing the villain is way cooler than a DMPC. Especially if you don't have them sit in a lair and wait. I often think about what the villain is doing right now, and it's entirely possible the players just meet them by chance if they go there.
Also, if you would have a PC you could just have it be a temp character that has reason for being with the party. A character that sticks with the players but isn't your player character but instead a plot piece and entity that will stay in character
@nico Negro You are playing Characters ! it's the very definition of your job, playing all other characters the players don't. Try that at your table, ask your players to create an NPC for you to use, then allow them to play him when they meet him. see for yourself how much different that character will be played. they will want to make him jump into the story, they will want to make him a backstory. but you as a DM tell them, it will forever be an NPC working that place. if they don't get that every characters in your world is a character with that one,m then nothing will ever teach them anything. i did this with my players and they absolutely love to play those NPC and at this point their background stories they have developped made them understand why a DM PC can exist to beginw ith. because that's our job, to play all the other characters.
And what does the C stand for in NPC ? i think you have to understand more about role playing there. what's princess leia in star wars ? what's the other gremlins in the gremlins movies ? they are all the C in NPC or PC. and as far as i am concerned... a character is still a living entity reguardless of where it comes from.
I didn't realize the title was supposed to be ironic, and was waiting for you to get to 4 reasons to run a GMNPC. Instead, you picked 4 reasons why you assumed people want to run a GMNPC for and then knocked them down. I'd like to see you guys do a video where you come up with four valid reasons to run a GMNPC. How it can be done and done well, and what it can contribute to the play experience.
Keith Curtis I can do that for you. 1. Players may request it for whatever reason. 2. It could be used for story reasons (i.e. a character the pc's may get attached to may turn villain or needs help from them in the future). 3. Adding a character is sometimes a lot easier than readjusting a whole adventure module or a planned campaign. 4. If you have a group of players new to rp'ing, it may be beneficial to have a character to interact with them to essentially guide them on how to rp and solve problems that may arise.
Thank Roadkillz78. Those are good reasons. I also find them useful for less heavy-handed exposition and to fill in roles for missing player characters: While your thief is on a solo quest, they have the necessary skills (hopefully ar a lower level). They should never outshine the party. They should never be the driving force. I also use my GMPCs, when not being directed for story reasons) to give random players an extra turn. "Bob, what does Joe NPC do this round?" This is very helpful if one player is KOd, paralyzed or controlled. They don't have to sit out of the action. But the real intent of my comment was to challenge the Fine Folk at Nerdarchy to do this as a video, rather than the much easier video that they did. C'mon guys, this is like taking the easy position in debate class. Do the hard one. :)
I had GMNPCs for the purpose of sending the PCs on missions and giving them quests. easier than them running all over and getting them from all different peoples.
the main problem with people saying it can't be done can as easily be shattered by real DMs. Heres why i think its possible to do based on the 4 reasons people don't think it is. #1R - you know the story and thus you know everything there is to know. #1A - not if you know how to differentiate character from another character. bad DMing includes not knowing how to actually role play. role playing is more then just you giving a story, it is about characters, what they know, how they live in their world, how they react to things. not everyone is the same, thus if you want an actually living world, you shouldn't play it like a game. you should play it like a world. #2R - Those players can simply ask you what to do and since you know everything there will be no fun to be had. #2A - Those people are metagaming, they do not think like characters at all if they do. basically they just fear the DM taking the spotlight out of them and usually those people are poor players because they often just hug the spotlight too much. Any good DMs or good Players knows to share the spotlight cause the game is not about 1 person, but the whole group. #3R - The DM just want the story to be about him. #3A - same as the above, really... Mind you there are bad DMs who think their story is just that, their story. doesn'T mean everyone is the same and having a character along with your party actually helps the DM manage your story as well as make your world more believable. after all your party is not the only one that adventures.if you see NPC leveling too, then that means your world is living. your party should never be the only people leveling in your world. Not to mention sometimes your players just linger too much, your GMPC might just be what you need to push that story further. #4R - Party composition should always be a thing otherwise your players sucks if they all take fighters. #4A - not at all, if you think composition is a must, then you have the video game syndrome and forgot about role playing. party composition is something only if your DM is bad at managing said party. on the contrary, the players who know how to play will more often then not learn to manage the missing class. using poles or things like that if they dont have a rogue, or learning to be stealthy if they dont have a tank. but most of all, sometimes the players will, if you your world is truly living, ask for help from NPC. that's where your GMPC will come online and shine. so overall, tips to make it work and really, this is also for players... #1 - know to compartment your character knowledge. #2 - Share the spotlight, do not own it. #3 - learn to actually live in that world, dont just react to what the DM say, take initiative. #4 - be mindful of others, don't just assume things of them, let them teach you what their character is about. These are basic rules any players should abide by, really. those who don't usually ruins the fun for others. that's my take on it.
I feel a DM player could only be used like Gandalf. He was basically gone for 3/4ths of the story, helped introduce the plot, did not defeat the antagonist, and sometimes saved them when things got heated. Really he was more of a guide than a part of the party.
I don't necessarily agree, everything in moderation. I had a DM pc and he was well received, no higher power than the others, aside from his strength as the party were primarily magic oriented, aside from a barb. He wasn't used as anything more than a friend/exposition device, as he was a scholar, a DM pc is only a Mary Sue if you'd like it to be.
Just dismissing a DMPC as "lame" is.. just kind of stupid. NPC's are, likely, going to ally with the party on occasion. Sometimes a party member might want to drag an NPC along for a while. Either way, a DMPC can serve a lot of uses, and its this really dumb stigma that goes along with it that can end up limiting your options. On the other hand, a desire and drive to create a DMPC can also screw things up for the group. It's not really a good or bad thing in and of itself, it's how it's implemented. A DMPC is a tool. Nothing more... It's a hammer. Really great for driving in nails, but you shouldn't try to change a tire with it. Yes, if you make an OP character? You're doing it wrong. Reasons to use a DMPC or NPC allies that can go with the party... 1. Group misses something crucial and the game has turned into a slog as they try to remember. Serves as a way for the DM to remind the party in a more immersion friendly way. 2. Mobile quest giver. 3. Rounding out a party. This isn't to say "well, my players built the party wrong", I can't think of a single DM who has ever said that. Sometimes, people don't want to play certain roles, and that's fine. A mercenary rogue that charges the group for his services. A cleric that's meant to help the group along. A tank (which is useful to create the illusion of more dynamic fights with slightly less work on the DM) to fight massive swarms or hold a pass. A scout to find better pathways and present more options. 4. An eventual villain for the party that's working undercover. 5. If you've overestimated the group's capabilities in problem solving and combat? A bard that joins the party to sing their exploits and buff them on occasion. But he's pretty useless in a fight outside of some CC, spot healing, and buffing. 6. A story telling device. If you have a certain type of story you're trying to tell, a DMPC can be a great way to do it and guide the path... Like, say, a god choosing mortal form to pick his next champions. While he helps and COULD end the fight immediately? He's looking for people to do his/her will. This can serve to introduce more of a driving force in a high level campaign. 7. A mediator if your party has both Evil and Good characters in it so the group doesn't devolve into PC killing PC, and the players getting frustrated and angry at one another. 8. If you have a really BIG group and dozens of ideas get put on a table? A DMPC gives the DM a chance to help guide in a gentle way. Or, because a character should never be right OR wrong all the time? A chance to guide them down the wrong path, but into a more interesting story. 9. Sometimes the players just REALLY want to drag along that NPC because they've taken a shine to them. 10. Cohorts/followers your players get that they keep forgetting to control. (Just because the players forget about them doesn't mean the cohort/follower is going to sit there like a lame duck and not help their friend/try to save their own life.) 11. A mentor. An older character meant to help shepherd the next generation of adventurers into the world. They are in their final days of adventuring, which gives you the option to either kill the character... again, making a more emotional response for the party.. and, potentially, a vengeance story line. Or, the character can simply retire. The DMPC is not you. The DMPC is not your power fantasy. Do not overstep the party's social, problem solving, and combat experience by doing everything for them. Let them try to figure it out on their own, when they're getting visibly frustrated OOCly, then give them a helping hand without breaking immersion. The group has expended all believable rolls, including Advantage, Luck, and three rerolls? Then kind of give them a hint. (Of course, you could just say "It takes you several hours, but you manage to find X.") Let your DMPC be wrong sometimes. IF you have an issue with deciding when? Use a dice roll. A D20 with either Wis or Int as the modifier to see if something's a good or bad suggestion, then go with it. Give your DMPC his own goal. IF the party goes against this goal? The DMPC can leave or turn into a villain against the party. It can help you create a more organic story for your players and give them something more complex than just "Oh, this dude that we've done some work for turned against us." It quickly turns into "our friend, the guy that risked his life for us, that we risked OUR lives for, betrayed our trust." It creates a much more intense emotional response.
Good post. I too felt the video was narrow minded. Instead of arguing about the merits or issues of a gmpc, they simply built a strawman to support their bias. The gist I got after watching wasn’t that gmpc is a good/bad idea, just that a terrible gm using a gmpc will, surprise surprise, also be bad using one as well. Almost as if the problem isn’t in the thing but rather the person using said thing. So that has nothing to do with gmpc as a topic. The same strawman can be used to argue against almost anything. Demonstrate terrible uses of something and argue that because of these terrible uses, that the thing is bad. What? Disclaimer: mind you I know little about table top rpg, having never played myself. However that doesn’t mean I can’t spot terrible arguments and fallacies.
Here's another one: Sometimes a group just needs another player. Not everyone has a group of 3 or 4 friends that want to play D&D. Sometimes you just have one or two friends that are interested. It's kinda hard to have a party with just one person. In that case, the DMPC is just a way for couple of friends to get their D&D fix without having to scout for other players If it's done right, you can still set up puzzles for your main player(s), you just have to make it clear that the DMPC isn't an all-knowing God
First of all, a DMPC isn't an NPC, which is what should be used for pretty much everything you mentioned. The difference is small, but significant... most notable is the ability to contribute a voice to the party's decisions, rather than merely influencing their decisions. Plus taking a share of the rewards and the whole it's really difficult to be objective enough to pull it off without stepping on the enjoyment of the other people at the table (in some way/shape/form). There is really no reason for a DMPC, just use NPCs and be assertive when you have an itch to play... let someone else step up and DM for a while. You can use your PCs as NPCs, which is actually a good tool for having well-developed personalities for players to interact with. Better still is merely using your PC concepts, changing details to make it a different person in the world/setting. You can also have NPCs with classes/levels/feats/etc..., by all means, the more you flesh out an NPC the stronger impression it'll have on the players (hence using your PCs or PC concepts as NPCs). At the end of the day, you're free to do whatever you want as a DM, just as the players are free to find a different DM if they don't like your style. Anecdotally, most players will tolerate a DMPC (I've been lucky enough to play with lots of kind people in my 35+ years of RPGs), but they also don't find the arrangement enjoyable. I let my players do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they don't cause conflicts with other people at the table... in my mind, the job of the DM is to facilitate an entertaining/enjoyable experience for everyone... not to play "my" characters or tell "my" story, I give my players the freedom to do whatever it is that interests them. I will never force a DMPC into a game, unless the players specifically ask for it... but it'll never be my idea, because I can accomplish any story-telling mechanism via NPCs.
You're right. A DMPC isn't an NPC. However, I will argue against the word "should" in your first statement... well, most of that first line, really. The word "should" implies that there is a right and wrong option. -- There is a right and wrong way to use either option, but neither DMPC or NPC are, inherently, the correct choice because of how easily blurred the line between NPC and DMPC is. The video is, essentially, discussing why a DMPC could be used. I gave answers. Yes, an NPC can easily be used for entries 2, 7, 8, and 11 in certain conditions. But a DMPC is an option, just as an NPC. But, then we're talking about what is considered a DMPC... There are dozens of answers, but there is never one solid, concrete answer. Which makes the entire argument of "are they good or are they bad" pretty silly to begin with. I, personally, consider a DMPC to be... -Any character I made at the start of the game to help the party adventure. (To be done only if the group wants a particular class and they agree and know of the risks. [Usually a cleric.]) -Any cohort/hireling that is dedicated to the party and is brought along to help in conflicts. -Any NPC that the group convinces to come along with them. -Any NPC that I've had to make a full character sheet for.
You contradicted yourself... "a DMPC isn't an NPC", yet you then define a DMPC to be specific types of NPCs. DMPCs should be different, in order to justify a different label. Thus, I see them as DM controlled PCs, entailing all that a PC does... if they do not meet that criteria, they're just NPCs. For me, the biggest issue is the DMPC having the same rights as PCs (i.e. voice, rewards, renown, etc...). This is because of the appearance of objectivity (or the lack there of). Obviously, we all have perspectives and within said perspectives, we're going to have our individual preferences (e.g. right and wrong). By saying "should", I'm inferring my opinion, but it doesn't infer demonization of those who disagree. To illustrate, having a position, doesn't necessarily mean opposition to others of a contrary position, just opposition of their position (at least in my desire/willingness to adhere to it). If using DMPCs works for you, more power to you, I choose not to use them though (by my definition anyways). I just personally find the concept of a DMPC as going against the role of being a DM, because you must sacrifice at least some objectivity to do so (even if it's just the appearance of it). Then again, I think many people confuse the terms NPC and DMPC... they're different things, but get viewed as the same thing. So I guess it's actually a matter of semantics... you're calling DMPCs what I call NPCs (in all but one instance that you mentioned)... I don't see the need to make a DMPC for party composition, an NPC can fill that role or you can adjust/adapt your game to accommodate the perceived hole. Better yet, the players can adapt/adjust to the challenge of lacking a specialized role, making their successes that much more satisfying.
In my gaming circle we use the term DMPC for a Mary Sue, that is a character that is more powerful than the rest of the party showing up the party leaving them nothing to do. A DM run character that joins the party is an NPC as long as they are of equal power level to the party. I always make the addition of one up to the players, and tend to get them options to expand they party or fill a role that they need. I like having one in the party as it gives me a voice of either common sense or to get the party back on track and refocused on what is going on, which is needed from time to time.
I'm currently running the Curse of Strahd and Ireena has been traveling with the party. Because of the way the game has played out, I fully stated her out as a Valor Bard 2 levels BELOW the party. She has been helping the party interact with Barovians, giving PCs inspiration and some supplemental healing. That being said, because of some of the choices made by the party, she will be leaving them next session
In my game I have a DM controlled character (I'm the DM) who shows up when the party is in trouble and then goes away. He saves the party's bacon and then condescends to them and behaves in an irritating manner before taking off again. I don't use him much anymore as he was more of a set of training wheels for when the party was low level as the players were all new but sometimes I bring him back to mock and cajole the party when they miss something super obvious and important. I didn't want him to be in the party because I agree that DM characters in parties ruin campaigns, but I needed him to be handy just in case my band of murder hobos bit off more than they could chew. So I made him behave like the "Mysterious Stranger" from Fallout, popping up unexpectedly and going away just as quickly. I always make up a funny excuse for him to be there, as he is a somewhat clownish and ridiculous character.
King Nobody There is a big difference between a npc and a DM Player Character. NPCs a part of the game. A good part in my opinion. The issues is when the DM joins the party as just another of the players. Nerdarchist Dave
I used to have a group of five players and we have recently gone down to four. The player that dropped was the paladin. On a particular night when the fighter was not able to show up, we played anyway, but it left the party without anyone to stand in the front line. My solution was just to add a pre-gen barbarian as a hireling they’d recruited. I never do any RPing with the Barbarian side from occasionally being the butt of a joke and the party has a hireling they can use for muscle or tanking if needed.
I did this in one of my campaigns and I think it turned out extremely well. I built the character strong, gave it some serious advantages, didn't hold back and let them see it. They were forced by an employer to bring her along, this built some animosity with them, both characters and players. Eventually she ended up being the BBEG they were chasing as she got stronger and they saw the horror she was capable of, it led to them taking serious risks just to stop her rampage.
I run two DMPC's and definitely felt the stress with all of the multitasking online. They were merely there for support in combat as well as providing little details about the story's lore. I always ran them the same level as the party and didn't help at all for puzzles. When I decided I wanted to phase them out, I had accidentally killed off one of my own characters due to the actions another PC did to a boss. (Crushed by a Giant Spider Mech) My dead PC being a tank now brings more of a challenge and definitely brought the story a lot more drama without stealing the spotlight. Whether or not my last PC survives is one thing, but I think if you are going to run a DMPC, variety can help bring more drama and keep the story fresh.
as a gm i hate having a character in the party. that said, if it's a small group of 2 or three players, i'll add one thats either damage or walking healz, and i don't influance the group with them more than, "oh youre low on hp, here you go." or "10 damage." but if the group has 4 or more players, no i don't have an npc
I do it because I only have two players. Though, tbh I just wanted to play and am the only one who read the phb front to back. It works though, I treat my PC like any other PC. Since most of my work is improv, my PC isn't much more knowledgeable than anyone else,
That can certainly work. I've played with small groups but personally I've had great success with letting the players play multiple characters, particularly if one player is more of a veteran. I know this is controversial and doesn't always work out but it certainly has for me.
I think that having an extra character in the party can be REALLY useful for new players. I remember my very first time playing along with two other friends that hand't ever played before and one who was very experienced along with an experienced DM. The DM set it up so that this DMPC was the quest giver and tagged along with the party helping out a little bit in combat but generally taking the backseat (the party was fairly well rounded without them which helped) and worked quite well in guiding us. What really made it useful was when my squishy rogue was put to sleep at the start of combat and our healer was unable to help, as someone who really loves combat this was a big bummer but the DM let me take control over the spare character until combat ended which made it much more enjoyable for me as I didn't feel left out. I think what it all comes down to is giving the players more options or hints/clues without forcing it upon them so that they can engage more with the game. Even though the DM controlled the character we could ask it to do things for us and was generally co-operative as well as being a source of information about the lore of the world, it gave us more chances to engage with the world rather than engaging for us.
I don't agree with this. I don't think there is anything wrong with a DM PC, as long as restraint is applied. Just remember to keep in mind that you are not to outshine players. The ones I have in relatively small groups are a party servant half orc barbarian, and technical boss kobold warlock. I am not going to just make them the strongest member of the team, and they will generally follow the players, where I encourage them to influence and look after my characters, kind of like pets. My players especially had fun in deciding what the kobold would disguise itself as. In a way it is not too different than the players telling me what they want to do.
Karl Günther Haase Well we don't really have a lot of experience, so sometimes I can use my DMPCs to show them something they might not know, but also allow even hat character to make mistakes. It is an evil campaign and although the Kobold was under disguise self I kind of hinted that them letting him drink at a bar kind of revealed he was under a disguise at a bar, which clued in some people that something was up, which they left tell the guards about it. Which when soon after a run in the guards tried to convince the party for a little trip to the jail that the kobold being clueless was just going to follow, and they eventually ended up in. You would think me saying this that I might have planned that from the beginning but I really did not, I just thought about consequences of what they let my DMPC do, and what I thought would be kind of fun in the moment in kind of divorcing me controlling the character from what I knew as the DM and how I wanted to play this character. Did not even plan on a jail. A run in with a wererat did allow his pact weapon to deal magic damage to it while I described the wererat instantly healing other damage, but I did not go in to take advantage of that I really thought that it was what the character would do, and showed the players that they could damage it somehow. Although by chances that kind of led to him being turned into a wererat, which I left it up to the players if they might want to keep him as one, but the players actually seemed interested to bring the curse back to the Kobold clan and strengthen it. I am playing the character, but I am not playing it to outshine the players or have them just be passengers in my story. I don't understand why others seem to find it so hard to roleplay a character separate from running the game. Just because you know there might be some treasure in a place, does not mean you make your character beeline straight for it or ever act in their own interest from things you know only in your other role. And if you are never sure, ask the players what they think your character should do. They are part of the party which is how they interact with the world.
If only my buddy who dms for his kids would stop making the plans to fight the bad guys and let his kids figure it out. It's a learning tool to get them to think but they tend to not think, so I guess he gets impatient and threw in a paladin to babysit them. :/
My old DM did it once, but the way he handled it was interesting. he basically just gave me a sentient cloak that gave advice if i asked it, if it felt like it. did basically nothing but tell me about the world
This is always one of those awkward situations. Using NPC's in the party can definitely be a useful tool for the story, but in my opinion there should be a specific purpose. Example: The party is helping this NPC to complete a task or objective. If a character is going to stay with the party for an extended period of time I will hand the character sheet to one of the players to serve as a henchman, and then only occasionally take control of them when a particular scene requires it. Frankly I never understood why anyone would feel the need to have a character in the party when they were in the DM's chair, there's bloody well enough to deal with already! The group I run gets nervous whenever an NPC offers to stick around to help them out.... it usually means things are about to get really ugly real fast.
ElenaAideen This is how do it as well. NPCs will occasionally join the party, but they aren't his/her character. They are part of the supporting cast. Nerdarchist Dave
Your video title is misleading. I run games all the time with just me and my fiance , and I'm the DM. So I often play a charector along with her, though her charector is almost always in charge of what we do next. I was looking for advice on situations like this. I love Nerdarchy, but this video irritated me slightly, mainly because the misleading title, partially because the video is heavily insulting most DMs that want to play also. In my case, kinda need to play a charector. Maybe make a video on situations like this? Or if anyone knows of a video by Nerdarchy on this kinda situation throw me a link.
Justin Bell We've addressed the small party or solo character game in numerous videos as well as our feeling on the DM player character. Yes, we have strong opinion when it comes to this. Yes, I was trolling the internet a bit the title. Nerdarchist Dave
Nerdarchy I will check some more videos out! No worry's I do see some great points in this video such as the DM having an over powered charector was not cool. Still a good video (: just didn't expect it when I started watching! Thanks for all the awesome content.
Also I don't think it is wrong to run a character with your girl if you have few players. As long as most of the story is about your players characters and not yours (which it seems you are doing) I think it is fine.
I am actually curious what sort of advice you would have for the opposite scenario. When we first started playing, my players kept telling me I should make my own character to adventure with them; I told them I wasn't sure about it the first couple times, but eventually caved. I am new to DMing (and honestly, this is the first D&D campaign I've even played) but I've watched enough videos from you, Matt Colville, Web DM, Drunkens and Dragons, Fistfull of Dice, Dawnforgedcast, Counter Monkey, and "How to be a Great Game Master" to understand that a lot of GMs are of the opinion that you should absolutely never do this. I keep thinking back to Critical Role when Matt had Klarota and Lady Kema in the party, though - and even though it was temporary, I feel like that's a good sort of model to follow. Klarota never came across as more heroic than the players; nor did he ever really solve any of their problems for them. He also had his own story and reason for traveling with them, without ever taking center stage I felt. I get that it's a slippery slope and that it can get difficult to juggle (I had to cut the very first conversation I was having with one of the PCs short after a few sentences because I was having a hard time acting in character, while keeping track of what was going on in the room they were in at the time) I do, however, feel like it's doable. The way I'm handling it right now: 1.I told them she won't be around all of the time 2.I don't intend on having her performing any skill checks unless the party asks her to 3.She's primarily there to buff/heal the party 4.I'm thinking all of her rolls will be made in front of the DM screen 5.I might give the party her character sheet so they can run her in combat (but maintaining the power to veto in extreme circumstances.) I'm also thinking about suggesting we rotate DM duties down the road. I'm a little hesitant bringing it up right now, because one of my players keeps trying to steal the spotlight from the others, already. He's also been trying to convince me that his level 2 character should be the general of the royal army, and that he should be able to know how to build nukes (I gave him the greenlight to play a nerfed version of Matt Mercer's gunslinger class; so he's now convinced that if gunpowder exists, all modern weapons should be up for grabs or something) Letting him DM just feels like it would be a recipe for disaster. Is there anything else someone would suggest to try and avoid common pit holes associated with a DM PC?
The only time I would consider doing something like this as a DM for a long period of time (more than a mission) is to allow more options for players to create the characters they want. I would create an NPC who fills a critical role. For example: if we play a space RPG in which FTL travel can only be done or safely done by trained pilots. I would encourage someone to be the pilot but if they don't want to I would create an NPC who would just stick around the ship or in the spaceport when the other players are gone. The character would only really be present if events happen on the ship or if I feel like creating a quest to help that character out of trouble.
I DMed a game where I played an NPC in the party that was a few levels higher than the players, the NPC helped them through a multi-level dungeon and then she betrayed them at the end, come to find out she was the leader of a secret organization trying to kill the PCs before they become too powerful. This NPC turned into a campaign long nuisance and rival for the PCs and was incredibly fun for everyone.
You put this video right on time. I started to panic before starting my first campaign (this week), and wanted to add my own NPC helping the group. Now I wanted to remove the NPC.
Here's my issue. I love having a character, I love building it, leveling it up, etc.. I am a player, through and through. I do not want to GM, ever, because then I cannot play. If I am asked to GM, it means I have to do a shit ton of work and NOT PLAY. All my friends get to have fun, but not me. I am working for my friends for no pay. However I am also one of the better GMs, and often the other two players who could GM, don't want to for similar reasons. Sometimes if I do not step up to run a game, none of us are playing. I strongly endorse the idea of a GM character so that the GM can have a little bit of the player experience as well. It is important however that they obey the same rules as the players, that they do not have any special bonuses or talents, etc., so as to not steal the show. The game is still about the player's decisions, not the GM's character. That character needs to be the silent sort who seldom ventures an opinion or takes the lead. It also means that other players can take a turn in the GM seat in the same campaign (though different adventure), so no one person is consigned to sit in the GM's chair for years at a time if that's not where they would rather be.
I am a DM and have been since 1978. I am definitely with you on the workload! I have a campaign I created over 30 years ago and recently was asked to play it again by a friend. I have had to spend a LOT of time making it playable on virtual table top. Making all the maps, uploading to the virtual table top, populating with tokens, reading, researching on the net, etc.. The systems keep track of the time and in 6 months I have over 1000 hours in Dungeon Painter making maps, and the same amount in the virtual table top. Definitely a lot of work! The reward for me is I like creating, and I find joy in seeing my players experience an adventure and I am thrilled to hear feedback that they are enjoying what we are doing and that they are looking forward to the next time we play.
I run an DMPC about half the time. I avoid spell casters and stick with warrior or roguish types. Having another sword around has never been a problem. This DM having his be higher level is a mistake. If it's gonna hang with the party it should be the same level.
I actually usually go the other way. I usually pick spell casters but with non-combat spells. like teleportation, travel, and the like. I also normally play them as having high physical skills, but no knowledge and usually the "who am i" trope. That way I can be very useful without directly having an affect on most encounters or puzzles. As for the DM having a higher level. That depends. if his DMPC doesn't gain exp, at least until the PCs get to his level. I know i have a story I like to tell complete noobs, the party starts at lvl 1 and is joined by a lvl 5 pally. After a short adventure though a swamp with a bunch of weak but plentiful monsters the part encounters a dragons nest and proceeds to get completely wrecked by the baby dragon. (green wrymlings, weak enough the lvl 5 can walk through but their first attack outright kills pretty much every PC 36 dmg at lvl 1) Then after the party dies and the pally saves the day he sacrifices himself to resurrect the party. It's great for a theme, it gives the players a sense of urgency to get stronger, and it's a good lesson to new players that PC's die.
NoESanity I tend to stay clear of spell casters so I'm not tempted to have the perfect spells for whatever is coming. With martial types all they can do is swing a sword. Knowledge characters are right out. I don't want my DMPC to know Jack about much of anything beyond his speciality.
I usually make dmpc with level relative, by location or quest. Indeed, in my actual campaign, my players find a dmpc before I imagined, now she is a 1 level ahead.
Want HP and DPS for the party? A barbarian with low int. No useful input comes from that character. Just comic relief. As for the higher level, you just have to use it right. All NPCs are just tools for the GM. If you know how to use a tool right, you are a craftsman, if you don't you will most likely hurt yourself or another.
I am currently running a campaign with one other person than me so i decided that maybe there should be another party member than just him so i rolled up a monk i had been thinking about for sometime and i got 6 in my int stat this made him a very fun DMPC cause as a DM i would know everything of cause but playing my dense monk made it so much easier for me too not make plans and not know anything my PC is slowly turning into my friends disciple just beacause he doesn't know what else to do and this experience really made me realise that it is ok to have a DMPC you just have to roleplay it correctly :)
The first session I had recently I as the DM played a character too because there were only 2 players and no healer, but we got a 3rd player now so I just retired her as NPC that still talks to the party through a stone of far speech. She stays at a HQ for the party to visit and they can basically call her for small hints or advice.
My first time as a gm we had two players. I gave them a cleric as a healbot, they moved past needing her as I learned how to balance encounters effectively. Just as they reached seeing her as useless, the big bad kidnapped her and tortured her while they quested reach her. Once she came back with ptsd she became a beloved member of their retinue who owned her own church and focused on recapturing the light from the darkness of the world. She was their contact in a town and resident religion expert. She worked because I knew she was a crutch for me not the party, a way to bail them out early on while I crafted better encounters. They out paced her level quickly and she ended up being good motivation to raise the stakes.
I recommend watching chris perkin’s dice camera action series he Uses a GM PC pretty frequently. It’s never something that stays around for the whole campaign but is just around to add to what the players can interact with. The players do all of the showboating and he just stands in the back maybe helping the one player who just needs that boost to damage or get off of the ground etc. the players are in control if they give an order to the GMPC it follows it.
Nerdarchy he could be but you can build a character from the phb and use it as an npc if playing a character is absolutely something you want to do, if done right like say how perkins does it then you can have fun with it and the players will have fun too.
My DM had a PC once, literally the first instance of battle his character was ripped in half by a ballista shot. We asked him afterward if that was intentional and he said that this character was supposed to guide us for at least 3 months of gameplay
I'm a DM for about 6 years now and i always had a NPC that would be with the party but never through all the campain, i've used this tool, the npc, to show the party what the main arch was about, basically for avoid deviations and then I would, with a reasonable story, kill the npc or just make it leave the party so the players could make the most important decisions on their own.
I generally try to avoid DMPCs in my games to keep from overshadowing the party with one exception: Hiring mercenaries. If the party feels like they are lacking in healing, trap finding, or combat capability I generally will have swords for hire who rent their services for an up front fee. There is still some time to develop personalities and even have recurring hires, but it stays transactional and they go away after the job is done.
When the group I'm with first formed it was just three of us. DM, me, & another player. None of us players wanted to play a healer, so we had a DMPC Cleric. He was mostly just there to keep us alive. It worked out fine.
As a DM, I tend to give the DM the benefit of the doubt. Maybe let it ride a few sessions and see what happens. Maybe he wants a hero to get killed by the big bad in front of the PCs. There's better ways to do it, but maybe it won't be as bad as it seems. That said, if it goes beyond a session or two and he's stealing the spotlight from your characters, you'll have to address it. Maybe try it in-game and tell the DM's character that they're too good for you and you're holding them back. He should move on and let you find your own way. If the DM doesn't take the hint, you have an awkward conversation in your future, but its a conversation you need to have.
I had a party of 3 with no cleric. I ran the game and played a cleric. You have to intentionally keep the atention off of them: they don't solve all the parties problems, they don't solve all the combat, that don't know all the info. I encouraged players to ask questions of the cleric when they wanted to know things he might know, he only made knowledge checks if everyone else failed, ect. Gave the party the 4th member and a dedicated healer and didn't interfere with the other players ability to create an awesome story.
In my game the only reason I would play a character that was allied with the PC's in combat, is if that character is part of a plot. Say a knight who needs some arcane, divine, and/or skill help to rescue the damsel in distress from a dungeon. That character would only be along for the ride for one or two sessions depending on story, and during combat I may just let one of the PC's control the character. I have enough on my plate as a DM.
in the Monday game im in the DM has a character in the group but this character was introduced through a quest with a quest for the party where she is being escorted to some old ruins with a promise of treasure to the party.
My group's GM has been our GM for years, and in our recent campaign I made an NPC that accompanied mine at first (it was an old ex-pirate that couldn't fight well) and he fleshed it out enough to be a very basic player character. He hasn't been a PC since before my circle (7-9 players) got together, so I think this was a great opportunity for him to do some fun rolls with us without taking the spotlight - and also being able to provide a little direct exposition through roleplay. He puts a lot of time in fleshing out the world, giving us proper antagonists, and makes combat so much more streamlined (we use Savage Worlds now) and I'm sure this will continue to be helpful in dealing with GM burnout. I think the moment he caved in and decided to turn this little NPC into his own DMPC was when he rolled four 6d aces (6+6+6+6+2) for improvised damage using a nearby chair during our first session: Teahouse Turmoil.
My players wanted a non-dickish npc with personality they could adventure with. I had plenty of npcs they enjoyed, but most of the time I set up scenarios were they were separated or stayed back to the point it became a meme, as they were too strong or noncombatants, or lived in a certain area. They were also a group of 3 with a cleric wizard and rogue all using defensive options well, but a Champion helps out. He stuck around and glued the party together in both combat and role-play, was only the same level or one lower with no crazy items and they thanked me for having him around.
In my latest campaign I developed a companion system. My players are a part of a rebellion and have been recruiting NPCs along the way. Before traveling I let them choose two NPCs to travel with, they don't need to take them, but they want to learn about my NPCs and take them for role play. I still center the story about the party, but the NPCs are there to add flavor and support the heroes. I think its dependent on the party and how its executed.
I play DnD with my grandparents and they want me to have a player character, and my solution is to have a weaker character that is aligned to one character.
My problem was I had an NPC that became a "quest buddy." He was supposed to be with the party for ONE quest, but the party loved the guy so much they wanted him to tag along for a majority of the time...
My team once forced captured bandit to help them in the dungeon, so he became a DMPC for me. It ended up in me forgetting to roll his initiative in last battle so he stood still for like 5 rounds.
I've done this before for a few reasons, one was running a module had too few players and no way to deal with the damage that was expected to come out of the module even slimming down encounters so tossed in a cleric to smooth things along. Another time used the player to help provide story hooks and suggestions for when the party got stuck, but otherwise the character was pretty shy and avoided social situations and easily distracted and might not even realize the party is in combat.
I remember in my first ever D&D campaign, it was just myself and one other person as players and the DM(unfortunately D&D was not popular at all in our area). We decided pretty early on that if we wanted a fleshed out party one or both of us would have to create and play two characters at once. I went with a rogue and a cleric, and linked their backstories to explain why they would be traveling together. The other player rolled a fighter and a wizard(if I remember right). The GM, while he didn't make a 5th party member, did play an NPC who essentially acted as the party's boss, assigning them missions and lending assistance & tools when it was needed. It wasn't a sprawling epic, but it was a fun game. Lots of combat, and lots of character development.
My first group had a high level NPC in the party. From what I understand talking to the GM (we never finished the campaign) the NPC was actually supposed to lead us to the end game, and was an evil character (new players also got to jump in with this character as well). Any other time I've seen NPCs join our party it has been temporary.
My DM had the issue that we had so few players and a limited composition because we had 2 players leave, so she created NPC's that she runs their interactiosn, but all the combat and puzzles and everything is run as a hydra for our players that are comfortable doing it, it has worked out really well because now we don't have to reroll characters and we are surviving without having to beg people to join our campaign.
Cool NPCs are nice. But as a DM, I honestly feel like I can't even afford to play DMPC. Not when I also want to run the game properly. It takes away from resources I could devote to making a better game. I mean, how do you still run a PC in combat, while at the same time trying to remember all the spells and abilities of your bad guys? You run both half-arsed and nobody is having fun. Never half-arse two things. Always full-arse one thing. Also, bringing in an DMPC that is higher level is suuuper dangerous. The only real way to handle that is letting the DMPC take a backseat. And at that point you might as well make him either a normal NPC or the same level of the party, it doesn't matter.
I was once forced to have a DM PC. In a homebrew world they had a knight who was their primary contact with one of the nobles they worked for. They developed a friendly relationship with Sir Rhen and even reached the point where they came to him for no other reason than they wanted to hang out. When they reached their fifth level they were summoned directly too their Lord and presented with the over arching quest line they were offered a boon. Instead of money or papers providing immunity to minor crimes like trespassing or horses or any of the offered boons the party chose Sir Rhen.
Hi guys, long time watcher, first time posting to a discussion. While I agree with you for the most part, particularly when learning that the GM’s character is two levels higher than the rest of the party, I have GM’ed and played a character in the same game in the past and the experience was positive for all players and myself. I did this way back when I first started to play AD&D. My friends and I learned the game together - we were the only ones we knew who were playing D&D, so had no one to teach us. I bought the starter set, read the rules and starter campaign, and rolled up a character. Then I got my brother and friends interested. We didn’t know about party balance or any such stuff, and ended up with three fighters and a ranger. I played my fighter more or less like an NPC, only supporting the party, never leading or making decisions. My friends never asked “What would Arvor do?” And it was understood that my character would not give hints with his actions. Everyone started out at first level and we progressed together until level 15 (it took about three years or). As a new GM playing a new game, having a character in the party provided me a sense of what my friends were feeling while playing. I did not care if the monsters died as the GM, but I did care about my character. I never fudged the dice for attacks. I was excited when he made a successful attack and concerned when he has hit. I learned a lot about the fighter class, and more importantly, as a GM learned how to modify published campaigns for the challenges a party of fighters had to face. When making my own dungeons, I stacked it with monsters and puzzles that non-magic users could deal with. The key was to play the character like an NPC, and to do so fairly without advantages over the other players. While you made solid points as to why a GM should not play a character, do you have any positive points or scenarios where one could play a character? I still GM. I don’t play characters in my game anyone, but feel the experience of doing so in the past helped me be a better GM for my friends.
In all my campaigns I play an angel cleric that's for emergencies. Like if one of my players says, "I'm going to smack the dragon and say no." you may laugh but with my crazy group this happens a lot.
Literally every time I tried introducing a character like this my players instantly rejected them and treated them like crap till I made them leave the group. I’ve had some terrible players. One time they sabotaged my campaign after only 2 sessions in order to let someone else be the dm, who quit after only 1 because he got butthurt about not getting to do everything he wanted. And then the rest disbanded and I haven’t gotten an opportunity to play since.
I've played DMPCs in my campaign for narrative reasons. They were typically rounded up to the nearest 5 level (5,10,15,20) for simplicity sake. However, when it came to combat, they usually take a back seat and perform mundane attacks (albeit stronger than the party in must cases) that did not involve magic. Their magic use was utility and healing only.
Good Lord I finally have to be that guy. ECKTCHUALLY, a Mary Sue is more of a label that is used for when a certain character forces the plot to surround them, they are the perpetual center of the universe in their story, and under nearly all circumstances no one in that universe can do anything like the Mary Sue can. The Mary Sue will one-up the expert mechanic by fixing the engines when the mechanic judged them as irreparable, she'll beat the soldier in a game of marksmanship, she'll put the brute into a pin and get him to tap out, she'll out-smart the mastermind in a game of chess. The Mary Sue is usually a flawless character who can do no harm to the people on their side, and any harm they can do is negligible and easily fixed.
I ran a 3.5 D&D back in the days, with a group of two fighters one cleric and a sorcerer. Neither were skilled at disarming traps for obvious reasons, they all made it through a trap filled dungeon , without getting struck by a single trap, and they did actually activate them all, just in a awesome way. They found that even a fighter can be an awesome trap remover if doing it right.
I'm actually running a campaign right now and i have my own solution to the gm having a character. I have made basically an "oh crap the party is dying" character that is following, but not interacting with the party, unless absolutely necessary.
I play in a campaign where the GM has his own PC and it started quite good. The reason we did it was because from time to time the players would GM sidequests, where their charackters would turn into sidekicks, giving the GM the Chance to play as regular player as well as giving him more time to plan the main questline and still adding to the campaign. We mainly did it because we only had four people and none of the others was willing to regularly be a GM any time soon. Several problems arouse from that later: A: his Charakter had a change of personality every time he took full controle. Beeing rather quiet and in the background while under gm-control and then turning hyperactive and hungry for action once he was a PC B: Once the Main story took up pace and one of our players had far less time to come to play, we didn't change the GM as often and his Charakter turned into a full gmpc with more and more of the problems you mentioned showing up.
I've had NPCs join the party on two occasions. The first was for a prewritten adventure that had some really narrow solutions to it's puzzles and the PCs were missing some of the required abilities. Didn't have time to rewrite the thing, so I grabbed a couple stock characters that fit the bill. The players controlled them in combat. Outside combat, the NPCs just followed the players' lead. The second time, the NPCs were literally the Three Stooges, who ended up contributing minimally to the quest, but caused a fair amount of hijinks.
I'm running a campaign right now with a DMPC as it were, and it seems to work fine. Like Luis, my character mainly just stays in the background and only really takes AC ion during combat, or if the PCs ask him for advice. The nice thing about it for us is that there's another guy in our group who can DM and plans on it in the near future, so he doesn't have to think of some reason for there to be a new party member all of a sudden since he's been there the whole time.
I created an GMNPC for my current campaign so my lady and daughter can see how things go. Basically a "guide" for the first 2 or 3 sessions while at the same time I encourage them to take the initiative and come up with ideas on their own (some ideas I give are bad ones to see how they react, and others lead nowhere as well). The GMNPC is a Cleric who has more of a priest look about him. Considering they are a Fighter and a Ranger, it seemed best to fill in that Healer slot and I am glad I did. They had fun: they went on a small dungeon crawl, slayed a raiding-party-in-hiding of Kobolds, found the pack leader who was a Kobold Dragonshield flanked by two regular Kobolds, proceeded to kill them and rescue some children, and at the end the Fighter went down and kissed negatives while fighting the Dragonshield. Healer's kit came in handy, all healing magic had been expended, Fighter recuperated, gold and exp. for everybody, KUMBAYA AROUND A FIRE. They did not expect to possibly die (insert evil grin), but they were glad it wasn't a full-on death. And all I did was carry a torch leading the party into the darkness (who the hell puts the white mage as the point man?!), to which my daughter wised up first and was like "wait wait wait, wth is the healer going first...we need that dude..." and I casted healing spells and Sacred Flame all the way. Some Kobolds he killed outright, but mostly others were wounded and badly burned before they got their heads lopped off or were impaled with arrows through eye sockets (my wife and kid are badasses lol). Everyone shined bright, I taught them the benefits of looting bodies (from which a healing potion came in handy), got them started on perception and insight checks, some investigation, and they were satisfied and liked it. They are waiting for me to finish the second quest. What I'm trying to say is: it is possible to run a GMNPC and everyone at the table have fun and shine. But this strategy has a special place I think mostly for people that are starting to play the game. Otherwise, it seems like an ok thing for the GM to do but he/she has to remember that it is something else on the GM plate that already has enough as it is. The hireling route is perfect for experienced games.
I use my “DM Player Characters” to help move the story along. I have three players and they have had the option to take one of three four NPCs, two of which, already have been introduced. Each one has a part of the overall story and m6 players seem to like it so far. I guess these characters are more of just NPCs rather than my DM Player Characters.
I use a DMPC in my campaign. Just a character to influence the newer players to rp. When in puzzles I have a rule, they solve everything, but if they want her to help they can ask. Basically she's there to give small "hints" if they're stuck on something. I only do it 3 times a session though, so they can't abuse it
I run a DMPC for sessions 1-10, A warlock who's patron is a Decadron and has spent 30 years among goblin kind. He comes along as translator to the goblin infested jungles of my Lost Island. He goes through a ton of terrible shit and leaves the party a broken man. It's great.
I once had a DM who justified his DMPC by explaining that we were mercenaries hired by him, so the DMPC could call all the shots and make all the decisions and control the plot. We were not happy about it.
I almost always have a DMPC. They usually don't have a whole lot of long term impact on the storyline, besides maybe having their personal background cause some Havoc when the players are creating down time. It's just an additional way for me to implement adventure hooks. What I don't agree with is having that character be higher level then the party. I have multiple characters that the players can use, but only one at a time and they have to have met or exceeded that characters level before they can recruit them.
I run a pseudo-DMPC as a sidekick, because I only have 2 players. It helps with split decisions between the two, and organically reminds them of stuff they may have forgotten.
My DMed NPC/PC that I use doesn't even really talk to any of my characters he hangs out in different areas of the world bumping into the PC's, he doesn't really interact unless he is wanting to buy something/ is interested in something the PC's are going after
Our DM has run a number of PCs alongside us, often they change depending on the country we're in, mostly they're there to fill our blatant lack of healing. We were at the time running a three person party consisting of a Wizard, a rogue and a fighter. We were hired by a wizard to get her to the capital (where we were going) and she had a few modified healing spells. She didn't say much she didn't tell us who she was, but she enabled us to take on some tougher bosses. Now we were asked to save a different country and offered aid, we mentioned the need for a healer and were given the choice of two alignments. So now our party (which consisted now of Wizard, Rogue, Ranger and Barbarian) has a gnomish healer following us around being bright and bubbly. We've also had on occasion a paladin who turns up every now and again. All in all they've been done well, actually as a player I sometimes wonder why the DMPC doesn't always speak up even when they should have a strong view (though maybe if we'd chosen the lawful good cleric instead of the chaotic they would have had a problem with our necromancy dabbling rogue). They're really good to have from a balance perspective as they allow our DM to give us encounters that feel truly epic and suit our supposed position as heroes in the world. They are also useful as they can give us a window into the workings of a place we might not otherwise have (that wizard was sister to the queen so we got an "in" to help us aid further). I don't think DMPCs are bad as long as the DM can differentiate personal knowledge from character knowledge and is good at sharing the spotlight adequately.
One of my favorite games has a GMPC in our small group. I definitely see the points you guys are making, but I think it really comes down to GM maturity and restraint. In our case, we’re a small group of friends, and we enjoy having that experience with our GM. It’s additive without being overwhelming/show boaty/Mary Sue. I think it depends on the goals of the group coming together (let’s spend time doing this together vs hey! I found someone to GM for us), GM restraint, GM maturity, and perhaps running WotC modules (ours is Hoard of the Dragon Queen) vs homebrew.
Personally I have found a player character for DMs always come up as " the story is about me" or "this guy in our party is a moron". I only would say maybe use it if the players are really inexperienced but even then I think I can railroad a little to try to get things going.
So, I only found this video today, so here's my two cents on the matter. I think we need to differentiate between DMPCs and NPC Party Members. DMPCs suffer from the Mary Sue Effect, where they take the spotlight away from the players because the DM desperately wants to be on the other side of the DM screen. NPC Party Members, on the other hand, can be incredibly useful, especially for smaller player groups. The DM can create them to fill gaps in the party roster and are also an excellent way to include party banter and even work clues into puzzles where they otherwise wouldn't make sense. The key is the skill of the DM, in how they handle the NPCs and how good they are at roleplaying. DMPCs are basically badly done NPC Party Members. To use myself as an example: I run two games at the moment. The first has a player count of 8, with a mix of experienced and fresh players. I would never foist NPC Party Members on them, though they have adopted a couple of NPCs. My second game has a player count of 2. It is not physically possible to fill every party role themselves without severely hampering their specialities, so I presented them with a variety of NPC Party Members. I created each one as a Class Levelled character (aka the same way PCs are made) and wrote them backstory and personalities. That way I can ensure that any advice they give will be in-character and may even be BAD advice. I have given them a wide range of options, but they get to choose who comes with them each time they set off from the hub town, if they take any with them at all. For balancing dungeons, I'll work in some way to limit the number they can bring with them, or force them to choose a number to leave behind at the entrance. Sometimes I'll make one or two of them unavailable for a period of time because they're dealing with something else. And for, for lack of a better term, "Companion Quests" such as those you would find in a cRPG they have to take the NOC in question with them. Bottom line: well done NPC Party Members/Companions can elevate a small or inexperienced party, fill in gaps in the party roster and allow the DM to provide extra lore, world building, social interaction, clues and better balancing. Poorly done, they steal the spotlight and push your players out of the game, in which case you may as well just go and write a book. NPC Companions elevate the party by ensuring that the Player Characters remain the Main Characters, while DMPCs compete for the spotlight by trying to be Main Characters as well.
i like the idea of using it for plot... make him/her secretly evil and doesn't stay the whole time. you can do alot with it, maybe make the players think you are playing a player character but its actually the villain.
The problem becomes when your character appears more important then the party. My guy was a plot device more then a character, but this made the other players think I was trying to take center stage. That game fell apart, but I learned a lot from it.
In my first campaign I ran a DMPC healer because the party was only three players and I felt that as an inexperienced GM I needed that fourth because I conformed to the guidelines for encounters. Now I played the character as a pasifist and never engaged in the social or exploration unless the others asked. It worked well enough and it was more of another monster that I had to run every encounter, it also allowed if someone wanted to sit in for a single session I could had this character to them without needing to worry about coming up with a reason why someone new was randomly showing up in the middle of a castle or forest. Since then I've never felt I needed to, largely because I gained a lot of experience both in storyteller and balancing encounters against what I have at the table.
I think this is especially good for small parties. We only have a 3 person party, so having our GM player character helps to round out the party and make it a more standard size.
The way I handled this, I had a character as DM. I didn't do this for any reason other than to participate within the world rather than just be it. I purposely stay out of every decision process and the world I have is diverse enough I encourage other members to DM their own lore friendly mini quests that enable me to also then be new to the creation. I find this a good way to keep a balance without me as DM leading players in any way. The player improv is an amazing element that should never come at the risk of a DM character opinion
I DID DM a Game and had an NPC in it, two game sessions in, I forgot where the char was. By the time anyone pointed out the missing character the battle was over and I realized they didn't need him. So they found his corpse.
When I DM, if I want or need a character to support the party, I use one that patches over holes in the party's capability. I last ran a group with two druids, a sorcerer, a combat wizard, two barbarians, and a rogue. The only thing they needed was utility magic, so I added a divination wizard. To make sure he didn't steal the show, I made his forbidden schools evocation and necromancy, plus that since he was a novice combatant, he frequently just lost turns to panicked inaction. The only time he hogged the spotlight was when he dispelled three incoming fireballs in a row (which I totally fudged because the first fireball made me realize that they were aimed at the PCs who were vulnerable to fire). The rest of the time, he ID'd magic items and exposoted lore, which caused roleplaying interactions between the impatient barbarian who intimidated him into shutting up, the other barbarian who was his hired bodyguard, and the druid who was actually listening to the lore for plot hints. In short, I used him to help make the game run smoothly, and as an excuse/tool to help keep the party both together and moving in plot-relevant directions.
If the DM wants to guide a low-level, inexperienced party... occasionally speak through the wizard familiar, warlock's patron, cleric's deity, or random NPC. DM doesn't need a PC to assist a party. As you guys said, the DM runs everyone else. Well done.
I dm a group, and have a PC that is actually under leveled, but is more familiar with the world than the party. He knows the lay of the land and he's essentially there in case they need a gentle shove in a direction.
I'm currently considering making my own video on the subject of "DMPCs". I feel that the attitude of "Just don't do it" is not very constructive regardless of the good reasons you may present. I think we need some videos out there on how to properly run a DMPC with "dos and don'ts" and making sure you're doing it for the right reasons. For me, it's just wanting to create interesting characters who aren't being pitted against the party and aren't relegated to being shopkeepers or quest-givers or whatever else. It's simply a matter of being aware of the pitfalls and being vigilant in navigating around them. I think the biggest thing to avoid is to NEVER have them be the solution to a problem, or if you must make them something of a tool the party could use to solve a problem.Treat it kind of like a single-player CRPG like Dragon Age where you have to command for example a rogue to search for traps and disarm them or to pick a lock. Granted, you'll need to establish that rogue is ordinarily a bit careless in that regard (but good enough if they're set to the task). You might even have the players make the rolls for those checks (probably based upon who suggested the action). That said, I probably wouldn't create a DMPC rogue just because I want to have traps in my dungeon and there are no rogues in the party.
My group makes it work but we don't have a single DM. We use the Mythic GM Emulator with the 5e system to play, and we all colab on the rolls and interpret things together. That works out quite well.
I've had a DM who had a NPC that was a god that is simply a narrator. Essentially, it was just a minifigure that was DM personified that made absolutely no difference. My group is all about having minifigs and a physical dungeon and such so it's fun to have a physical figure. Hell, we may choose to get into lego minifigs for PCs simply because it's very customizable.
In the campaign I run, I have a semi DM npc, one of my party members has a fighter follower who is one level below the parties level, in combat he is controlled by the player, but I level him up and rp as him when the time goes, just trying to keep the party somewhat on track.
I very recently started playing DnD as a player. My last DM was a genius and I ended up starting high level, and very late into his multi-year campaign. Due to some unforseen problems with some friendships I no longer have the ability to play with that group. But a few friends of mine have been wanting to play for awhile. And I knew I had a great story to tell, so I literally last week took up the mantle of DM for my wife and 3 friends. I plan on revealing the world's withing the 20 realms in my story as we explore, and introducing methods and rewards for exploring them. However I haven't lost the desire to be a player as well, so I'll be joining the party with my own character, I found a good balance of telling my story and playing is random generators online. I'll be able to randomize as much as possible, and role-play my character into being more of a side character in the party, he's an older wise monk, who might have words of wisdom now and then, and can fight for sure but is much more of a spiritual pacifist. Case-specific a great way to get around the issues of a DM playing a character too. Tbf most if not all of my campaign will be homebrew which helps the story unfold more. I don't even know exactly how the world and experiences will play out, but I'll let that be up to my group!
I think theres a really good moment to use a NPC and is when you just started being the master. If it's your first campaing as a master, maybe you have problems guiding or balancing. if you have experienced players and/or experienced game masters as a player in your campaing, it's not that big of a deal because they will ask the questions and help you guide them, and will just understand when ther is something disbalanced. But, when not juast you are an inexperienced master, but also your players are new (ej, you just played some D&D and now you want to introduce your old group of friends to it) and NPC make de thing just a lot easier. I recomend (as for me worked well) to usea a beguiler that just disapears in middle of the combat and let the players play, and when it towns oit disapear and usually is drinking or taking some info that the party can miss, and waits for actual players to take a decision, or a cleric wich just heals and cast some minor protec spells and when arrives a town goes directly to the church to help people in a similar way.
Help Support Nerdarchy by Shopping at YOUR Favorites Places on the Internet. Just use these links and shop as usual. Nothing changes for you-
Amazon- amzn.to/2jf0boA
Nerdarchy the Store- goo.gl/M4YZEQ
Drive Thru RPG- goo.gl/6nf5zh
Easy Roller Dice- goo.gl/1n0M1r
D&D and Think Geek Gear- goo.gl/LZAV5z
Nerdarchy my players are playing a very squishy party (a bard and a rogue only the two of them) normally this wouldn't be an issue but they pick fights with just about everyone so I was thinking of making a barbarian NPC that's really stupid and bad at pretty much everything except for dealing damage and tanking, what do you think? Just the generic meatshield NPC so the players can still figure out all the puzzles and I won't have to half the challenge rating of the encounter
Okay, so my response to why a DM would want a character is this: In all my years of RPGs, which is about 30... I have actually played as a character once. No joke. Once. For one game. The GM was a huge dick and utterly crushed my character along with everyone else's character and then he never felt like running another game. So for every other game I've ever played, I've had to be the DM. I feel like it's a job no one else wants and I can't be the only person who never gets to play the game. So I take pity on any DM/GM out there who feels like he/she should be allowed to make a character to stick into the group.
As for micromanaging the group by having your own PC, no. I don't agree with that at all. Let the players do whatever they want. My games are all open world. They wanna go off the rails and kill important NPCs, then I put my writing skills to the task and teach them the ramifications of their actions or reward them for outsmarting my campaign. I've even had players play my whole campaign backwards because they wanted to go straight into the heart of a dungeon, rather than visit a town first.
I love being a DM. I do... but sometimes, I wish I could just play. Sometimes I'd envy my players because they just have to show up and have a good time, solve puzzles and do cool stuff. Being god isn't easy, even if it is awesome.
Mikael Bloomqvist I agree man I feel for you and I’m sorry and I hope some day soon you can play again if you want a buddy a mine is running a campaign on discord if you have it there are slots still open to play
Pro tip: you can watch series at flixzone. Been using it for watching loads of movies recently.
@Archer Chance Yea, been watching on Flixzone for months myself :)
I used to be a DM with a NPC in the party. I just did it because I liked being a player way more than a DM, and it worked pretty fine. The way I handled it was leaving all the talking to the players, I only talked when asked or to do some irrelevant and funny commentaries. If asked what should we do as a party I would say what, in my mind, my character would say, which may or may not what I expected the players to do. In combat, I usually just smash some skulls or help they execute their plan.
In fact, it actually led to some great moments, where the party saved my careless npc more than once.
The trick is to not steal their spotlight and help them archieve greatness
I have a few NPC allies the players can call on in my campaigns, right now they've requested a healer so I've made the town cleric dust off her mace and she'll go with them for their current dungeon crawl for as long as they need her help and aren't being murder hobos (with the up front expectation that it will reduce their exp and material rewards but make the dungeon easier). As always I make the NPC (or NPCs) the party takes with lower level unless there's a specific plot reason otherwise
Frankly the attitude that the party shouldn't have NPC allies is a little baffling to me as every campaign I've played has had NPCs the party likes to call on when they need extra help
Yea I have simply had my party request help. They were In an arena and forcibly befriended an npc that was supposed to die. Or my first campaign ever level three guard captain they wanted to go with them. I said no. The paladin asked if he could roll persuasion. I said sure why not thinking maybe he would maybe give supplies or something. He rolled a freaking nat 20.
Giving the players the option to have NPC`s helping them indeed make great campaign moments and even characters that the players get attached to. Its strange Nerdarchy were against it so firmly.
Btw, in my tables, I make everyone on the same level and they level up as a group.
IMO any NPCs should not be more powerful than the PCs if they are helping the PCs,aka hirelings. That said if they are the one getting help from the PCs then that makes sense as the PCs would be his hirelings. But they should be no more powerful than the PCs will be by the end of the quest. (Assuming a short quest of 1-2 levels)
C Moore in my case I just make it make sense a guard captain of a small town is around level three. A captain for a city around 5th. The overall general of a nation's army 10 to 12. It has to make sense. I'm not saying the crazy wizard they are working for is level 2 or 3 because the party is that low.
If the DM is mature enough a dmpc is nothing but a helper npc
multieyedmyr I run a DmPc in my starfinder game and he is almost non-involved, he is there if the party is getting wrecked or if they don’t recon at all.
engeltheservant1 exactly.
So long as the DMPC doesn't outshine the PCs who cares
I introduced a Future PC, as an NPC for one of my short story run. It was basicly a dungeon crawl with a backstory to why they were there. I also tied in some secrets to the dungeon that may or may not be discovered. The NPC was the task giver, the task was to accompany him to get something back from inside the dungeon. The NPC assisted in combat but rarely ever "found clues" unless at the partys request.( he is a ranger so they would request him to use his tracking skills to discover there are drag marks that just abruptly end at a wall) which may reveal there is a passage. In a future game when i get to PC I may consider pulling him out as he'll also have some backstop they can relate to. If the DM is truly there to enjoy and not dictate or take full control of the game from the players I cant see a difference in GMPC and running an NPC that was in the material or you came up with. He was also 2 levels below the party members. ( its a two man party and I knew going in i was going to need to throw some help in, but didn't want to fudge rolls or have to make a few enemies "vansish" from the dungeon.
Only time I used a DMPC was for our first 1-20 campaign. I had never played or run a level 1-20 campaign before, and I wanted to be a part of the group for the adventure, so I added my character as a member. He was a socially awkward wizard and didn’t talk with other NPC’s, and more or less functioned as the party’s walking encyclopedia for the world.
For me, running a DMPC sincerely helps with DM burnout. I play a character that's simple in combat and isn't the face of the party so that my players keep the spotlight, but having my guy be able to chime in here and there is fun and keeps me wanting to make the next session.
So just a NPC which joins the Party. Ok. Not a dmpc
@@happythoughts700 no it still is a dmpc
Why? You get every monster. You get every boss. You get every room. You get every puzzle. Why do you need to be part of the party? Do you need to be on the winning team? Maybe not DM, then.
@@whitefiredarksun It's fun to still feel like "part of the party". Also, who responds to a 5 year old comment?
I was running a game for my son's and their friends. I filled in with a wondrous item living armor that had a fighter spirit trapped in it. It didn't speak or have opinions it just followed and killed things to fill in that hole in the party.
@Rtkts now we're asking the real questions
This is actually a really good idea! You can have a niche filled if no players wanted to play that type of character without dominating the game. Just have an automaton to do that.
I've had DM PCs for many reasons, mostly to carry a story to conclusion. My rule with DM PCs is "I don't care if it's Superman himself, he/she/it cannot do anything useful without the party's help." It's all about moving the spotlight onto players that need it or deserve it, never to "Mary Sue" my own ego. That's what the master villains are for.
controlling everything else in the game is not the same as having a PC and you guys should know it, you're also fortunate enough to have a lot of people willing to DM not everyone has that luxury so if the DM wants a PC just let him as long as he doesn't do what the DM in the GM911 did making himself more powerful because that is bullshit, their character should be on par with the rest of the group and not take centerstage too often especially in social encounters they should take the backseat in combat they can do their thing and play to their characters strengths (as long as it isn't a social encounter).
i've been lucky enough to have had a group where everyone was willing to DM and we rotated DM duties so no single person had to take all of that responsibility all the time so we all also had DM PC's in that game because ofcourse we would and it worked fine.
my group does the same thing. glad im not the only one
Honestly even a social encounter isnt that bad as long as they are avoiding the one hour monologue. the golden rule of DMPC is "Dont talk to yourself. If your DMPC needs to have an interaction have it happen off screen or better yet plan it ahead and have it happen off screen.
But you are talking to a Wizard or something and your DMPC knows something that is relevent "Balgruff the Red hastily swallows his wine "Wait! I know that sigil, isnt that the sigil of the legendary knight who slew the Terrible Red Dragon of Gark?!?". The wizard perks up "Ah! A student of history I see, or at least of the classic epics. Yes now that you remind me that is indeed his symbol. So we must be dealing with..." is really fine.
@@mechaulfr9600 recent events in my gaming life have only strengthened my belief that DMPC's should be kept in the background if I'm entirely honest, the example you give is fine if that is the extent of the interaction and the rest is left to the PC's, however the situation i was in recently involved a DM who unfortunately made his DMPC's the centerpoint of the campaign, including overpowered custom character classes, that has really soured my view on DMPC's.
However we took a break from that campaign and had a talk with the DM and he's promised to do better going forward, time will tell if that is the case.
@@Daredhnu I hope it tells well.
DMPCs can go VERY bad. My horror story was a DM who ran.... wait for it... THREE DMPCS.
A Dwarven Fighter with a frigging OP weapon (it was at least legal; but he dumped his int to 4 so he could have a super high strength and picked all the right feats.) A cleric that was a glorified bandaid box and oddly was.... available... to any member of the party who wants to know what sex with a dwarf woman is like. And then a Wizard who was kinda just standing in the back doing nothing. There were 3 of us. One day we just started playing another game on our phones waiting for him to finish monologuing.
And yeah, that sounds terrible. If I run a DMPC they are a middling build, with the same rules and levels as other PCs And generally in a roll that the party wants. Sometimes I even say "Hey guys Im planning a DMPC, any request on class/role?"
I think there is an underlying problem that needs to be addressed, and that is the DM wants to be a player. I have been running a game for years now, and have only played a handful of times since then.
My players have begun to consider DMing and one actually has ran a session and wants to run more when I start to get a little burnt out.
It may be time for the group’s sake to switch DM’s for a bit to allow the DM to roll for fun. If no one is willing, consider taking a break and let the DM catch his breath.
I never even knew EMs with PCs (not DMPCs, that seems to be something more specific and what this video technically talks about) was some kind of taboo until I started reading D&D stuff on the internet, so maybe a year or two. I'vs been playing for 20 years and every DM I've ever had - including myself - had their own PC. Everyone in the group gets a character, with a backstory and everything. As a DM, you learn to compartmentalize between who your character is and who you need to be for all the NPCs. It's never been that difficult for us, so it shocks me to learn that the idea is so hated because of some bad apples. I had really hoped, by the title of this video, the I would finally have found someone who advocated the idea. It would probably take pages for me to really go into all the reasons why I think every DM should get the opportunity. Suffice to say, when you can know how to split your brain into your two roles and you have a group of players who all trust each other implicitly, this works 100% of the time.
EilonwyG I don't hate it. Hate is a very strong word. I find it unnecessary.
Nerdarchist Dave
I used basically a DM PC, because I was doing a campaign with only one player. Used a Paladin so any thing he had to do was cut and dry, but he didn't make any game decisions, and the player had to request him use certain powers (detect evil for example). It went well, but you have to be very careful
That’s a good idea. Ima be a dm Druid healer/ cc type. I like having the party request my help, and maybe doing it or not lol. Nice
I personally don't like having a PC when I DM. I even make the other players in my games run each others hirelings. I just feel like the energy I would spend on that particular character would be better served in further developing a solid NPC or BBEG. Besides, why in the world would I need a PC anyways? I get to be Strahd Von Zarovich, Hallaster Blackcloak, Azalin Rex, (insert cool NPC here).
Playing the villain is way cooler than a DMPC. Especially if you don't have them sit in a lair and wait. I often think about what the villain is doing right now, and it's entirely possible the players just meet them by chance if they go there.
Also, if you would have a PC you could just have it be a temp character that has reason for being with the party. A character that sticks with the players but isn't your player character but instead a plot piece and entity that will stay in character
@nico Negro You are playing Characters ! it's the very definition of your job, playing all other characters the players don't. Try that at your table, ask your players to create an NPC for you to use, then allow them to play him when they meet him. see for yourself how much different that character will be played. they will want to make him jump into the story, they will want to make him a backstory. but you as a DM tell them, it will forever be an NPC working that place. if they don't get that every characters in your world is a character with that one,m then nothing will ever teach them anything.
i did this with my players and they absolutely love to play those NPC and at this point their background stories they have developped made them understand why a DM PC can exist to beginw ith. because that's our job, to play all the other characters.
That is called an NPC. Which I already do.
And what does the C stand for in NPC ?
i think you have to understand more about role playing there.
what's princess leia in star wars ?
what's the other gremlins in the gremlins movies ?
they are all the C in NPC or PC.
and as far as i am concerned... a character is still a living entity reguardless of where it comes from.
I didn't realize the title was supposed to be ironic, and was waiting for you to get to 4 reasons to run a GMNPC. Instead, you picked 4 reasons why you assumed people want to run a GMNPC for and then knocked them down. I'd like to see you guys do a video where you come up with four valid reasons to run a GMNPC. How it can be done and done well, and what it can contribute to the play experience.
Keith Curtis I can do that for you.
1. Players may request it for whatever reason.
2. It could be used for story reasons (i.e. a character the pc's may get attached to may turn villain or needs help from them in the future).
3. Adding a character is sometimes a lot easier than readjusting a whole adventure module or a planned campaign.
4. If you have a group of players new to rp'ing, it may be beneficial to have a character to interact with them to essentially guide them on how to rp and solve problems that may arise.
Thank Roadkillz78. Those are good reasons. I also find them useful for less heavy-handed exposition and to fill in roles for missing player characters: While your thief is on a solo quest, they have the necessary skills (hopefully ar a lower level). They should never outshine the party. They should never be the driving force. I also use my GMPCs, when not being directed for story reasons) to give random players an extra turn. "Bob, what does Joe NPC do this round?" This is very helpful if one player is KOd, paralyzed or controlled. They don't have to sit out of the action.
But the real intent of my comment was to challenge the Fine Folk at Nerdarchy to do this as a video, rather than the much easier video that they did. C'mon guys, this is like taking the easy position in debate class. Do the hard one. :)
I had GMNPCs for the purpose of sending the PCs on missions and giving them quests. easier than them running all over and getting them from all different peoples.
Does that NPC go with the party and share dangers and rewards? i.e. are they a party member but primarily controlled by the GM?
the main problem with people saying it can't be done can as easily be shattered by real DMs.
Heres why i think its possible to do based on the 4 reasons people don't think it is.
#1R - you know the story and thus you know everything there is to know.
#1A - not if you know how to differentiate character from another character. bad DMing includes not knowing how to actually role play. role playing is more then just you giving a story, it is about characters, what they know, how they live in their world, how they react to things. not everyone is the same, thus if you want an actually living world, you shouldn't play it like a game. you should play it like a world.
#2R - Those players can simply ask you what to do and since you know everything there will be no fun to be had.
#2A - Those people are metagaming, they do not think like characters at all if they do. basically they just fear the DM taking the spotlight out of them and usually those people are poor players because they often just hug the spotlight too much. Any good DMs or good Players knows to share the spotlight cause the game is not about 1 person, but the whole group.
#3R - The DM just want the story to be about him.
#3A - same as the above, really... Mind you there are bad DMs who think their story is just that, their story. doesn'T mean everyone is the same and having a character along with your party actually helps the DM manage your story as well as make your world more believable. after all your party is not the only one that adventures.if you see NPC leveling too, then that means your world is living. your party should never be the only people leveling in your world. Not to mention sometimes your players just linger too much, your GMPC might just be what you need to push that story further.
#4R - Party composition should always be a thing otherwise your players sucks if they all take fighters.
#4A - not at all, if you think composition is a must, then you have the video game syndrome and forgot about role playing. party composition is something only if your DM is bad at managing said party. on the contrary, the players who know how to play will more often then not learn to manage the missing class. using poles or things like that if they dont have a rogue, or learning to be stealthy if they dont have a tank. but most of all, sometimes the players will, if you your world is truly living, ask for help from NPC. that's where your GMPC will come online and shine.
so overall, tips to make it work and really, this is also for players...
#1 - know to compartment your character knowledge.
#2 - Share the spotlight, do not own it.
#3 - learn to actually live in that world, dont just react to what the DM say, take initiative.
#4 - be mindful of others, don't just assume things of them, let them teach you what their character is about.
These are basic rules any players should abide by, really. those who don't usually ruins the fun for others.
that's my take on it.
I feel a DM player could only be used like Gandalf. He was basically gone for 3/4ths of the story, helped introduce the plot, did not defeat the antagonist, and sometimes saved them when things got heated. Really he was more of a guide than a part of the party.
that's an npc.
I don't necessarily agree, everything in moderation. I had a DM pc and he was well received, no higher power than the others, aside from his strength as the party were primarily magic oriented, aside from a barb. He wasn't used as anything more than a friend/exposition device, as he was a scholar, a DM pc is only a Mary Sue if you'd like it to be.
or problem could be noone else is willing to DM
Just dismissing a DMPC as "lame" is.. just kind of stupid. NPC's are, likely, going to ally with the party on occasion. Sometimes a party member might want to drag an NPC along for a while.
Either way, a DMPC can serve a lot of uses, and its this really dumb stigma that goes along with it that can end up limiting your options. On the other hand, a desire and drive to create a DMPC can also screw things up for the group. It's not really a good or bad thing in and of itself, it's how it's implemented.
A DMPC is a tool. Nothing more... It's a hammer. Really great for driving in nails, but you shouldn't try to change a tire with it.
Yes, if you make an OP character? You're doing it wrong.
Reasons to use a DMPC or NPC allies that can go with the party...
1. Group misses something crucial and the game has turned into a slog as they try to remember. Serves as a way for the DM to remind the party in a more immersion friendly way.
2. Mobile quest giver.
3. Rounding out a party. This isn't to say "well, my players built the party wrong", I can't think of a single DM who has ever said that. Sometimes, people don't want to play certain roles, and that's fine. A mercenary rogue that charges the group for his services. A cleric that's meant to help the group along. A tank (which is useful to create the illusion of more dynamic fights with slightly less work on the DM) to fight massive swarms or hold a pass. A scout to find better pathways and present more options.
4. An eventual villain for the party that's working undercover.
5. If you've overestimated the group's capabilities in problem solving and combat? A bard that joins the party to sing their exploits and buff them on occasion. But he's pretty useless in a fight outside of some CC, spot healing, and buffing.
6. A story telling device. If you have a certain type of story you're trying to tell, a DMPC can be a great way to do it and guide the path... Like, say, a god choosing mortal form to pick his next champions. While he helps and COULD end the fight immediately? He's looking for people to do his/her will. This can serve to introduce more of a driving force in a high level campaign.
7. A mediator if your party has both Evil and Good characters in it so the group doesn't devolve into PC killing PC, and the players getting frustrated and angry at one another.
8. If you have a really BIG group and dozens of ideas get put on a table? A DMPC gives the DM a chance to help guide in a gentle way. Or, because a character should never be right OR wrong all the time? A chance to guide them down the wrong path, but into a more interesting story.
9. Sometimes the players just REALLY want to drag along that NPC because they've taken a shine to them.
10. Cohorts/followers your players get that they keep forgetting to control. (Just because the players forget about them doesn't mean the cohort/follower is going to sit there like a lame duck and not help their friend/try to save their own life.)
11. A mentor. An older character meant to help shepherd the next generation of adventurers into the world. They are in their final days of adventuring, which gives you the option to either kill the character... again, making a more emotional response for the party.. and, potentially, a vengeance story line. Or, the character can simply retire.
The DMPC is not you.
The DMPC is not your power fantasy.
Do not overstep the party's social, problem solving, and combat experience by doing everything for them. Let them try to figure it out on their own, when they're getting visibly frustrated OOCly, then give them a helping hand without breaking immersion.
The group has expended all believable rolls, including Advantage, Luck, and three rerolls? Then kind of give them a hint. (Of course, you could just say "It takes you several hours, but you manage to find X.")
Let your DMPC be wrong sometimes. IF you have an issue with deciding when? Use a dice roll. A D20 with either Wis or Int as the modifier to see if something's a good or bad suggestion, then go with it.
Give your DMPC his own goal. IF the party goes against this goal? The DMPC can leave or turn into a villain against the party. It can help you create a more organic story for your players and give them something more complex than just "Oh, this dude that we've done some work for turned against us."
It quickly turns into "our friend, the guy that risked his life for us, that we risked OUR lives for, betrayed our trust." It creates a much more intense emotional response.
Good post. I too felt the video was narrow minded. Instead of arguing about the merits or issues of a gmpc, they simply built a strawman to support their bias. The gist I got after watching wasn’t that gmpc is a good/bad idea, just that a terrible gm using a gmpc will, surprise surprise, also be bad using one as well. Almost as if the problem isn’t in the thing but rather the person using said thing. So that has nothing to do with gmpc as a topic. The same strawman can be used to argue against almost anything. Demonstrate terrible uses of something and argue that because of these terrible uses, that the thing is bad. What?
Disclaimer: mind you I know little about table top rpg, having never played myself. However that doesn’t mean I can’t spot terrible arguments and fallacies.
Here's another one: Sometimes a group just needs another player. Not everyone has a group of 3 or 4 friends that want to play D&D. Sometimes you just have one or two friends that are interested.
It's kinda hard to have a party with just one person. In that case, the DMPC is just a way for couple of friends to get their D&D fix without having to scout for other players
If it's done right, you can still set up puzzles for your main player(s), you just have to make it clear that the DMPC isn't an all-knowing God
First of all, a DMPC isn't an NPC, which is what should be used for pretty much everything you mentioned. The difference is small, but significant... most notable is the ability to contribute a voice to the party's decisions, rather than merely influencing their decisions. Plus taking a share of the rewards and the whole it's really difficult to be objective enough to pull it off without stepping on the enjoyment of the other people at the table (in some way/shape/form). There is really no reason for a DMPC, just use NPCs and be assertive when you have an itch to play... let someone else step up and DM for a while.
You can use your PCs as NPCs, which is actually a good tool for having well-developed personalities for players to interact with. Better still is merely using your PC concepts, changing details to make it a different person in the world/setting. You can also have NPCs with classes/levels/feats/etc..., by all means, the more you flesh out an NPC the stronger impression it'll have on the players (hence using your PCs or PC concepts as NPCs).
At the end of the day, you're free to do whatever you want as a DM, just as the players are free to find a different DM if they don't like your style. Anecdotally, most players will tolerate a DMPC (I've been lucky enough to play with lots of kind people in my 35+ years of RPGs), but they also don't find the arrangement enjoyable.
I let my players do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they don't cause conflicts with other people at the table... in my mind, the job of the DM is to facilitate an entertaining/enjoyable experience for everyone... not to play "my" characters or tell "my" story, I give my players the freedom to do whatever it is that interests them. I will never force a DMPC into a game, unless the players specifically ask for it... but it'll never be my idea, because I can accomplish any story-telling mechanism via NPCs.
You're right. A DMPC isn't an NPC. However, I will argue against the word "should" in your first statement... well, most of that first line, really.
The word "should" implies that there is a right and wrong option. -- There is a right and wrong way to use either option, but neither DMPC or NPC are, inherently, the correct choice because of how easily blurred the line between NPC and DMPC is.
The video is, essentially, discussing why a DMPC could be used. I gave answers. Yes, an NPC can easily be used for entries 2, 7, 8, and 11 in certain conditions.
But a DMPC is an option, just as an NPC. But, then we're talking about what is considered a DMPC...
There are dozens of answers, but there is never one solid, concrete answer. Which makes the entire argument of "are they good or are they bad" pretty silly to begin with.
I, personally, consider a DMPC to be...
-Any character I made at the start of the game to help the party adventure. (To be done only if the group wants a particular class and they agree and know of the risks. [Usually a cleric.])
-Any cohort/hireling that is dedicated to the party and is brought along to help in conflicts.
-Any NPC that the group convinces to come along with them.
-Any NPC that I've had to make a full character sheet for.
You contradicted yourself... "a DMPC isn't an NPC", yet you then define a DMPC to be specific types of NPCs.
DMPCs should be different, in order to justify a different label. Thus, I see them as DM controlled PCs, entailing all that a PC does... if they do not meet that criteria, they're just NPCs. For me, the biggest issue is the DMPC having the same rights as PCs (i.e. voice, rewards, renown, etc...). This is because of the appearance of objectivity (or the lack there of).
Obviously, we all have perspectives and within said perspectives, we're going to have our individual preferences (e.g. right and wrong). By saying "should", I'm inferring my opinion, but it doesn't infer demonization of those who disagree. To illustrate, having a position, doesn't necessarily mean opposition to others of a contrary position, just opposition of their position (at least in my desire/willingness to adhere to it). If using DMPCs works for you, more power to you, I choose not to use them though (by my definition anyways).
I just personally find the concept of a DMPC as going against the role of being a DM, because you must sacrifice at least some objectivity to do so (even if it's just the appearance of it). Then again, I think many people confuse the terms NPC and DMPC... they're different things, but get viewed as the same thing. So I guess it's actually a matter of semantics... you're calling DMPCs what I call NPCs (in all but one instance that you mentioned)... I don't see the need to make a DMPC for party composition, an NPC can fill that role or you can adjust/adapt your game to accommodate the perceived hole. Better yet, the players can adapt/adjust to the challenge of lacking a specialized role, making their successes that much more satisfying.
In my gaming circle we use the term DMPC for a Mary Sue, that is a character that is more powerful than the rest of the party showing up the party leaving them nothing to do. A DM run character that joins the party is an NPC as long as they are of equal power level to the party.
I always make the addition of one up to the players, and tend to get them options to expand they party or fill a role that they need. I like having one in the party as it gives me a voice of either common sense or to get the party back on track and refocused on what is going on, which is needed from time to time.
I'm currently running the Curse of Strahd and Ireena has been traveling with the party. Because of the way the game has played out, I fully stated her out as a Valor Bard 2 levels BELOW the party. She has been helping the party interact with Barovians, giving PCs inspiration and some supplemental healing. That being said, because of some of the choices made by the party, she will be leaving them next session
In my game I have a DM controlled character (I'm the DM) who shows up when the party is in trouble and then goes away. He saves the party's bacon and then condescends to them and behaves in an irritating manner before taking off again. I don't use him much anymore as he was more of a set of training wheels for when the party was low level as the players were all new but sometimes I bring him back to mock and cajole the party when they miss something super obvious and important. I didn't want him to be in the party because I agree that DM characters in parties ruin campaigns, but I needed him to be handy just in case my band of murder hobos bit off more than they could chew. So I made him behave like the "Mysterious Stranger" from Fallout, popping up unexpectedly and going away just as quickly. I always make up a funny excuse for him to be there, as he is a somewhat clownish and ridiculous character.
King Nobody There is a big difference between a npc and a DM Player Character. NPCs a part of the game. A good part in my opinion. The issues is when the DM joins the party as just another of the players.
Nerdarchist Dave
I used to have a group of five players and we have recently gone down to four. The player that dropped was the paladin. On a particular night when the fighter was not able to show up, we played anyway, but it left the party without anyone to stand in the front line. My solution was just to add a pre-gen barbarian as a hireling they’d recruited. I never do any RPing with the Barbarian side from occasionally being the butt of a joke and the party has a hireling they can use for muscle or tanking if needed.
Cory Alfaro that's just an npc.
Nerdarchist Dave
I did this in one of my campaigns and I think it turned out extremely well. I built the character strong, gave it some serious advantages, didn't hold back and let them see it. They were forced by an employer to bring her along, this built some animosity with them, both characters and players. Eventually she ended up being the BBEG they were chasing as she got stronger and they saw the horror she was capable of, it led to them taking serious risks just to stop her rampage.
I run two DMPC's and definitely felt the stress with all of the multitasking online. They were merely there for support in combat as well as providing little details about the story's lore. I always ran them the same level as the party and didn't help at all for puzzles. When I decided I wanted to phase them out, I had accidentally killed off one of my own characters due to the actions another PC did to a boss. (Crushed by a Giant Spider Mech) My dead PC being a tank now brings more of a challenge and definitely brought the story a lot more drama without stealing the spotlight. Whether or not my last PC survives is one thing, but I think if you are going to run a DMPC, variety can help bring more drama and keep the story fresh.
as a gm i hate having a character in the party. that said, if it's a small group of 2 or three players, i'll add one thats either damage or walking healz, and i don't influance the group with them more than, "oh youre low on hp, here you go." or "10 damage." but if the group has 4 or more players, no i don't have an npc
I do it because I only have two players. Though, tbh I just wanted to play and am the only one who read the phb front to back.
It works though, I treat my PC like any other PC. Since most of my work is improv, my PC isn't much more knowledgeable than anyone else,
It can actually work well in a group as small as yours...
I'd advice switching games instead.
That can certainly work. I've played with small groups but personally I've had great success with letting the players play multiple characters, particularly if one player is more of a veteran. I know this is controversial and doesn't always work out but it certainly has for me.
I'm planning to play with 2 friends and since I'm the only one of us capable of DM'ing ...
3nertia the feels, they burn.
I think that having an extra character in the party can be REALLY useful for new players.
I remember my very first time playing along with two other friends that hand't ever played before and one who was very experienced along with an experienced DM. The DM set it up so that this DMPC was the quest giver and tagged along with the party helping out a little bit in combat but generally taking the backseat (the party was fairly well rounded without them which helped) and worked quite well in guiding us. What really made it useful was when my squishy rogue was put to sleep at the start of combat and our healer was unable to help, as someone who really loves combat this was a big bummer but the DM let me take control over the spare character until combat ended which made it much more enjoyable for me as I didn't feel left out.
I think what it all comes down to is giving the players more options or hints/clues without forcing it upon them so that they can engage more with the game. Even though the DM controlled the character we could ask it to do things for us and was generally co-operative as well as being a source of information about the lore of the world, it gave us more chances to engage with the world rather than engaging for us.
I don't agree with this. I don't think there is anything wrong with a DM PC, as long as restraint is applied. Just remember to keep in mind that you are not to outshine players. The ones I have in relatively small groups are a party servant half orc barbarian, and technical boss kobold warlock. I am not going to just make them the strongest member of the team, and they will generally follow the players, where I encourage them to influence and look after my characters, kind of like pets. My players especially had fun in deciding what the kobold would disguise itself as.
In a way it is not too different than the players telling me what they want to do.
Karl Günther Haase Well we don't really have a lot of experience, so sometimes I can use my DMPCs to show them something they might not know, but also allow even hat character to make mistakes.
It is an evil campaign and although the Kobold was under disguise self I kind of hinted that them letting him drink at a bar kind of revealed he was under a disguise at a bar, which clued in some people that something was up, which they left tell the guards about it. Which when soon after a run in the guards tried to convince the party for a little trip to the jail that the kobold being clueless was just going to follow, and they eventually ended up in. You would think me saying this that I might have planned that from the beginning but I really did not, I just thought about consequences of what they let my DMPC do, and what I thought would be kind of fun in the moment in kind of divorcing me controlling the character from what I knew as the DM and how I wanted to play this character. Did not even plan on a jail.
A run in with a wererat did allow his pact weapon to deal magic damage to it while I described the wererat instantly healing other damage, but I did not go in to take advantage of that I really thought that it was what the character would do, and showed the players that they could damage it somehow. Although by chances that kind of led to him being turned into a wererat, which I left it up to the players if they might want to keep him as one, but the players actually seemed interested to bring the curse back to the Kobold clan and strengthen it.
I am playing the character, but I am not playing it to outshine the players or have them just be passengers in my story. I don't understand why others seem to find it so hard to roleplay a character separate from running the game. Just because you know there might be some treasure in a place, does not mean you make your character beeline straight for it or ever act in their own interest from things you know only in your other role. And if you are never sure, ask the players what they think your character should do. They are part of the party which is how they interact with the world.
If only my buddy who dms for his kids would stop making the plans to fight the bad guys and let his kids figure it out. It's a learning tool to get them to think but they tend to not think, so I guess he gets impatient and threw in a paladin to babysit them. :/
All the effort you spend on 'your character' you could spend making 'their character's' experience better. That's all I'm saying on that.
why not title the video to give an accurate impression of what it's going to be about, rather than this exact opposite shit.
My old DM did it once, but the way he handled it was interesting. he basically just gave me a sentient cloak that gave advice if i asked it, if it felt like it. did basically nothing but tell me about the world
This is always one of those awkward situations. Using NPC's in the party can definitely be a useful tool for the story, but in my opinion there should be a specific purpose. Example: The party is helping this NPC to complete a task or objective.
If a character is going to stay with the party for an extended period of time I will hand the character sheet to one of the players to serve as a henchman, and then only occasionally take control of them when a particular scene requires it. Frankly I never understood why anyone would feel the need to have a character in the party when they were in the DM's chair, there's bloody well enough to deal with already! The group I run gets nervous whenever an NPC offers to stick around to help them out.... it usually means things are about to get really ugly real fast.
ElenaAideen This is how do it as well. NPCs will occasionally join the party, but they aren't his/her character. They are part of the supporting cast.
Nerdarchist Dave
Your video title is misleading. I run games all the time with just me and my fiance , and I'm the DM. So I often play a charector along with her, though her charector is almost always in charge of what we do next. I was looking for advice on situations like this.
I love Nerdarchy, but this video irritated me slightly, mainly because the misleading title, partially because the video is heavily insulting most DMs that want to play also. In my case, kinda need to play a charector.
Maybe make a video on situations like this? Or if anyone knows of a video by Nerdarchy on this kinda situation throw me a link.
Justin Bell We've addressed the small party or solo character game in numerous videos as well as our feeling on the DM player character.
Yes, we have strong opinion when it comes to this.
Yes, I was trolling the internet a bit the title.
Nerdarchist Dave
Nerdarchy I will check some more videos out! No worry's I do see some great points in this video such as the DM having an over powered charector was not cool. Still a good video (: just didn't expect it when I started watching! Thanks for all the awesome content.
If your game group requires a GMPC there might be better games to choose from.
Also I don't think it is wrong to run a character with your girl if you have few players. As long as most of the story is about your players characters and not yours (which it seems you are doing) I think it is fine.
Their titles are always misleading.
I am actually curious what sort of advice you would have for the opposite scenario. When we first started playing, my players kept telling me I should make my own character to adventure with them; I told them I wasn't sure about it the first couple times, but eventually caved. I am new to DMing (and honestly, this is the first D&D campaign I've even played) but I've watched enough videos from you, Matt Colville, Web DM, Drunkens and Dragons, Fistfull of Dice, Dawnforgedcast, Counter Monkey, and "How to be a Great Game Master" to understand that a lot of GMs are of the opinion that you should absolutely never do this.
I keep thinking back to Critical Role when Matt had Klarota and Lady Kema in the party, though - and even though it was temporary, I feel like that's a good sort of model to follow. Klarota never came across as more heroic than the players; nor did he ever really solve any of their problems for them. He also had his own story and reason for traveling with them, without ever taking center stage I felt. I get that it's a slippery slope and that it can get difficult to juggle (I had to cut the very first conversation I was having with one of the PCs short after a few sentences because I was having a hard time acting in character, while keeping track of what was going on in the room they were in at the time) I do, however, feel like it's doable.
The way I'm handling it right now:
1.I told them she won't be around all of the time
2.I don't intend on having her performing any skill checks unless the party asks her to
3.She's primarily there to buff/heal the party
4.I'm thinking all of her rolls will be made in front of the DM screen
5.I might give the party her character sheet so they can run her in combat (but maintaining the power to veto in extreme circumstances.)
I'm also thinking about suggesting we rotate DM duties down the road. I'm a little hesitant bringing it up right now, because one of my players keeps trying to steal the spotlight from the others, already. He's also been trying to convince me that his level 2 character should be the general of the royal army, and that he should be able to know how to build nukes (I gave him the greenlight to play a nerfed version of Matt Mercer's gunslinger class; so he's now convinced that if gunpowder exists, all modern weapons should be up for grabs or something) Letting him DM just feels like it would be a recipe for disaster.
Is there anything else someone would suggest to try and avoid common pit holes associated with a DM PC?
The only time I would consider doing something like this as a DM for a long period of time (more than a mission) is to allow more options for players to create the characters they want. I would create an NPC who fills a critical role. For example: if we play a space RPG in which FTL travel can only be done or safely done by trained pilots. I would encourage someone to be the pilot but if they don't want to I would create an NPC who would just stick around the ship or in the spaceport when the other players are gone. The character would only really be present if events happen on the ship or if I feel like creating a quest to help that character out of trouble.
I DMed a game where I played an NPC in the party that was a few levels higher than the players, the NPC helped them through a multi-level dungeon and then she betrayed them at the end, come to find out she was the leader of a secret organization trying to kill the PCs before they become too powerful. This NPC turned into a campaign long nuisance and rival for the PCs and was incredibly fun for everyone.
You put this video right on time. I started to panic before starting my first campaign (this week), and wanted to add my own NPC helping the group. Now I wanted to remove the NPC.
Here's my issue. I love having a character, I love building it, leveling it up, etc.. I am a player, through and through. I do not want to GM, ever, because then I cannot play. If I am asked to GM, it means I have to do a shit ton of work and NOT PLAY. All my friends get to have fun, but not me. I am working for my friends for no pay. However I am also one of the better GMs, and often the other two players who could GM, don't want to for similar reasons. Sometimes if I do not step up to run a game, none of us are playing.
I strongly endorse the idea of a GM character so that the GM can have a little bit of the player experience as well. It is important however that they obey the same rules as the players, that they do not have any special bonuses or talents, etc., so as to not steal the show. The game is still about the player's decisions, not the GM's character. That character needs to be the silent sort who seldom ventures an opinion or takes the lead. It also means that other players can take a turn in the GM seat in the same campaign (though different adventure), so no one person is consigned to sit in the GM's chair for years at a time if that's not where they would rather be.
I am a DM and have been since 1978. I am definitely with you on the workload! I have a campaign I created over 30 years ago and recently was asked to play it again by a friend. I have had to spend a LOT of time making it playable on virtual table top. Making all the maps, uploading to the virtual table top, populating with tokens, reading, researching on the net, etc.. The systems keep track of the time and in 6 months I have over 1000 hours in Dungeon Painter making maps, and the same amount in the virtual table top. Definitely a lot of work! The reward for me is I like creating, and I find joy in seeing my players experience an adventure and I am thrilled to hear feedback that they are enjoying what we are doing and that they are looking forward to the next time we play.
I run an DMPC about half the time. I avoid spell casters and stick with warrior or roguish types. Having another sword around has never been a problem. This DM having his be higher level is a mistake. If it's gonna hang with the party it should be the same level.
I actually usually go the other way. I usually pick spell casters but with non-combat spells. like teleportation, travel, and the like. I also normally play them as having high physical skills, but no knowledge and usually the "who am i" trope. That way I can be very useful without directly having an affect on most encounters or puzzles.
As for the DM having a higher level. That depends. if his DMPC doesn't gain exp, at least until the PCs get to his level. I know i have a story I like to tell complete noobs, the party starts at lvl 1 and is joined by a lvl 5 pally. After a short adventure though a swamp with a bunch of weak but plentiful monsters the part encounters a dragons nest and proceeds to get completely wrecked by the baby dragon. (green wrymlings, weak enough the lvl 5 can walk through but their first attack outright kills pretty much every PC 36 dmg at lvl 1) Then after the party dies and the pally saves the day he sacrifices himself to resurrect the party. It's great for a theme, it gives the players a sense of urgency to get stronger, and it's a good lesson to new players that PC's die.
NoESanity I tend to stay clear of spell casters so I'm not tempted to have the perfect spells for whatever is coming. With martial types all they can do is swing a sword. Knowledge characters are right out. I don't want my DMPC to know Jack about much of anything beyond his speciality.
I usually make dmpc with level relative, by location or quest. Indeed, in my actual campaign, my players find a dmpc before I imagined, now she is a 1 level ahead.
Want HP and DPS for the party? A barbarian with low int. No useful input comes from that character. Just comic relief. As for the higher level, you just have to use it right. All NPCs are just tools for the GM. If you know how to use a tool right, you are a craftsman, if you don't you will most likely hurt yourself or another.
I am currently running a campaign with one other person than me so i decided that maybe there should be another party member than just him so i rolled up a monk i had been thinking about for sometime and i got 6 in my int stat this made him a very fun DMPC cause as a DM i would know everything of cause but playing my dense monk made it so much easier for me too not make plans and not know anything my PC is slowly turning into my friends disciple just beacause he doesn't know what else to do and this experience really made me realise that it is ok to have a DMPC you just have to roleplay it correctly :)
The first session I had recently I as the DM played a character too because there were only 2 players and no healer, but we got a 3rd player now so I just retired her as NPC that still talks to the party through a stone of far speech. She stays at a HQ for the party to visit and they can basically call her for small hints or advice.
My first time as a gm we had two players. I gave them a cleric as a healbot, they moved past needing her as I learned how to balance encounters effectively.
Just as they reached seeing her as useless, the big bad kidnapped her and tortured her while they quested reach her. Once she came back with ptsd she became a beloved member of their retinue who owned her own church and focused on recapturing the light from the darkness of the world. She was their contact in a town and resident religion expert.
She worked because I knew she was a crutch for me not the party, a way to bail them out early on while I crafted better encounters. They out paced her level quickly and she ended up being good motivation to raise the stakes.
I recommend watching chris perkin’s dice camera action series he Uses a GM PC pretty frequently. It’s never something that stays around for the whole campaign but is just around to add to what the players can interact with. The players do all of the showboating and he just stands in the back maybe helping the one player who just needs that boost to damage or get off of the ground etc. the players are in control if they give an order to the GMPC it follows it.
KRGOOD You sure he isn't just using npcs?
Nerdarchist Dave
Nerdarchy he could be but you can build a character from the phb and use it as an npc if playing a character is absolutely something you want to do, if done right like say how perkins does it then you can have fun with it and the players will have fun too.
My DM had a PC once, literally the first instance of battle his character was ripped in half by a ballista shot. We asked him afterward if that was intentional and he said that this character was supposed to guide us for at least 3 months of gameplay
I'm a DM for about 6 years now and i always had a NPC that would be with the party but never through all the campain, i've used this tool, the npc, to show the party what the main arch was about, basically for avoid deviations and then I would, with a reasonable story, kill the npc or just make it leave the party so the players could make the most important decisions on their own.
I had a DM that also wanted to do everything in the party as a DMPC, and punish players that did anything against the DMPC's wishes.
I generally try to avoid DMPCs in my games to keep from overshadowing the party with one exception: Hiring mercenaries. If the party feels like they are lacking in healing, trap finding, or combat capability I generally will have swords for hire who rent their services for an up front fee. There is still some time to develop personalities and even have recurring hires, but it stays transactional and they go away after the job is done.
When the group I'm with first formed it was just three of us. DM, me, & another player. None of us players wanted to play a healer, so we had a DMPC Cleric. He was mostly just there to keep us alive. It worked out fine.
As a DM, I tend to give the DM the benefit of the doubt. Maybe let it ride a few sessions and see what happens. Maybe he wants a hero to get killed by the big bad in front of the PCs. There's better ways to do it, but maybe it won't be as bad as it seems. That said, if it goes beyond a session or two and he's stealing the spotlight from your characters, you'll have to address it. Maybe try it in-game and tell the DM's character that they're too good for you and you're holding them back. He should move on and let you find your own way. If the DM doesn't take the hint, you have an awkward conversation in your future, but its a conversation you need to have.
I had a party of 3 with no cleric. I ran the game and played a cleric. You have to intentionally keep the atention off of them: they don't solve all the parties problems, they don't solve all the combat, that don't know all the info. I encouraged players to ask questions of the cleric when they wanted to know things he might know, he only made knowledge checks if everyone else failed, ect. Gave the party the 4th member and a dedicated healer and didn't interfere with the other players ability to create an awesome story.
In my game the only reason I would play a character that was allied with the PC's in combat, is if that character is part of a plot. Say a knight who needs some arcane, divine, and/or skill help to rescue the damsel in distress from a dungeon. That character would only be along for the ride for one or two sessions depending on story, and during combat I may just let one of the PC's control the character. I have enough on my plate as a DM.
in the Monday game im in the DM has a character in the group but this character was introduced through a quest with a quest for the party where she is being escorted to some old ruins with a promise of treasure to the party.
My group's GM has been our GM for years, and in our recent campaign I made an NPC that accompanied mine at first (it was an old ex-pirate that couldn't fight well) and he fleshed it out enough to be a very basic player character. He hasn't been a PC since before my circle (7-9 players) got together, so I think this was a great opportunity for him to do some fun rolls with us without taking the spotlight - and also being able to provide a little direct exposition through roleplay. He puts a lot of time in fleshing out the world, giving us proper antagonists, and makes combat so much more streamlined (we use Savage Worlds now) and I'm sure this will continue to be helpful in dealing with GM burnout.
I think the moment he caved in and decided to turn this little NPC into his own DMPC was when he rolled four 6d aces (6+6+6+6+2) for improvised damage using a nearby chair during our first session: Teahouse Turmoil.
My players wanted a non-dickish npc with personality they could adventure with. I had plenty of npcs they enjoyed, but most of the time I set up scenarios were they were separated or stayed back to the point it became a meme, as they were too strong or noncombatants, or lived in a certain area.
They were also a group of 3 with a cleric wizard and rogue all using defensive options well, but a Champion helps out.
He stuck around and glued the party together in both combat and role-play, was only the same level or one lower with no crazy items and they thanked me for having him around.
In my latest campaign I developed a companion system. My players are a part of a rebellion and have been recruiting NPCs along the way. Before traveling I let them choose two NPCs to travel with, they don't need to take them, but they want to learn about my NPCs and take them for role play. I still center the story about the party, but the NPCs are there to add flavor and support the heroes. I think its dependent on the party and how its executed.
I play DnD with my grandparents and they want me to have a player character, and my solution is to have a weaker character that is aligned to one character.
Leo Wolcott whats that like?
My character was called Flétcer Stön.
It's extremely home brewed and he is weak. He also is under the influence of pop's character.
Leo Wolcott best grandparents ever
D I know.
I know.
My problem was I had an NPC that became a "quest buddy." He was supposed to be with the party for ONE quest, but the party loved the guy so much they wanted him to tag along for a majority of the time...
My team once forced captured bandit to help them in the dungeon, so he became a DMPC for me. It ended up in me forgetting to roll his initiative in last battle so he stood still for like 5 rounds.
I've done this before for a few reasons, one was running a module had too few players and no way to deal with the damage that was expected to come out of the module even slimming down encounters so tossed in a cleric to smooth things along. Another time used the player to help provide story hooks and suggestions for when the party got stuck, but otherwise the character was pretty shy and avoided social situations and easily distracted and might not even realize the party is in combat.
I remember in my first ever D&D campaign, it was just myself and one other person as players and the DM(unfortunately D&D was not popular at all in our area). We decided pretty early on that if we wanted a fleshed out party one or both of us would have to create and play two characters at once. I went with a rogue and a cleric, and linked their backstories to explain why they would be traveling together. The other player rolled a fighter and a wizard(if I remember right). The GM, while he didn't make a 5th party member, did play an NPC who essentially acted as the party's boss, assigning them missions and lending assistance & tools when it was needed. It wasn't a sprawling epic, but it was a fun game. Lots of combat, and lots of character development.
My first group had a high level NPC in the party. From what I understand talking to the GM (we never finished the campaign) the NPC was actually supposed to lead us to the end game, and was an evil character (new players also got to jump in with this character as well).
Any other time I've seen NPCs join our party it has been temporary.
My DM had the issue that we had so few players and a limited composition because we had 2 players leave, so she created NPC's that she runs their interactiosn, but all the combat and puzzles and everything is run as a hydra for our players that are comfortable doing it, it has worked out really well because now we don't have to reroll characters and we are surviving without having to beg people to join our campaign.
Cool NPCs are nice. But as a DM, I honestly feel like I can't even afford to play DMPC. Not when I also want to run the game properly. It takes away from resources I could devote to making a better game.
I mean, how do you still run a PC in combat, while at the same time trying to remember all the spells and abilities of your bad guys? You run both half-arsed and nobody is having fun. Never half-arse two things. Always full-arse one thing.
Also, bringing in an DMPC that is higher level is suuuper dangerous. The only real way to handle that is letting the DMPC take a backseat. And at that point you might as well make him either a normal NPC or the same level of the party, it doesn't matter.
Craze Flayer Full-arse 😹😹😹
Do you really have trouble remembering stat blocks and motivations for your monsters and a single other character?
I was once forced to have a DM PC. In a homebrew world they had a knight who was their primary contact with one of the nobles they worked for. They developed a friendly relationship with Sir Rhen and even reached the point where they came to him for no other reason than they wanted to hang out. When they reached their fifth level they were summoned directly too their Lord and presented with the over arching quest line they were offered a boon. Instead of money or papers providing immunity to minor crimes like trespassing or horses or any of the offered boons the party chose Sir Rhen.
Hi guys, long time watcher, first time posting to a discussion. While I agree with you for the most part, particularly when learning that the GM’s character is two levels higher than the rest of the party, I have GM’ed and played a character in the same game in the past and the experience was positive for all players and myself. I did this way back when I first started to play AD&D. My friends and I learned the game together - we were the only ones we knew who were playing D&D, so had no one to teach us. I bought the starter set, read the rules and starter campaign, and rolled up a character. Then I got my brother and friends interested. We didn’t know about party balance or any such stuff, and ended up with three fighters and a ranger. I played my fighter more or less like an NPC, only supporting the party, never leading or making decisions. My friends never asked “What would Arvor do?” And it was understood that my character would not give hints with his actions. Everyone started out at first level and we progressed together until level 15 (it took about three years or). As a new GM playing a new game, having a character in the party provided me a sense of what my friends were feeling while playing. I did not care if the monsters died as the GM, but I did care about my character. I never fudged the dice for attacks. I was excited when he made a successful attack and concerned when he has hit. I learned a lot about the fighter class, and more importantly, as a GM learned how to modify published campaigns for the challenges a party of fighters had to face. When making my own dungeons, I stacked it with monsters and puzzles that non-magic users could deal with. The key was to play the character like an NPC, and to do so fairly without advantages over the other players. While you made solid points as to why a GM should not play a character, do you have any positive points or scenarios where one could play a character? I still GM. I don’t play characters in my game anyone, but feel the experience of doing so in the past helped me be a better GM for my friends.
In all my campaigns I play an angel cleric that's for emergencies. Like if one of my players says, "I'm going to smack the dragon and say no." you may laugh but with my crazy group this happens a lot.
Tell me about it
Literally every time I tried introducing a character like this my players instantly rejected them and treated them like crap till I made them leave the group. I’ve had some terrible players. One time they sabotaged my campaign after only 2 sessions in order to let someone else be the dm, who quit after only 1 because he got butthurt about not getting to do everything he wanted. And then the rest disbanded and I haven’t gotten an opportunity to play since.
I've played DMPCs in my campaign for narrative reasons. They were typically rounded up to the nearest 5 level (5,10,15,20) for simplicity sake. However, when it came to combat, they usually take a back seat and perform mundane attacks (albeit stronger than the party in must cases) that did not involve magic. Their magic use was utility and healing only.
Good Lord I finally have to be that guy.
ECKTCHUALLY, a Mary Sue is more of a label that is used for when a certain character forces the plot to surround them, they are the perpetual center of the universe in their story, and under nearly all circumstances no one in that universe can do anything like the Mary Sue can. The Mary Sue will one-up the expert mechanic by fixing the engines when the mechanic judged them as irreparable, she'll beat the soldier in a game of marksmanship, she'll put the brute into a pin and get him to tap out, she'll out-smart the mastermind in a game of chess. The Mary Sue is usually a flawless character who can do no harm to the people on their side, and any harm they can do is negligible and easily fixed.
I ran a 3.5 D&D back in the days, with a group of two fighters one cleric and a sorcerer. Neither were skilled at disarming traps for obvious reasons, they all made it through a trap filled dungeon , without getting struck by a single trap, and they did actually activate them all, just in a awesome way. They found that even a fighter can be an awesome trap remover if doing it right.
I'm actually running a campaign right now and i have my own solution to the gm having a character. I have made basically an "oh crap the party is dying" character that is following, but not interacting with the party, unless absolutely necessary.
I play in a campaign where the GM has his own PC and it started quite good. The reason we did it was because from time to time the players would GM sidequests, where their charackters would turn into sidekicks, giving the GM the Chance to play as regular player as well as giving him more time to plan the main questline and still adding to the campaign. We mainly did it because we only had four people and none of the others was willing to regularly be a GM any time soon.
Several problems arouse from that later:
A: his Charakter had a change of personality every time he took full controle. Beeing rather quiet and in the background while under gm-control and then turning hyperactive and hungry for action once he was a PC
B: Once the Main story took up pace and one of our players had far less time to come to play, we didn't change the GM as often and his Charakter turned into a full gmpc with more and more of the problems you mentioned showing up.
I've had NPCs join the party on two occasions. The first was for a prewritten adventure that had some really narrow solutions to it's puzzles and the PCs were missing some of the required abilities. Didn't have time to rewrite the thing, so I grabbed a couple stock characters that fit the bill. The players controlled them in combat. Outside combat, the NPCs just followed the players' lead. The second time, the NPCs were literally the Three Stooges, who ended up contributing minimally to the quest, but caused a fair amount of hijinks.
I'm running a campaign right now with a DMPC as it were, and it seems to work fine. Like Luis, my character mainly just stays in the background and only really takes AC ion during combat, or if the PCs ask him for advice. The nice thing about it for us is that there's another guy in our group who can DM and plans on it in the near future, so he doesn't have to think of some reason for there to be a new party member all of a sudden since he's been there the whole time.
I created an GMNPC for my current campaign so my lady and daughter can see how things go. Basically a "guide" for the first 2 or 3 sessions while at the same time I encourage them to take the initiative and come up with ideas on their own (some ideas I give are bad ones to see how they react, and others lead nowhere as well). The GMNPC is a Cleric who has more of a priest look about him. Considering they are a Fighter and a Ranger, it seemed best to fill in that Healer slot and I am glad I did. They had fun: they went on a small dungeon crawl, slayed a raiding-party-in-hiding of Kobolds, found the pack leader who was a Kobold Dragonshield flanked by two regular Kobolds, proceeded to kill them and rescue some children, and at the end the Fighter went down and kissed negatives while fighting the Dragonshield. Healer's kit came in handy, all healing magic had been expended, Fighter recuperated, gold and exp. for everybody, KUMBAYA AROUND A FIRE. They did not expect to possibly die (insert evil grin), but they were glad it wasn't a full-on death. And all I did was carry a torch leading the party into the darkness (who the hell puts the white mage as the point man?!), to which my daughter wised up first and was like "wait wait wait, wth is the healer going first...we need that dude..." and I casted healing spells and Sacred Flame all the way. Some Kobolds he killed outright, but mostly others were wounded and badly burned before they got their heads lopped off or were impaled with arrows through eye sockets (my wife and kid are badasses lol). Everyone shined bright, I taught them the benefits of looting bodies (from which a healing potion came in handy), got them started on perception and insight checks, some investigation, and they were satisfied and liked it. They are waiting for me to finish the second quest. What I'm trying to say is: it is possible to run a GMNPC and everyone at the table have fun and shine. But this strategy has a special place I think mostly for people that are starting to play the game. Otherwise, it seems like an ok thing for the GM to do but he/she has to remember that it is something else on the GM plate that already has enough as it is. The hireling route is perfect for experienced games.
I use my “DM Player Characters” to help move the story along. I have three players and they have had the option to take one of three four NPCs, two of which, already have been introduced. Each one has a part of the overall story and m6 players seem to like it so far. I guess these characters are more of just NPCs rather than my DM Player Characters.
Xrandomex metro 2033 and its sequel games have a good use of NPCs in towns and in the "dungeons"
I use a DMPC in my campaign. Just a character to influence the newer players to rp. When in puzzles I have a rule, they solve everything, but if they want her to help they can ask. Basically she's there to give small "hints" if they're stuck on something. I only do it 3 times a session though, so they can't abuse it
I run a DMPC for sessions 1-10, A warlock who's patron is a Decadron and has spent 30 years among goblin kind. He comes along as translator to the goblin infested jungles of my Lost Island. He goes through a ton of terrible shit and leaves the party a broken man. It's great.
I once had a DM who justified his DMPC by explaining that we were mercenaries hired by him, so the DMPC could call all the shots and make all the decisions and control the plot. We were not happy about it.
I almost always have a DMPC. They usually don't have a whole lot of long term impact on the storyline, besides maybe having their personal background cause some Havoc when the players are creating down time. It's just an additional way for me to implement adventure hooks. What I don't agree with is having that character be higher level then the party. I have multiple characters that the players can use, but only one at a time and they have to have met or exceeded that characters level before they can recruit them.
I run a pseudo-DMPC as a sidekick, because I only have 2 players. It helps with split decisions between the two, and organically reminds them of stuff they may have forgotten.
I made a Goblin Cleric that helped out and a new player took it on. Are they the Dukes of Hazard County?
My DMed NPC/PC that I use doesn't even really talk to any of my characters he hangs out in different areas of the world bumping into the PC's, he doesn't really interact unless he is wanting to buy something/ is interested in something the PC's are going after
Our DM has run a number of PCs alongside us, often they change depending on the country we're in, mostly they're there to fill our blatant lack of healing. We were at the time running a three person party consisting of a Wizard, a rogue and a fighter. We were hired by a wizard to get her to the capital (where we were going) and she had a few modified healing spells. She didn't say much she didn't tell us who she was, but she enabled us to take on some tougher bosses. Now we were asked to save a different country and offered aid, we mentioned the need for a healer and were given the choice of two alignments. So now our party (which consisted now of Wizard, Rogue, Ranger and Barbarian) has a gnomish healer following us around being bright and bubbly. We've also had on occasion a paladin who turns up every now and again.
All in all they've been done well, actually as a player I sometimes wonder why the DMPC doesn't always speak up even when they should have a strong view (though maybe if we'd chosen the lawful good cleric instead of the chaotic they would have had a problem with our necromancy dabbling rogue). They're really good to have from a balance perspective as they allow our DM to give us encounters that feel truly epic and suit our supposed position as heroes in the world. They are also useful as they can give us a window into the workings of a place we might not otherwise have (that wizard was sister to the queen so we got an "in" to help us aid further).
I don't think DMPCs are bad as long as the DM can differentiate personal knowledge from character knowledge and is good at sharing the spotlight adequately.
One of my favorite games has a GMPC in our small group. I definitely see the points you guys are making, but I think it really comes down to GM maturity and restraint. In our case, we’re a small group of friends, and we enjoy having that experience with our GM. It’s additive without being overwhelming/show boaty/Mary Sue. I think it depends on the goals of the group coming together (let’s spend time doing this together vs hey! I found someone to GM for us), GM restraint, GM maturity, and perhaps running WotC modules (ours is Hoard of the Dragon Queen) vs homebrew.
Personally I have found a player character for DMs always come up as " the story is about me" or "this guy in our party is a moron". I only would say maybe use it if the players are really inexperienced but even then I think I can railroad a little to try to get things going.
So, I only found this video today, so here's my two cents on the matter.
I think we need to differentiate between DMPCs and NPC Party Members.
DMPCs suffer from the Mary Sue Effect, where they take the spotlight away from the players because the DM desperately wants to be on the other side of the DM screen.
NPC Party Members, on the other hand, can be incredibly useful, especially for smaller player groups. The DM can create them to fill gaps in the party roster and are also an excellent way to include party banter and even work clues into puzzles where they otherwise wouldn't make sense. The key is the skill of the DM, in how they handle the NPCs and how good they are at roleplaying.
DMPCs are basically badly done NPC Party Members.
To use myself as an example: I run two games at the moment. The first has a player count of 8, with a mix of experienced and fresh players. I would never foist NPC Party Members on them, though they have adopted a couple of NPCs.
My second game has a player count of 2. It is not physically possible to fill every party role themselves without severely hampering their specialities, so I presented them with a variety of NPC Party Members. I created each one as a Class Levelled character (aka the same way PCs are made) and wrote them backstory and personalities. That way I can ensure that any advice they give will be in-character and may even be BAD advice. I have given them a wide range of options, but they get to choose who comes with them each time they set off from the hub town, if they take any with them at all. For balancing dungeons, I'll work in some way to limit the number they can bring with them, or force them to choose a number to leave behind at the entrance. Sometimes I'll make one or two of them unavailable for a period of time because they're dealing with something else. And for, for lack of a better term, "Companion Quests" such as those you would find in a cRPG they have to take the NOC in question with them.
Bottom line: well done NPC Party Members/Companions can elevate a small or inexperienced party, fill in gaps in the party roster and allow the DM to provide extra lore, world building, social interaction, clues and better balancing.
Poorly done, they steal the spotlight and push your players out of the game, in which case you may as well just go and write a book.
NPC Companions elevate the party by ensuring that the Player Characters remain the Main Characters, while DMPCs compete for the spotlight by trying to be Main Characters as well.
i like the idea of using it for plot... make him/her secretly evil and doesn't stay the whole time. you can do alot with it, maybe make the players think you are playing a player character but its actually the villain.
The problem becomes when your character appears more important then the party. My guy was a plot device more then a character, but this made the other players think I was trying to take center stage. That game fell apart, but I learned a lot from it.
In my first campaign I ran a DMPC healer because the party was only three players and I felt that as an inexperienced GM I needed that fourth because I conformed to the guidelines for encounters. Now I played the character as a pasifist and never engaged in the social or exploration unless the others asked. It worked well enough and it was more of another monster that I had to run every encounter, it also allowed if someone wanted to sit in for a single session I could had this character to them without needing to worry about coming up with a reason why someone new was randomly showing up in the middle of a castle or forest.
Since then I've never felt I needed to, largely because I gained a lot of experience both in storyteller and balancing encounters against what I have at the table.
I think this is especially good for small parties. We only have a 3 person party, so having our GM player character helps to round out the party and make it a more standard size.
The way I handled this, I had a character as DM. I didn't do this for any reason other than to participate within the world rather than just be it. I purposely stay out of every decision process and the world I have is diverse enough I encourage other members to DM their own lore friendly mini quests that enable me to also then be new to the creation. I find this a good way to keep a balance without me as DM leading players in any way. The player improv is an amazing element that should never come at the risk of a DM character opinion
I DID DM a Game and had an NPC in it, two game sessions in, I forgot where the char was. By the time anyone pointed out the missing character the battle was over and I realized they didn't need him. So they found his corpse.
When I DM, if I want or need a character to support the party, I use one that patches over holes in the party's capability. I last ran a group with two druids, a sorcerer, a combat wizard, two barbarians, and a rogue. The only thing they needed was utility magic, so I added a divination wizard. To make sure he didn't steal the show, I made his forbidden schools evocation and necromancy, plus that since he was a novice combatant, he frequently just lost turns to panicked inaction. The only time he hogged the spotlight was when he dispelled three incoming fireballs in a row (which I totally fudged because the first fireball made me realize that they were aimed at the PCs who were vulnerable to fire). The rest of the time, he ID'd magic items and exposoted lore, which caused roleplaying interactions between the impatient barbarian who intimidated him into shutting up, the other barbarian who was his hired bodyguard, and the druid who was actually listening to the lore for plot hints.
In short, I used him to help make the game run smoothly, and as an excuse/tool to help keep the party both together and moving in plot-relevant directions.
If the DM wants to guide a low-level, inexperienced party... occasionally speak through the wizard familiar, warlock's patron, cleric's deity, or random NPC. DM doesn't need a PC to assist a party. As you guys said, the DM runs everyone else. Well done.
I dm a group, and have a PC that is actually under leveled, but is more familiar with the world than the party. He knows the lay of the land and he's essentially there in case they need a gentle shove in a direction.
I'm currently considering making my own video on the subject of "DMPCs". I feel that the attitude of "Just don't do it" is not very constructive regardless of the good reasons you may present. I think we need some videos out there on how to properly run a DMPC with "dos and don'ts" and making sure you're doing it for the right reasons.
For me, it's just wanting to create interesting characters who aren't being pitted against the party and aren't relegated to being shopkeepers or quest-givers or whatever else. It's simply a matter of being aware of the pitfalls and being vigilant in navigating around them.
I think the biggest thing to avoid is to NEVER have them be the solution to a problem, or if you must make them something of a tool the party could use to solve a problem.Treat it kind of like a single-player CRPG like Dragon Age where you have to command for example a rogue to search for traps and disarm them or to pick a lock. Granted, you'll need to establish that rogue is ordinarily a bit careless in that regard (but good enough if they're set to the task). You might even have the players make the rolls for those checks (probably based upon who suggested the action). That said, I probably wouldn't create a DMPC rogue just because I want to have traps in my dungeon and there are no rogues in the party.
My group makes it work but we don't have a single DM. We use the Mythic GM Emulator with the 5e system to play, and we all colab on the rolls and interpret things together. That works out quite well.
I've had a DM who had a NPC that was a god that is simply a narrator. Essentially, it was just a minifigure that was DM personified that made absolutely no difference. My group is all about having minifigs and a physical dungeon and such so it's fun to have a physical figure. Hell, we may choose to get into lego minifigs for PCs simply because it's very customizable.
In the campaign I run, I have a semi DM npc, one of my party members has a fighter follower who is one level below the parties level, in combat he is controlled by the player, but I level him up and rp as him when the time goes, just trying to keep the party somewhat on track.
I very recently started playing DnD as a player. My last DM was a genius and I ended up starting high level, and very late into his multi-year campaign. Due to some unforseen problems with some friendships I no longer have the ability to play with that group. But a few friends of mine have been wanting to play for awhile. And I knew I had a great story to tell, so I literally last week took up the mantle of DM for my wife and 3 friends. I plan on revealing the world's withing the 20 realms in my story as we explore, and introducing methods and rewards for exploring them. However I haven't lost the desire to be a player as well, so I'll be joining the party with my own character, I found a good balance of telling my story and playing is random generators online. I'll be able to randomize as much as possible, and role-play my character into being more of a side character in the party, he's an older wise monk, who might have words of wisdom now and then, and can fight for sure but is much more of a spiritual pacifist. Case-specific a great way to get around the issues of a DM playing a character too. Tbf most if not all of my campaign will be homebrew which helps the story unfold more. I don't even know exactly how the world and experiences will play out, but I'll let that be up to my group!
I think theres a really good moment to use a NPC and is when you just started being the master. If it's your first campaing as a master, maybe you have problems guiding or balancing. if you have experienced players and/or experienced game masters as a player in your campaing, it's not that big of a deal because they will ask the questions and help you guide them, and will just understand when ther is something disbalanced. But, when not juast you are an inexperienced master, but also your players are new (ej, you just played some D&D and now you want to introduce your old group of friends to it) and NPC make de thing just a lot easier. I recomend (as for me worked well) to usea a beguiler that just disapears in middle of the combat and let the players play, and when it towns oit disapear and usually is drinking or taking some info that the party can miss, and waits for actual players to take a decision, or a cleric wich just heals and cast some minor protec spells and when arrives a town goes directly to the church to help people in a similar way.
Since when does the GM need to ask permission to play a character? I don't judge either way. If the PCs don't like it they don't have to play.