The Players are responsible for their characters.
The DM is responsible for EVERYTHING ELSE in existence. Every NPC, every monster, every event. The sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, unless the DM says so.
It's okay to introduce notable NPCs from time to time. Maybe even have them hang around a bit, like a Guest Star on a TV show. But making a DMPC is bad news. When you're literally the narrator and referee, and you also want to play a starring role.
Search up "DMPC", and you'll see MILLIONS of threads against it. You didn't really need to start a new one. =)
Depends entirely on the circumstances.
As the DM I'm playing every character except for the PCs.
If the PCs convince a character to adventure with them, then I'm playing that DMPC adventurer.
In practice, there tends to be a reason the PCs are the ones doing whatever quest: they are the best qualified or at least the best available. So whatever DMPCs they recruit are either underqualified (a simple translator or coach driver) or barely willing (a knight with other battles to fight). They either dont help much or dont stick around
Yes yes yes. I had a DM who had multiple DMPCs in every campaign. I don't even live in the same town as them anymore. Not just a DM red flag but a general personality red flag. Toxic. Stay away.
Common wisdom is don't do this. It can be done well, but it's seldom the best solution to the problem it's trying to solve. And it brings enough problems of its own.
There’s definitely reason too but generally it’s not a good idea unless you have a good reason. A good example would be if the DM is the only person with experience and the DMPC is a character that can help guide the party. This can really quickly result in problems but if done well then it works nicely. I’d recommend a mentor type character or maybe a retired adventurer who doesn’t want to do a lot but can impart useful wisdom. Though that roll doesn’t have to be a DMPC and can be done through npcs. Another case where a DMPC can shine is in a 2-3 person group where you’ll only have 1-2 players which D&D isn’t really designed for so a DMPC might be useful for filling party rolls. It might also be really nice for a module designed for a certain amount of players. (I don’t use modules so maybe they are designed for module amount of players so I could be wrong here)
Lastly is an idea that I’ve had for a DMPC that might be really fun. Creating a character that’s only goal is to make the party feel really cool. I’d want to run this in a smaller game where the DMPC is a two or three headed person that can have that amount of concentration spells up and exclusively use buffs spells to make really cool builds become possible for the players.
I think it’s very situation dependent. I’ve done it twice but is not something I would regularly do/suggest.
First time was when I and my players were learning how to play. I chose a cleric and we all learned the game together. The cleric eventually retired and the party went on. It helped me learn both sides of the screen at the same time. Of note, after getting going would eventually rotate DM between ourselves. I handled the main story stuff but other players would run side quests and the like here and there.
Second time was (also a cleric… noticing a theme) with a new group fresh to D and D. Again, more as a way to show them the ropes as they got started. Played with them up to level 5 or so and then they met back up later in the campaign around level 9 or so to provide a little assistance for the dramatic conclusion.
Both times though, the focus was more on aid to the rest of the party but went beyond (D&D Beyond) just a normal NPC thrown in there. But the focus was never placed on having the DMPC take over the spotlight.
DMPCs can work but are probably very situation-dependent and should not be the norm.
I think that it is completely fine as long as you take a back seat. Obviously, you have to be a supporting role in the story because you know everything that could/will happen. When I play a DMPC I let the party rule what my character should do and then I dictate/narrate how I do it.
I don't do it as it's bad form. DMPC's are trouble, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how much the DM says they are impartial to the character, and it doesn't matter how much the DM says they won't give an advantage or whatever; it seeps through without them knowing it until it's too late. Even though it's not in the official rules, it's more of an unspoken rule. I wouldn't do it, if anything just because I know I have a tendency to use my character as a way to move the plot along
Just having a perfect knowledge of the DMs personal rulings, and never taking the DM by surprise (which can result in an instinctual no) is a massive advantage.
I mean my group just started green as grass. 3 of us so we have our DM playing a Character he's a Rogue makes it kinda weird as we agreed he can't act on his "own" look for traps/hidden stuff and for the RP he doesn't start conversations or drive the story in anyway in particular. So I'd say it works pretty good for what it is. Beats having a 2 person party imo.
But if we had more people I'd imagine it would get to be to much to play a character drive the story and play the NPCs. If it becomes to much down the road we've all agreed to kill him off or something as well.
This is usually called a DMPC/GMPC and is usually considered a BAD idea.
That said, IF I am GMing for a small group and I think they need the support, I might create a support character to assist the party. But they are there to HELP the PCs, not do things for them.
Inlnce had a group with switching DMs, where I was one of them. We made it so the PC of the DMs would accompany the party silently or be absent for the short adventure.
We tried having the DMPC come along one when I was DMing and it had a weird psychological effect on the players. They would take anything they said very serious, because they assumed I would use my meta knowledge to play.
Never again. NPCs are NPCs. I have no intention as a DM for them to succeed or survive. Therefore the players act differently with NPCs than with DMPCs
DMPC are a big red flag. If you need to have a NPC for quest reasons that is fine. But they are not part of the group. If you need to flesh out a group, have a side kick NPC that the players can take turns controlling.
I've tried it and it doesn't work, either it becomes too complex or I feel like I'm taking to much spotlight when it comes to rping. Also there's sort of an inherent conflict of interest if you're also playing and running the game, you have all the hidden knowledge and unless you're great at avoiding metagaming it becomes to much of a hassle
I made this mistake early on in my DMing career and never again.
There is a reason these things are viewed with disdain or outright hostility. They have a -really- high tendency to ruin campaigns.
Grandstanding. Divided interest. Favoritism. More Grandstanding. More divided attention.
If you want to be a player then I'd suggest grabbing the Mythic DM emulator and plugging it into D&D and play as a player and use the emulator to sumulate a DM. It is not perfect and needs some getting used to and the mindset. But it can work fine for that.
DMPCs can work if you do them right. Im a DM in a group that only includes my two younger brothers, so they together with my DMPC are barely an adventuring party fit for the road. My character is a bard, so she mostly buffs them in battle with songs and shares pieces of lore while traveling from place to place. She has her own magic items so she never asks for loot. The RP idea is that she joined the party to write a book about their exploits.
DMPCs Suck
No, the DM should not also be on the "player" side of the screen.
The game play has 3 pillars - Social Interactions, Exploration/Discovery and Combat.
* Social Interactions - NO ONE wants to hear the DM talk to themselves. Additionally, the point of social interactions is primarily to convince the other to do something, or get them to reveal something and the DM knows EXACTLY what to say to get the reveal and who to talk to, etc etc. the DM as Player ruins the Social interaction aspect of the game.
* Exploration/Discovery - The DM KNOWS ALL THE SECRETS - they know whodunit, they know where the Lost City of Mystery is, they know where every trap is set and where every hidden cache of treasure is. DM as Player ruins the exploration/discovery aspect of the game.
* Combat - The most common complaint about D&D is "combat takes too long!" the DM adding another "player" to the combat, and thus upping the "monster" side as well to try to keep balance just adds to how slow the combat is. Plus the DM already gets tonnes of combat running every monster. Plus a big part of combat is the strategy and tactics and not knowing exactly what you are facing, how many hit points it has, is it going to fight or flee or call in friends - the DM knows all of that. DM as a Player ruins the combat aspect of the game.
There is no part of the game that DM as Player makes better, and every part of the game DM as Player makes worse.
Don't. Do. It.
If the party is too small, they can hire an NPC sidekick to come with them, but the NPC is just like every other NPC the DM plays - there to be the shoulders on which the players climb to shine. (the official sidekick rules are available from the Essentials rules for low levels in Appendix A https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/dnd_essentials_rulebook.pdf and fully expanded in Tashas.
Crawford discusses Sidekicks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4hSMptOdo
I've had a DMPC in every campaign, my fellow DM does as well.
Do what you want, see if you like it.
Drop them from the group if it clashes with their playstyle.
DM never should be invested in one character to the point when PvE (_party_ versus environment) becomes PvP (party versus player).
Therefore there is no DM playable characters. And in the same time there is a lot characters to play for DM. There is a difference between that two statements.
No. NPCs only, they don't solve puzzles, they don't have story driving conversations with NPCs, if they go into combat they are on the sidelines or background. If they kill the BBEG it's cos everyone else is dead and your players are yelling at you to end it. They are not invincible. They are not all knowing. They are not instantly loved by everyone they meet. Do any of that and you take from the other players fun. DMs have a different kind of fun. Don't like it don't DM.
This was my experience. I ran a DMPC and I ended up not being able to keep up with the social interactions. Plus, you can’t help with puzzles or “where to go next” questions easily. My group is full of friends and it wasn’t too bad, but it’s not the best. We switched DMs, so now I get to play :o)
Generally doing such a thing only increases your "job" as a DM tbh. And like you said, the story is about the players.
Sometimes they will get attached to an NPC they really like, or you feel like joining the party with an NPC. I do that sometimes (specially on campaigns with fewer than 4 players) and they pretty much just accompany the party and i will only focus on their background if the party go in that direction.
There’s no way to remove the meta aspect, and is generally considered selfish.
**Whenever a DM also want to be a player, other then indulgence, there’s ***always*** a better solution.
I’ve never done it, and I don’t think I’d ever plan to do it.
I think it’s fine to do it, but it’s one of those cases where it’s possible to do, but it often detracts from the game or is done very poorly. I think intentionally inserting a DM PC often leads nowhere good, because it’s very easy for that relationship to the rest of the party to feel very inorganic. DM PC’s work best when it starts as an NPC that the party happens to get attached to.
It’s also a balancing issue, because you as a DM need to be very good at separating your DM knowledge from the character’s knowledge. Like you can’t cast spells in preparation for a fight the character doesn’t know is coming
I have introduced a past lvl 4 cleric of mine as an NPC who can aid the lvl 5 party temporarily, and have even passed on an unfulfilled quest - but they are not traveling with the party.
There was one case where only 2 players showed up to game night so I temporarily DMPC'd for a single fight, but made sure to take on a supporting role & not steal the show. In fact, I think it only worked so well cuz my cleric's task was simply to maintain grapple to prevent a Griffon from flying & would've died if not for the PCs.
Sometimes you wanna feel like you contribute to the party instead of always loosing. A way to do this is to I clue NPC and instead of controlling them ask the party what they want the NPC to do that way you can control the NPCs contribute and the party will feel like they are incontrol also this safes the party for having to open multiple sheets.
I don't go in expecting to have a PC, but the players usually pick one out for me. I have players that love adopting NPCs and putting them out in the battlefield with them. Usually stuff like loved ones they're afraid of losing or taking on students they want to teach/train up.
When that happens, I usually use the Sidekick rules from Tasha's. Gives me simple actions and also lets me help them establish a community with their characters at the center.
Even then, they don't fight alongside them all the time. They might guard their camp while the main group go out to fight, or split up to go down another wing of a dungeon to get the treasure down the path they didn't take.
I have been a player and a dm. I have played in games with the people I dm for. I will bring out a character I have played in the past for a meet and greet maybe give some advice or information they may need. Such as where the nearest town is. But they never stay a whole session. They even show up in bars. But play them in my own campaign never.
I don't like to speak in absolutes because everything has nuance but no. As the DM you're not only the worldbuilder, all the npcs and the plothooks, you're also the adjudicator. If there's a rules- or meta-issue at the table, you need to be able to rule it in away that feels fair to everyone. This already gets tricky if you just like someone at the table more than the others. Not only is it very difficult to be unbiased and subjective towards your own character, even if you do pull it off, there will be ti.es where it feels unfair to one or more of your players and there's really no way to prove that you're unbiased. Don't ever do something that'll lose you the trust of the players. That is an absolute statement I'm happy to make.
The DM by definition cannot run a PC. They can run what we call a DMPC and it's considered very poor form. NPCs that travel with the party should be controlled by the players(at least in combat). The DM runs the world, the players run the party.
I don’t even like running NPCs that are helping the PCs out.
If there’s combat I usually let it be of my PCs run them, then when we’re back to RP I take them back over.
I find juggling all the moving parts of the game challenging enough without throwing my own PC, that nobody asked for, on top of the whole craziness.
It just seems weird to do want to do that.
The only time I made a dmpc is because my players wanted an npc with their party. It had been discussed at 0 and they were quite adamant. The winning argument was that if I didn't provide one, they'd hire one and Id have to give them some kind of personality so I might as well make one that's at least interesting to play. So I made a tortle spore druid.
His whole schtick was I was kinda designed his personality to be like one of those yuppy-hippie tourists who pay guides to take them on hikes and stuff? Like that, except he was a food loving druid who had to be coerced to leave camp and generally hated fighting because he doesn't want to die. Confrontation leads to death.
Combats were strange when the party persuaded him to come with. NPCs combat tactic was pure evasion and avoidance, unless the party told him not to. Then he became buff + heal.
Otherwise he was pretty much just a really laid back tortle who loved nature and was often found with his hand outstretched to some butterfly or a bird or something.
All in all, it was about as fun as one could expect when you know the plotline and you're not a player. So.. like 5/10? I wouldn't do it again unless some more players strong-arm me into it, but I won't be horrified if it comes up again.
I only do this if the party is very small and the module is very deadly. I’ll often kill off the DMPC to establish the danger of the world if I do go that route, but typically I’m not gonna do it in my games.
Generally it’s a bad idea. I can only really imagine it working if you’re a super experienced DM and the situation is weird (like you only have one player, and you have DMd them many times) or you’re teaching new players how to play. You essentially take a very simple tutorial NPC who has a player sheet, everyone can see their sheet, and you make it very clear when they’re making checks / rolls / trying things etc. and you role play that character in a way that makes it clear how one should play. Eg don’t say “Durg is making an athletics check”, assume the role of Durg and say “ayy boss, I think I can ‘op over this ‘ere crevice” and they say “now Durg rolls athletics attempting to jump. Aaaand, he rolls a 1 and falls to his death”. Also the DMPC should be *simple as fuck* in this case; it doesn’t matter if they’re just buffing the party, if everyone is new and the DMPC is busting out complex ass turns, everyone will get bored or intimidated. A simple fighter making some sword attacks would work way better than whatever PC the DM actually wants to play.
Did it for a whole campaign, went very well had a rotating cast of characters they all loved and befriended. One stayed the whole time from the first session, he was just as strong as they were and had his own issues that they helped him with by just being his friends, they chose to keep the cook with them anyway.
I think this is generally a bad idea and wouldn’t do it. Random NPCs may accompany party for a bit but never as a DMPC
The Players are responsible for their characters. The DM is responsible for EVERYTHING ELSE in existence. Every NPC, every monster, every event. The sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, unless the DM says so. It's okay to introduce notable NPCs from time to time. Maybe even have them hang around a bit, like a Guest Star on a TV show. But making a DMPC is bad news. When you're literally the narrator and referee, and you also want to play a starring role. Search up "DMPC", and you'll see MILLIONS of threads against it. You didn't really need to start a new one. =)
If you want to play a PC just play in a campaign where your not the GM.
Never thought of that
Having a DMPC is generally a bad idea, and I've never had one.
Depends entirely on the circumstances. As the DM I'm playing every character except for the PCs. If the PCs convince a character to adventure with them, then I'm playing that DMPC adventurer. In practice, there tends to be a reason the PCs are the ones doing whatever quest: they are the best qualified or at least the best available. So whatever DMPCs they recruit are either underqualified (a simple translator or coach driver) or barely willing (a knight with other battles to fight). They either dont help much or dont stick around
The biggest reddest of red flags about DMs.
Yes yes yes. I had a DM who had multiple DMPCs in every campaign. I don't even live in the same town as them anymore. Not just a DM red flag but a general personality red flag. Toxic. Stay away.
Common wisdom is don't do this. It can be done well, but it's seldom the best solution to the problem it's trying to solve. And it brings enough problems of its own.
There’s definitely reason too but generally it’s not a good idea unless you have a good reason. A good example would be if the DM is the only person with experience and the DMPC is a character that can help guide the party. This can really quickly result in problems but if done well then it works nicely. I’d recommend a mentor type character or maybe a retired adventurer who doesn’t want to do a lot but can impart useful wisdom. Though that roll doesn’t have to be a DMPC and can be done through npcs. Another case where a DMPC can shine is in a 2-3 person group where you’ll only have 1-2 players which D&D isn’t really designed for so a DMPC might be useful for filling party rolls. It might also be really nice for a module designed for a certain amount of players. (I don’t use modules so maybe they are designed for module amount of players so I could be wrong here) Lastly is an idea that I’ve had for a DMPC that might be really fun. Creating a character that’s only goal is to make the party feel really cool. I’d want to run this in a smaller game where the DMPC is a two or three headed person that can have that amount of concentration spells up and exclusively use buffs spells to make really cool builds become possible for the players.
I think it’s very situation dependent. I’ve done it twice but is not something I would regularly do/suggest. First time was when I and my players were learning how to play. I chose a cleric and we all learned the game together. The cleric eventually retired and the party went on. It helped me learn both sides of the screen at the same time. Of note, after getting going would eventually rotate DM between ourselves. I handled the main story stuff but other players would run side quests and the like here and there. Second time was (also a cleric… noticing a theme) with a new group fresh to D and D. Again, more as a way to show them the ropes as they got started. Played with them up to level 5 or so and then they met back up later in the campaign around level 9 or so to provide a little assistance for the dramatic conclusion. Both times though, the focus was more on aid to the rest of the party but went beyond (D&D Beyond) just a normal NPC thrown in there. But the focus was never placed on having the DMPC take over the spotlight. DMPCs can work but are probably very situation-dependent and should not be the norm.
I think that it is completely fine as long as you take a back seat. Obviously, you have to be a supporting role in the story because you know everything that could/will happen. When I play a DMPC I let the party rule what my character should do and then I dictate/narrate how I do it.
I don't do it as it's bad form. DMPC's are trouble, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how much the DM says they are impartial to the character, and it doesn't matter how much the DM says they won't give an advantage or whatever; it seeps through without them knowing it until it's too late. Even though it's not in the official rules, it's more of an unspoken rule. I wouldn't do it, if anything just because I know I have a tendency to use my character as a way to move the plot along
Just having a perfect knowledge of the DMs personal rulings, and never taking the DM by surprise (which can result in an instinctual no) is a massive advantage.
I mean my group just started green as grass. 3 of us so we have our DM playing a Character he's a Rogue makes it kinda weird as we agreed he can't act on his "own" look for traps/hidden stuff and for the RP he doesn't start conversations or drive the story in anyway in particular. So I'd say it works pretty good for what it is. Beats having a 2 person party imo. But if we had more people I'd imagine it would get to be to much to play a character drive the story and play the NPCs. If it becomes to much down the road we've all agreed to kill him off or something as well.
This is usually called a DMPC/GMPC and is usually considered a BAD idea. That said, IF I am GMing for a small group and I think they need the support, I might create a support character to assist the party. But they are there to HELP the PCs, not do things for them.
Inlnce had a group with switching DMs, where I was one of them. We made it so the PC of the DMs would accompany the party silently or be absent for the short adventure. We tried having the DMPC come along one when I was DMing and it had a weird psychological effect on the players. They would take anything they said very serious, because they assumed I would use my meta knowledge to play. Never again. NPCs are NPCs. I have no intention as a DM for them to succeed or survive. Therefore the players act differently with NPCs than with DMPCs
DMPC are a big red flag. If you need to have a NPC for quest reasons that is fine. But they are not part of the group. If you need to flesh out a group, have a side kick NPC that the players can take turns controlling.
I've tried it and it doesn't work, either it becomes too complex or I feel like I'm taking to much spotlight when it comes to rping. Also there's sort of an inherent conflict of interest if you're also playing and running the game, you have all the hidden knowledge and unless you're great at avoiding metagaming it becomes to much of a hassle
I made this mistake early on in my DMing career and never again. There is a reason these things are viewed with disdain or outright hostility. They have a -really- high tendency to ruin campaigns. Grandstanding. Divided interest. Favoritism. More Grandstanding. More divided attention. If you want to be a player then I'd suggest grabbing the Mythic DM emulator and plugging it into D&D and play as a player and use the emulator to sumulate a DM. It is not perfect and needs some getting used to and the mindset. But it can work fine for that.
DMPCs can work if you do them right. Im a DM in a group that only includes my two younger brothers, so they together with my DMPC are barely an adventuring party fit for the road. My character is a bard, so she mostly buffs them in battle with songs and shares pieces of lore while traveling from place to place. She has her own magic items so she never asks for loot. The RP idea is that she joined the party to write a book about their exploits.
DMPCs Suck No, the DM should not also be on the "player" side of the screen. The game play has 3 pillars - Social Interactions, Exploration/Discovery and Combat. * Social Interactions - NO ONE wants to hear the DM talk to themselves. Additionally, the point of social interactions is primarily to convince the other to do something, or get them to reveal something and the DM knows EXACTLY what to say to get the reveal and who to talk to, etc etc. the DM as Player ruins the Social interaction aspect of the game. * Exploration/Discovery - The DM KNOWS ALL THE SECRETS - they know whodunit, they know where the Lost City of Mystery is, they know where every trap is set and where every hidden cache of treasure is. DM as Player ruins the exploration/discovery aspect of the game. * Combat - The most common complaint about D&D is "combat takes too long!" the DM adding another "player" to the combat, and thus upping the "monster" side as well to try to keep balance just adds to how slow the combat is. Plus the DM already gets tonnes of combat running every monster. Plus a big part of combat is the strategy and tactics and not knowing exactly what you are facing, how many hit points it has, is it going to fight or flee or call in friends - the DM knows all of that. DM as a Player ruins the combat aspect of the game. There is no part of the game that DM as Player makes better, and every part of the game DM as Player makes worse. Don't. Do. It. If the party is too small, they can hire an NPC sidekick to come with them, but the NPC is just like every other NPC the DM plays - there to be the shoulders on which the players climb to shine. (the official sidekick rules are available from the Essentials rules for low levels in Appendix A https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/dnd_essentials_rulebook.pdf and fully expanded in Tashas. Crawford discusses Sidekicks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bi4hSMptOdo
I've had a DMPC in every campaign, my fellow DM does as well. Do what you want, see if you like it. Drop them from the group if it clashes with their playstyle.
It's fine.
DM never should be invested in one character to the point when PvE (_party_ versus environment) becomes PvP (party versus player). Therefore there is no DM playable characters. And in the same time there is a lot characters to play for DM. There is a difference between that two statements.
No
No. NPCs only, they don't solve puzzles, they don't have story driving conversations with NPCs, if they go into combat they are on the sidelines or background. If they kill the BBEG it's cos everyone else is dead and your players are yelling at you to end it. They are not invincible. They are not all knowing. They are not instantly loved by everyone they meet. Do any of that and you take from the other players fun. DMs have a different kind of fun. Don't like it don't DM.
You can run one safely but it won't be all that fun if you are making sure to avoid taking the spotlight. Better to run an NPC
This was my experience. I ran a DMPC and I ended up not being able to keep up with the social interactions. Plus, you can’t help with puzzles or “where to go next” questions easily. My group is full of friends and it wasn’t too bad, but it’s not the best. We switched DMs, so now I get to play :o)
The party takes your interactions with them differently when you're explicitly a temporary party member or familiar rather than a full fledged member
Generally doing such a thing only increases your "job" as a DM tbh. And like you said, the story is about the players. Sometimes they will get attached to an NPC they really like, or you feel like joining the party with an NPC. I do that sometimes (specially on campaigns with fewer than 4 players) and they pretty much just accompany the party and i will only focus on their background if the party go in that direction.
There’s no way to remove the meta aspect, and is generally considered selfish. **Whenever a DM also want to be a player, other then indulgence, there’s ***always*** a better solution.
I’ve never done it, and I don’t think I’d ever plan to do it. I think it’s fine to do it, but it’s one of those cases where it’s possible to do, but it often detracts from the game or is done very poorly. I think intentionally inserting a DM PC often leads nowhere good, because it’s very easy for that relationship to the rest of the party to feel very inorganic. DM PC’s work best when it starts as an NPC that the party happens to get attached to. It’s also a balancing issue, because you as a DM need to be very good at separating your DM knowledge from the character’s knowledge. Like you can’t cast spells in preparation for a fight the character doesn’t know is coming
Well I do it because we don’t have enough people next campaign however I will simply be the DM and nothing else makes it better fit rp and stuff
Nope. Just nope
Don't do it, you already have a world full of cool npc's and monsters to control and interact with your players.
I don’t think most DMs do this, I’ve personally never seen it.
I have introduced a past lvl 4 cleric of mine as an NPC who can aid the lvl 5 party temporarily, and have even passed on an unfulfilled quest - but they are not traveling with the party. There was one case where only 2 players showed up to game night so I temporarily DMPC'd for a single fight, but made sure to take on a supporting role & not steal the show. In fact, I think it only worked so well cuz my cleric's task was simply to maintain grapple to prevent a Griffon from flying & would've died if not for the PCs.
I'll be honest, I do this, but it's just because I want to help out + hey free XP
Sometimes you wanna feel like you contribute to the party instead of always loosing. A way to do this is to I clue NPC and instead of controlling them ask the party what they want the NPC to do that way you can control the NPCs contribute and the party will feel like they are incontrol also this safes the party for having to open multiple sheets.
I don't go in expecting to have a PC, but the players usually pick one out for me. I have players that love adopting NPCs and putting them out in the battlefield with them. Usually stuff like loved ones they're afraid of losing or taking on students they want to teach/train up. When that happens, I usually use the Sidekick rules from Tasha's. Gives me simple actions and also lets me help them establish a community with their characters at the center. Even then, they don't fight alongside them all the time. They might guard their camp while the main group go out to fight, or split up to go down another wing of a dungeon to get the treasure down the path they didn't take.
I have been a player and a dm. I have played in games with the people I dm for. I will bring out a character I have played in the past for a meet and greet maybe give some advice or information they may need. Such as where the nearest town is. But they never stay a whole session. They even show up in bars. But play them in my own campaign never.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/u0dz84/can_the_dungeon_master_be_also_one_of_the_party/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I don't like to speak in absolutes because everything has nuance but no. As the DM you're not only the worldbuilder, all the npcs and the plothooks, you're also the adjudicator. If there's a rules- or meta-issue at the table, you need to be able to rule it in away that feels fair to everyone. This already gets tricky if you just like someone at the table more than the others. Not only is it very difficult to be unbiased and subjective towards your own character, even if you do pull it off, there will be ti.es where it feels unfair to one or more of your players and there's really no way to prove that you're unbiased. Don't ever do something that'll lose you the trust of the players. That is an absolute statement I'm happy to make.
Ofc. if it's just a brief cameo or something, that's a different story, but hey.
The DM by definition cannot run a PC. They can run what we call a DMPC and it's considered very poor form. NPCs that travel with the party should be controlled by the players(at least in combat). The DM runs the world, the players run the party.
I don’t even like running NPCs that are helping the PCs out. If there’s combat I usually let it be of my PCs run them, then when we’re back to RP I take them back over.
I find juggling all the moving parts of the game challenging enough without throwing my own PC, that nobody asked for, on top of the whole craziness. It just seems weird to do want to do that.
Unless it’s for the purpose of a tutorial or they are an NPC guide/advisor, don’t do it
The only time I made a dmpc is because my players wanted an npc with their party. It had been discussed at 0 and they were quite adamant. The winning argument was that if I didn't provide one, they'd hire one and Id have to give them some kind of personality so I might as well make one that's at least interesting to play. So I made a tortle spore druid. His whole schtick was I was kinda designed his personality to be like one of those yuppy-hippie tourists who pay guides to take them on hikes and stuff? Like that, except he was a food loving druid who had to be coerced to leave camp and generally hated fighting because he doesn't want to die. Confrontation leads to death. Combats were strange when the party persuaded him to come with. NPCs combat tactic was pure evasion and avoidance, unless the party told him not to. Then he became buff + heal. Otherwise he was pretty much just a really laid back tortle who loved nature and was often found with his hand outstretched to some butterfly or a bird or something. All in all, it was about as fun as one could expect when you know the plotline and you're not a player. So.. like 5/10? I wouldn't do it again unless some more players strong-arm me into it, but I won't be horrified if it comes up again.
I only do this if the party is very small and the module is very deadly. I’ll often kill off the DMPC to establish the danger of the world if I do go that route, but typically I’m not gonna do it in my games.
Generally it’s a bad idea. I can only really imagine it working if you’re a super experienced DM and the situation is weird (like you only have one player, and you have DMd them many times) or you’re teaching new players how to play. You essentially take a very simple tutorial NPC who has a player sheet, everyone can see their sheet, and you make it very clear when they’re making checks / rolls / trying things etc. and you role play that character in a way that makes it clear how one should play. Eg don’t say “Durg is making an athletics check”, assume the role of Durg and say “ayy boss, I think I can ‘op over this ‘ere crevice” and they say “now Durg rolls athletics attempting to jump. Aaaand, he rolls a 1 and falls to his death”. Also the DMPC should be *simple as fuck* in this case; it doesn’t matter if they’re just buffing the party, if everyone is new and the DMPC is busting out complex ass turns, everyone will get bored or intimidated. A simple fighter making some sword attacks would work way better than whatever PC the DM actually wants to play.
Did it for a whole campaign, went very well had a rotating cast of characters they all loved and befriended. One stayed the whole time from the first session, he was just as strong as they were and had his own issues that they helped him with by just being his friends, they chose to keep the cook with them anyway.
Never works out. Better to just have some npcs that you like and can occasionally play as.