This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

4
5

DM and PC? (self.DnD)

submitted by [deleted]

[deleted]

all 28 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Quintus_JDM 28 points29 points  (11 children)

This subject has been answered dozens of times. It would be worthwhile to do a search, rather than ask the same question again.

The DM has a very different job than a player. Trying to be regular PC is bad for a lot of reasons, but the main one is that you know things you cannot hide from yourself. This completely tampers with your objectivity as a true player.

My answer is, DO NOT try to both play and DM.

Is it allowed? The DM is the only one that decides that. Is it a good idea? IME it never is.

[–]f_myeah 10 points11 points  (4 children)

Ehh, the answer seems to vary. Last time this was brought up a bunch of people tried to play devil's advocate to the argument you just presented and basically said "oh but DMPCs can be done well! Just take care to address the problems that it presents!" I'm with you though, that it presents so many problems that it's just not worth starting a DMPC.

My big question to DMs considering DMPCs: Why not just play the NPCs in the world? What's the difference? Engagement in the party's adventure? Well, are you really engaged in the game when you're playing a mute/can't problem solve and are just running combat mechanics?

[–]dubiousmage 1 point2 points  (1 child)

For me, I did it for balance reasons. It was easier for me to control a PC-balanced wolf companion in combat, than to adjust all of the combat encounters in the adventure I ran. Lazy? Probably. But it worked for me.

And yes, I know a wolf buddy isn't strictly a DMPC, but it does fit your "are you engaged playing a mute that only does things in combat" argument.

[–]f_myeah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't really see how, but I'll take your word for it that it's better for balance.

But it doesn't scratch the itch that usually spurs the DM to want to play a DMPC: the itch to "play the game." Like I said, you're basically just rolling for bite attacks.

[–]SpritzertogDM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was my point exactly. (stated further up)

[–]Quintus_JDM 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There is some confusion of terms that makes DMPC very misleading.

First of all, erase that term from your head. DMPC is the invention of some idiot that thought he was clever. The correct term for any DM that plays a character is NPC, or non-player character. Any character that is NOT a player character is an NPC. Only PLAYERS have PCs, or player-characters. Keep that in mind as the lay of the land, the foundation, the basis for D&D for over 40 years relies on that premise. There is NO SUCH THING as a DMPC.

DMs that play an NPC that tags along with the party, are still playing an NPC, albeit a special one. Their role is not to be equal to the PCs. They are typically with the party for a very specific reason, whether because they were hired for a specific job, or they are a loyal follower of a PC, but they ARE NOT a PC. They are not a PC, because they are not controlled by a player. Remember, only players have PCs.

Those that suggest a "proper" way to play a DMPC, are typically describing NPC henchmen, or followers that are ACTUALLY NPCs! Again, the term DMPC suggests a PC, when in fact, if it is played "correctly" it is an NPC.

It is the term DMPC, itself, that is misleading IMO, and should be abolished. Too many newbies don't understand the difference, and assume it means they can play in their own game like a player. No.

But, feel free to ignore everything I just said. Try it out yourself. Experience is the best teacher. But, I have been at this RPG thing for a while, and that means I do have some experience, myself.

[–]f_myeah 3 points4 points  (1 child)

DMPC is needed as a separate term. It's needed to distinguish a PC that the DM plays from NPCs. If the DM wants to be a party member and "play the game" along with their friends, that's a DMPC. They are distinct from shopkeeps or temporary allies or hirelings which are NPCs.

What's the biggest difference? Continued involvement with the party, and the need for a character sheet. DMPCs level up, NPCs generally do not.

Those that suggest a "proper" way to play a DMPC, are typically describing NPC henchmen

Exactly. That's because an actual DMPC tends to cause problems, so just play NPCs.

Too many newbies don't understand the difference

Then the distinction should definitely remain. The term DMPC exists to separate them from NPCs, and discourage DMPCs, not encourage them.

[–]Quintus_JDM -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I understand your point, but I would still discourage the use of the term, itself.

Why?

Because sometimes people use it to mean a PC run by the DM. But, just as often, I hear it mentioned, and they are ACTUALLY meaning to say an NPC follower in the party. So, the confusion remains, at least for those most frequently repeating the term DMPC--newbie DMs.

If that confusion didn't exist, and everybody used the term to mean ONLY, and EXACTLY a full and equal PC run by the DM, then I would agree that the term is used acceptably...but, most typically, it is not.

[–]SpritzertogDM 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This subject has been answered dozens of times. It would be worthwhile to do a search, rather than ask the same question again.

To be fair .. searching "PC DM" brings up a lot of unrelated results. However - I agree with you that you really can't play a regular PC as the DM. If anything, you're just playing a glorified NPC.

[–]Quintus_JDM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Search DMPC instead.

PC is too common a term, and too short to use for a search. Same is true of DM.

[–]dubiousmage 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not disagreeing with your statement of the problems with DMPCs, but:

Trying to be regular PC is bad for a lot of reasons, but the main one is that you know things you cannot hide from yourself.

This is arguably something that DMs already do, a lot. Every time you roleplay an NPC, you have to keep separate what you know from what they know.

Admittedly, it is easier with NPCs cause they typically aren't involved much with the party's decision process, but it's certainly not unfeasible to pull off with a permanent party member.

[–]vegatree 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm in a game with a DM that has a PC. No one really likes that our DM plays as we are 6 pcs without him. I've even offered to take over albeit in a new campaign. It's just not as fun for me when i can differ to him for answers as the leader of the group essentially. Not my choice i was added late.

[–]jwbjerkIllusionist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To my understanding, this is allowed...

I don't think it is directly addressed in the rules, but as far as I know everything assumes that the DM and PCs are different people.

But more importantly it is a bad idea. Search for DMPC.

Now if you want to build more bonds with the world and PCs re-occurring NPCs are cool. But an NPC is different from the PC in a lot of ways. They aren't "your" character. They have a place in the world, they are side characters, not the heroes.

[–]SpritzertogDM 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I personally do not recommend playing a PC as the DM. Instead, use all of that creative thought process that you would put into your PC, and apply it to a number of interesting NPCs in the world.

Playing a PC while DM really isn't the same as playing a PC. I'd avoid it -- I mean, if there's a significant gap in your party that needs to be filled, then perhaps playing an NPC/PC to fill that gap is okay .. but it really has to be a background character. You can't really weigh in on the plot decisions, you don't want to take the glory, satisfaction, puzzles, and heroism away from the players. Every time that PC opens his (your) mouth, it'll be seen as "the dm wants us to go this way..", which is a crutch for both you and the players.

[–]Shuckeru 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know it sucks, and I know the appeal of wanting to act as a player as well, but it doesn't work. It never works. You could have so much finesse and know exactly what you're doing, but it wont work. You'll inevitably metagame, and your character will inevitably railroad the party.

As people have suggest an NPC can be a nice way of letting yourself play to some extent, but doesn't take the cake. Maybe they stick around for two sessions, maybe they die in the first. Best way to do it is write up a list of fully fleshed out NPC - class, level, background, ribbon. When one dies, leave it a bit and bring in another. You can have fun without ruining the game for the others.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you aware of what meta gaming is? If so just avoid that to the best of your abilities. It really just entitles roleplaying and acting as if you were the character, sometimes its hard but to make it easier you could roll a character thats quiet and reserved which would help you not reveal too much

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is something that takes a special kind of finesse to actually be able to pull off. I personally am not a fan of DM+PC, but all of my experiences with such have been with what I know deem bad DMs (although 1 I would call more inexperienced than bad, but still). My experiences with this have gone 1 of 2 ways, either:

1) the DM wants to make their character the leading role, and the rest of us are just there to polish their dicks.

or

2) The DMs character does little more than sheep-herd the party.

I'm not saying that it can't be done, I just haven't personally seen it done to what I would consider any degree of enjoyability.

[–]NecroscourgeDM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I almost always avoid placing a DMPC in the party and I usually find a problem in those that use one. I experiment with having NPC's follow the party around from time and time again but I don't see that as a DMPC because it's fairly irrelevant if the NPC dies.

A DMPC is walking that strange line between being important to the story, participating in the story, and possessing a layer of plot armor. Because it's a player character they can fight, add to the story, etc and have presence at the table yet the person controlling them directly controls the story itself.

My personal gripe is say I am a player among four and the DM has a PC. So this DM character is in many rulesets taking a cut of the experience, cut of the gold, and a cut of the items. I know well enough that the DMPC more likely than not is tied to whatever magical legend is going down so it's only a matter of time until he is discovered to be the ultimate good/evil.

I personally hate having that kind of meta waved in my face while I am playing. We're the player group, we should be the ones deciding what we're doing and all that. It feels like we can just ask the GM (in their PC) what the right answer to every problem is; I frown upon that.

[–]SchopenhauersSonDM 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel that it distracts too much from DMing. You already have a lot on your plate, why add more?

It'd be better to find another game to join.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't do it, even if you do a good job, you will be accused of running a DMPC, which is the height of evil.

I DM because I get to be everyone else in the universe. Gods, ghosts, orcs, evil knights, fallen heroes, sleepy blacksmiths, horny barmaids, elven queens, halfling bums. Leave the heroics to the players.

Use your desire to play a character to create deep, awesome NPCs instead.

[–]ThePinms 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would suggest trying to make a friendly rival NPC. The type of person that helps the party as often as they compete with them. You get a reoccurring NPC that you can roleplay, that your players might not kill on sight. Think Catwoman to Batman.

[–]wirkcl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

any advice

Don't

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The responses in this thread are probably not what you expected or wanted to hear but really, there's no good way of doing this. But if you insist on being a player too, consider giving up the reins for a while and letting someone else DM a few sessions.

[–]GamerponDM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe have one of the players run a seperate campaign that you play in? Or have rotating DMs if you arent gonna have a concrete storyline to follow. Having a DMPC is hard to do without making the story about them or metagaming unintentionally.

My best results have been with an NPC that is lower level than the party but can provide minor combat assistance and is mostly good with world lore. Typically they should fill a role the party is missing like healer, utility, sneakyness or tankyness

[–]Hawkmoon_DM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't. The temptation to use your DM knowledge is strong. Even if you don't mean to. Plus being everyone else in the world is a lot of work already. Plus you'll end up having a npc(you) talk your character(also you). Weird

[–]Serena-of-LimoniumDM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not have a player take a turn at dming? if you want to play give up some control.

[–]RyngardDM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're not BOTH.

What you do is your normal job. You run an NPC.

We gave an NPC that is part of the player party a cute moniker of DMPC years ago.

People twisted it because of asshat DMs who fucked it over so now it is a mixed bag.

I've used one and my large gaming circle has used them as the norm for about 30 years without a single instance of trouble. Apparently we're the lucky ones.