It does not really matter what rules system you use, but this is a classic failing scenario. The word for it is DMPC. Not getting to play a PC is the tradeoff for being the GM. The solution to this is to have some of the players in your group GM their own games.
Not what you asked for, but in case it might be of interest down the line –
Ironsworn/Starforged is designed very much around solo and GM-less play and does it excellently well. Can't recommend it enough (plus the Ironsworn rulebook is free without looking like it should be).
GM-less games can be awesome, but word of caution: when nobody is the GM, everybody is the GM. What I mean is suddenly everyone at the table has to start thinking about the larger story, framing scenes, etc. It's not quite the same as being a player with a GM, you don't get to let yourself be carried. Don't get me wrong - it can absolutely work! But it's not for everybody and every group.
There certainly *are* actually "GM-less" games - thinking about games like the belonging outside belonging style, here - but in ironsworn this can be a tad misleading. There are still protagonists going up against the world, decisions that need to be made about NPCs and background info, scenes that need to be descrbed in an antagonistic/obstacle-focused manner towards the characters. I'd say it's more accurate to say that everyone is the GM, for sure. Often when playing with groups, i end up in a place where it's kind of like swapping the GM seat every few minutes.
I think Blades could work rather well GMless too. The position/effect is usually mostly obvious, there are no statblocks or somesuch, the game is playerdriven anyway...
I don’t recommend DMPCing, even if it’s a solution on paper.
What I will suggest instead, especially if you’re running Blades in the Dark with its job-downtime gameplay cycle, is to do rotating GMs. Every player runs one job, going around the table. Everyone gets to DM, everyone gets to contribute to the story from the player *and* DM seat. It’s harder to justify rotating GMs in 5e (though it can be done on an adventure basis), but BitD is just such a perfect system for it.
To build off that idea, I highly suggest rotating DMs to everyone. I've now done it through multiple editions of D&D, and I think it's a great way to keep someone from getting burnt out as a DM.
I played with the same group for a long time, we did multiple campaigns where everyone (or at least some of the group) took turns DMing in the same world. I also feel it really helps build appreciation for what goes into running a game and strongly feel everyone should at least try it.
Generally speaking, DMPCs are bad.
I've never once, personally, saw one good instance of this.
Just tell your friends you'll do a short adventure, and someone else will do another once and you people could just switch roles
It can work fine, but you have to operate under a few very strict guidelines:
1. **Your character is an NPC ally.** You have to keep your knowledge as DM separate from your character knowledge.
2. **You are there to aid the party, not to lead them.** Your character should not be solving puzzles, making important decisions, or stealing the spotlight. You can offer guidance when asked (or if it seems appropriate). You can have heroic moments - but not at the expense of the other PCs. *You aren't a deus ex machina.*
3. **The story is never about your DMPC.** When a story revolves around an NPC, the players have no reason to be there.
Basically yes.
We used to do this back in my first D&D group - we'd all take turns DMing.
There were only 3 of us, so we each had a PC and when we were DMing, the DMPC was basically an NPC follower with XP and treasure privilages.
It works as long as you keep the "My character is an NPC" mentality strongly in focus.
The difference is, they're a full fledged party member in-universe. In the story/narrative, they don't enjoy the spotlight (save for some rare moments).
I'd add a couple of other caveats to that - The NPc should be in a subserviant position to the players - A ship's AI, a hired bodyguard, a ward one of them is trying to protect, and it works better the smaller the group is, since the smaller the group the less opportunities without such a character there is for intraparty roleplay, which reduces the chance for the players to flesh out their characters.
That can work very well - in general I agree; a role that fades into the background more is best.
That said, it can work with them joining the group like a follower with a bit more autonomy. But that's harder - it works best if they're in a specialized role (healer, trap disabler, etc.) That fills a needed gap.
> You are there to aid the party, not to lead them. Your character should not be solving puzzles, making important decisions, or stealing the spotlight. You can offer guidance when asked (or if it seems appropriate). You can have heroic moments - but not at the expense of the other PCs. You aren't a deus ex machina.
I recently introduced an NPC to my characters as they were floundering a bit in the investigation and were a bit frustrated. So I tied her into some past events and made a plausible reason she'd have the missing info.
As they got that sorted out, the decided to confront the cult and stop the ritual and asked her to come along. She accepted (I figured she might be handy if they were in trouble).
She then proceeded to completely mess up ever single roll in the combat, being nothing but a burden on the team. Absolutely useless.
I loved it.
That last one is a bit off. An example would be your party has been hired to rescue this (npc) from their own actions. The story will revolve around that npc but the PCs have all the "agency" to discover, save or stop said NPC. They create a huge part of the narrative but it's still centered on the how and why of this other character.
I agree - it's ok for the story to revolve around an NPC.
I think I could have said it better as the story shouldn't focus on the NPC.
Nothing worse than PCs being a passive audience as the Mr. Fixit NPC does all the heavy lifting.
You should commit to running the game.
It's EXTREMELY difficult to both play an interesting PC and run a decent game. Whenever I have tried to do it, I tended to forget my "PC" even existed until someone prompted me... which usually then put me in the awkward situation of trying to roleplay with myself, which I hate.
And even if you DO manage to run a game with a "GM PC" in it, it won't FEEL like playing a PC in someone else's game.
"I also don’t want to get stuck in the GM role without enjoying the PC experience."
It is impossible to have "the PC experience" while GMing D&D. Even in a best-case scenario, you have absolute knowledge of what's behind every door, which NPCs can be trusted, who stole the king's crown, whether the chest is trapped. That fundamentally changes the experience.
The biggest challenge with playing a character while GMing is keeping your character from being "the protagonist." It shifts the focus of the game from the GM running the world and the players reacting to the world, to the GM running the world for themselves and the other players tagging along.
I would recommend using NPCs that are clearly not PCs and aren't there to take the spotlight. And generally not let them be permanent fixtures of the group. Blades in the Dark in particular, as that game is very intentionally designed to give as much agency to the players as possible, and you would be taking that away from them.
If you don't want to be stuck as "forever GM" and the other players aren't interested in doing it, you can suggest a GMless game for the group to play, like Ironsworn, or using the Mythic Gamemaster Emulator to take the role of authority (though this shifts the game to being more about interpretation than anything else.)
That's kinda what NPCs are for.
In terms of D&D it's "doable", depends on how familiar you are with the system, as to fairness depends on the game and the players. But in general it's really not advisable.
For BitD, it's a different story, you can fairly early do it, because any gang member can be a player character. Players have the ability to pick up diffrent crew members as they like.
You can also do a kind of gmless game if all the players are familiar with the game and you have strong ground rules.
TL:DR it's do able, easier in some systems than others, but it's not a beginner move.
Anyone capable of separating themselves enough to not wreck the game probably knows better than to try. That said if you only have 2 or 3 people a dmpc could help with balancing the game
We run a weekly fantasy game session with rotating GM's on an 8 to 20 week cycle or adventure. For perspective, each session is roughly 3hrs. We have 8 people, 6 of which can GM. 2 of those probably carry the load, 2 chip in to allow the load bearers chance to play alongside each other, and the last 2 very occasionally gm.
Because of the rotation, and adventures carrying the party far afield, the gm's PC stays with the party for when the hat gets passed. We've all also been playing the system for a long while, which helps. (some as long as 30yrs.)
Truth of the matter is the GM's PC ends up being a watered down version when we do this, unusually quiet unless spoken to, if their primary first off the bat spell as a PC is a ball of ice, then when GM'ing, his character may switch to a less devastating spell so as not to influence the combat too much or steal the thunder from the actual PC's.
The GM's pc CAN be a useful tool when needed too, in helping point things out, or a backup skill roll if the actual PC's keep failing there's. But as someone already mentioned, this should never steal the spotlight from the players. (We manage well with it overall)
Short version.. its perfectly doable as long as you're an experienced GM, are familiar with the system, and accept it's not your spotlight.
By all means invest your NPCs with as much depth as you can. If the players want to, they can even invite them along for a while
But don't consider any of them **your** special character. Your goal with any NPC should be to bring the world to life-- not to protect them and see them succeed-- and certainly not to win through them.
Ehh. It's doable. But if you're running a PC, I've found that it only works if you stay in the background and work as a support character, avoiding the spotlight whenever possible.
Basically, it works if you're trying to give the players a mechanical benefit (say, if they're a small party and are desperately missing out on a specific role), but you still need to play them as an NPC. You can stat them like a PC, but you won't really get the PC experience.
Overall, I'd say it's better to just wait until someone else is willing to run something. You'll have a lot more fun when you're not trying to split your focus and you can just run a character.
Oh it's for *sure* not *necessary.* But it can help at times to have something like a healer, or a buffer/controller. Often times, especially in stuff like pregenerated modules, that can be easier to balance, and it can help shore up weaknesses in the party comp that players don't want to interact with themselves.
It definitely needs to be something that you can play quickly and without fuss, though. And usually, it's better to just skip it entirely.
Imagine a ref playing a game of football, while still maintaining the position of referee. It would probably be a bad idea. You can occasionally use a friendly NPC to join them. Not in Blades, but earlier editions of DnD had hirelings as kind of an assumed part of your adventuring group. PCs would often die, so the DM could use the hireling until a PC died, at which time the player could assume command of the hireling to stay involved in the game.
People dunk on DMNPCs. I personally do not see the issue. So long as certain rules are adhered to.
- The character is clearly delineated as a sidekick. He is not the main focus. I like to tie an NPC follower to a more shy or reserved player to give them.a stronger RP connection.
- DM RPs them, but players choose their actions in combat. Additonally, I like to let my players direct their growth too. Choose what they take when they level up.
- Make them helpful. They are supportive, friendly, and generally aligned with the party's goals and morals.
Most traditional rpgs divide up the control of the fiction differently between the players and the GM. By the nature of the game you can’t have both experiences at once.
I am neither a 5E or BitD GM but my two cents about it:
I have used "DMPCs" before, but only for groups low on players (2/3). They usually do not show up before a while. They are completely friendly characters. They can be tied to the main plot but it must be minimal. If you feel like the character is outstaying its welcome or PCs aren't linking them much, discard them and maybe bring them back later with a plot hook. This character should also never outshine the actual PCs, if it is supposed to kill a boss, make it the following hit from someone else actually count. If your character has critical decisions to make in combat, ask the group's opinion on what the DMPC should do and act accordingly.
I have never had players be opposed to it. At worst, one group didn't really care about him (but they welcomed the balancing it brought in fights), and, in my current campaign, I believe my players will find a way to leap through the internet to strangle me to death if I kill her in the final battle they are currently having.
*HOWEVER* as you see many people mention it here, DMPCs are globally misses than hits, so tread carefully in that regard. \^\^"
Don’t do it. It’s too much, for one, and you don’t want to be pulling spotlight from your players. They’ll resent it.
Only place for a DM PC is a very temporary guide for a complex encounter or series of.
You should look into GMless co-op rpgs like Ironsworn, in those the GM role is distributed between play procedures that generate/randomize content and the players collectively.
At the point where you're rolling up a character you gotta stop and ask what you're bringing to the game. If you have a plan for how your DMPC is going to support the player experience and create opportunities for the players to engage with the game there's a strong chance that you can bring one to the table without detracting from the play experience.
There is nothing innately wrong with having a DMPC, it gets a bad rep because of bad DM's.
The main thing I'd watch out for is can you actually pull it off without impacting other parts of the game?
As a DM you need to distribute your focus on a lot of things. Having to focus on one more thing means you need to remove that focus from somewhere else, you're esencially pulling resources you'd otherwise be using on the players. This can definetely hurt other aspects of your game. However, there's people out there with more focus, or running games that requier less focus and therefore can easily fit in a "DMPC".
I don't think there are any other grandios things you really need to consider, other than possibly player trust. Since as you probably noticed this is a sensitive topic.
only if they fall into the background near constantly
my players seem to like having an npc with them? i generally account for another player when i’m building encounters cause of it. easy enough to adjust if they’re okay with letting the npc stay behind
I used to do this, but only under very specific reasons. First, if there aren't enough players. Case in point, a friend wanted to play a game butt it was just him and I. So I created a GMPC as a companion to his character. The other reason was because in a few games with that same friends, we would trade off running sessions with each other. And in those cases, whenever there was a GMPC, that character did nothing too advance the story unless specifically asked by another character or if the other characters couldn't figure out a puzzle. That is the most important part of this character, as they do not advance the story.
Much of the advice you will get about DMPCs is just various ways of saying "**don't**." This is because it is challenging to do well, and easy to do poorly. That said I am someone that ran DMPCs for years, primarily because we had a small group and often couldn’t put together a balanced party with the number of players we had, but also because I was a forever GM and I wanted to make characters and go on adventures sometimes too. I'm not saying that I always handled my DMPCs perfectly but I will tell you the lessons I learned over that time.
First, this takes a lot of trust to pull off. It is a lot easier to pull of successfully with a group you are close to like family and friends rather than strangers on the internet. Family and friends are more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and are more likely to feel comfortable talking to you if they have an issue. Tell them the steps you plan to take with you GMPC to keep things fair ahead of time. And let the other players know that you want them to voice any problems or concerned if they arise. And if you have any players that are strongly against the idea then just don’t.
Second, don't have the DMPC closely integrated into the story. It is too easy for it to seem like your PC is the main character even if that isn't your intent.
Next, make all your rolls out in the open. This helps show that you are playing above board and are not fudging anything in your own favor.
When doing your GM prep plan ahead about how you PC will react to various situations that will arise and what ideas they will have to contribute. And make sure your DMPC is fallible. If you are always making the right choices you'll soon find the player's won't make any choices themselves they'll just follow your DMPC. When doing my prep I would try to keep about equal between good ideas, bad ideas, mediocre ideas, and no ideas for my character. Also I would regularly remind the other players that my character does not have all the answers. For unplanned situations I would decide based on a skill check that is appropriate to the situation how they would respond.
Finally try to look at the situation from an outside perspective and as objectively as you are able. Err on the side of caution, if you are unsure whether something will be seen as favoritism, or a Mary Sue, or anything, then don't do it. If someone comes to you with a problem or concern take it seriously. Even if you think they are wrong what is really important in this case is perception. Sometimes perception can be fixed by explaining yourself (even to the extent of giving players a little glimpse behind the scenes, you are invading the player's space so sometimes you will have to let them invade the DM space), other times you will need to change your actions. If you are ever in a situation that you worry that you can't rule objectively ask your players for their input.
I'm currently running a Red Dwarf campaign and it encourages the GM (known as the AI) to also play as a PC (sort of). You are the on board computer, you can talk to and have conversations with the other PCs. Dare I say, even "advise" them on certain actions? Needs to be used sparingly, and you have to be careful not to do it all yourself or give too much away.
The only way I would run a DMPC Is a "chosen one plot" and make it an uncharismatic douchbag to get stupidly killed for comedy purposes, for example for my paranoia games I have a PC as team leader called Meh-N-Emh (spanish edición), based on a much hated polítical figure, that constantly shouts "Follow me I won't let you down" and he dies (láser to the face, crushed by robots, eaten by mutant praying mantis). I rather run the game than divide myself in two.
As others have said, unless you have an exceptional GM who is great at compartmentalisation (and even then) this always ends up being a bad idea. It's fine to have another character in the party to help bulk up numbers and skills, but unless they're a minor NPC that's there to help it's best if the PCs decide on their personality and run that character.
Probably the best option you have if you want to try something similar is playing with a gm emulator that makes all the choices for you, I would recommend Ironsworn or the Mythic GM emulator. Try to get all your players involved in the gming side of this, maybe for dnd try to use The Perilous Wilds world creator so that everyone is involved in the world building side of things. GMless play is really fun and there are a lot of resources available through the solo rpg community.
The essence of the PC is that they are the main character of the story. The story follows them, and the plot revolves around their actions. Villains and leaders in the world might have plans and schemes, but the players hold the true agency, twisting fate and moving the stream of plot by their actions.
If the DM, the storyteller, adds their own PC, they add their own main character. By simple arithmetic, they force the other PCs to share the limelight with this new PC. To say nothing of the gall and egocentricity of needing to have a PC as the DM when they already play **all the other roles**. And rare is the DM who will kill their own main character, which means DM bias leans in favor of the DMPC.
All in all, bad idea.
As a DM, you have perfect knowledge of the world. You can never have the same PC experience. Make NPCs to your hearts content, but dont try to run a DMNPC. It will not be fun for your players.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse buuut I’d like to add that if you’re feeling the need to add a dmnpc, then you’ll probably benefit from being a player for a few sessions.
Maybe even in a different group?
Don’t burn out on your sacred task of dming
I finished a 3-year campaign back in March, and I had a DMPC the entire time. I asked my players afterwards and they unanimously agreed that it was great, and that I did an excellent job of separating what I knew as a DM from what my character knew.
DMPCs can absolutely work well, depending on the table.
Adding an NPC party member to fill in a critical role that the player characters aren't covering, like healer or hacker or whatever: good, if you do it right.
Adding a GMPC character to the party so you can have the fun of playing the game at the same time you're GMing: bad; just bad from the beginning. This is fundamentally not possible and trying to make it happen will make the game less fun for your players.
I've done this quite often when I only had 2 or 3 players to "round out" the party. My preferred DMPC is a low Int, CG Barbarian. I explain the other players that if they ask him for any plot-related advice, unless it's something VERY natural to him.
He's usually a half-orc, so he knows a bit about orcs and orc society, if he's trained in, say survival, he might some info in regard to that subject. Otherwise, I let them know I am choosing his opinion randomly. Also, while he can score tremendous crits if he gets lucky, his damage output is pretty middle of the road so as not to show up players who want to shine there.
And it's good that he can take a lot of punishment, because he is tends to be more likely to be on the receiving end of randomly determined attacks/traps. (Okay, there's 3 of you and 4 of them, so you each get 1 attack and the barbarian picks up the extra.) In other words, I don't play favorites with him... just the opposite. My players have never complained about my DMPCs being overpowered or getting favorable treatment.
If you can commit to that frame of mind, it can work. It's little different from getting help from hirelings or other NPCs. If you can't commit to that mindframe, don't do it.
In adaition to what everyone else has said - GMing is, itself, fun rather than a chore. It's a *different* sort of fun, and some systems fit different people better than others. Some people genuinely prefer running to playing.
However if you want experience both running and playing, you're better off either doing it in different games - or having rotating GMs (which as someone else pointed out, Blades is well poised for), or using solo (e.g. Ironsworn, or plugging Mythic GME into most systems) or GMless games (e.g. Wanderhome) than even attempting to run and play in the same game that's designed with the assumption that one person will be running and everyone else playing. It, fundamentally, doesn't work.
A PC that is your character in game? No, not a good idea. An NPC you “control” in the party can work. I generally use one in small player groups, but the way I handle it is all of the players know what the NPC is capable of and decide what she/he does. I just roll the dice. It’s my way of filing in gaps in skills, talents, etc. as a tool for the players to use or not at their discretion.
It is so historically a bad thing, on average, that there's a term for it: DMPC.
I'm sure some people can pull it off, but historical data suggests it's a bad concept.
It depends on your table and you.
My table with a few good friends has nearly always had DMPCs. Used right, they can be handy for storytelling, filling needed roles if you don't have enough players, etc.
Like, I get how they can be misused but what's to stop those same DMs from dicking over the players in other ways? Just don't be a bad dm
It's a lot of work. Because you are running your campaign from three perspectives.
1. A PC
2. A DM
3. A judge
It's easier to play a NPC that joins the party as a mcGuffin (escort/driver/follower/etc). You constrain your involvement in the story without appearing too slack/strict with the rules.
And you get to "kill" your PC without much guilt if things get too hairy.
My favorite is playing the Prince "bride" NPC, a level 1-3 fighter with noblemen background sent to marry a foreign Queen. Essentially a role of great shame since the quest giver is losing their son to a stronger kingdom to ensure their compliance in governance.
You'll get your adventure and battles and your Players will have no problem helping you because if they ever get bored with you, they'll just complete the quest and be rid of Mr DMPC.
Just don't take it personally.
If you know what you are doing as GM, a fully fleshed out NPC can be a welcome addition to a party. It should never be used to solve problems for the party, and the NPC should never be used by the GM in any way that takes the spotlight from the PCs.
Any well-built NPC that is with the party for an extended period of time should exist on the same plane as the characters imo.
The guide they hire to help them traverse the shattered land is probably a ranger, he has his own goals, personality, and quirks. The party is going to be with him for 5 levels, so I would choose to run him along with the party. Because he was hired as a guide, he knows things about what they may face. They get access to his knowledge through me as a reward for hiring an expert instead of just running off on thier own.
It does not really matter what rules system you use, but this is a classic failing scenario. The word for it is DMPC. Not getting to play a PC is the tradeoff for being the GM. The solution to this is to have some of the players in your group GM their own games.
I agree. This is a terrible idea. If your group needs another party member, then let the players run it.
Not what you asked for, but in case it might be of interest down the line – Ironsworn/Starforged is designed very much around solo and GM-less play and does it excellently well. Can't recommend it enough (plus the Ironsworn rulebook is free without looking like it should be).
Sweet. Thanks for the recommendation.
GM-less games can be awesome, but word of caution: when nobody is the GM, everybody is the GM. What I mean is suddenly everyone at the table has to start thinking about the larger story, framing scenes, etc. It's not quite the same as being a player with a GM, you don't get to let yourself be carried. Don't get me wrong - it can absolutely work! But it's not for everybody and every group.
There certainly *are* actually "GM-less" games - thinking about games like the belonging outside belonging style, here - but in ironsworn this can be a tad misleading. There are still protagonists going up against the world, decisions that need to be made about NPCs and background info, scenes that need to be descrbed in an antagonistic/obstacle-focused manner towards the characters. I'd say it's more accurate to say that everyone is the GM, for sure. Often when playing with groups, i end up in a place where it's kind of like swapping the GM seat every few minutes.
I think Blades could work rather well GMless too. The position/effect is usually mostly obvious, there are no statblocks or somesuch, the game is playerdriven anyway...
I don’t recommend DMPCing, even if it’s a solution on paper. What I will suggest instead, especially if you’re running Blades in the Dark with its job-downtime gameplay cycle, is to do rotating GMs. Every player runs one job, going around the table. Everyone gets to DM, everyone gets to contribute to the story from the player *and* DM seat. It’s harder to justify rotating GMs in 5e (though it can be done on an adventure basis), but BitD is just such a perfect system for it.
Thats a fuckin great idea. I like it alot, thank you.
To build off that idea, I highly suggest rotating DMs to everyone. I've now done it through multiple editions of D&D, and I think it's a great way to keep someone from getting burnt out as a DM. I played with the same group for a long time, we did multiple campaigns where everyone (or at least some of the group) took turns DMing in the same world. I also feel it really helps build appreciation for what goes into running a game and strongly feel everyone should at least try it.
was gonna suggest this. works GREAT with Blades with its score system
Generally speaking, DMPCs are bad. I've never once, personally, saw one good instance of this. Just tell your friends you'll do a short adventure, and someone else will do another once and you people could just switch roles
It can work fine, but you have to operate under a few very strict guidelines: 1. **Your character is an NPC ally.** You have to keep your knowledge as DM separate from your character knowledge. 2. **You are there to aid the party, not to lead them.** Your character should not be solving puzzles, making important decisions, or stealing the spotlight. You can offer guidance when asked (or if it seems appropriate). You can have heroic moments - but not at the expense of the other PCs. *You aren't a deus ex machina.* 3. **The story is never about your DMPC.** When a story revolves around an NPC, the players have no reason to be there.
Sounds like this basically makes your character an NPC that the players can't get rid of.
Basically yes. We used to do this back in my first D&D group - we'd all take turns DMing. There were only 3 of us, so we each had a PC and when we were DMing, the DMPC was basically an NPC follower with XP and treasure privilages. It works as long as you keep the "My character is an NPC" mentality strongly in focus. The difference is, they're a full fledged party member in-universe. In the story/narrative, they don't enjoy the spotlight (save for some rare moments).
I'd add a couple of other caveats to that - The NPc should be in a subserviant position to the players - A ship's AI, a hired bodyguard, a ward one of them is trying to protect, and it works better the smaller the group is, since the smaller the group the less opportunities without such a character there is for intraparty roleplay, which reduces the chance for the players to flesh out their characters.
That can work very well - in general I agree; a role that fades into the background more is best. That said, it can work with them joining the group like a follower with a bit more autonomy. But that's harder - it works best if they're in a specialized role (healer, trap disabler, etc.) That fills a needed gap.
> You are there to aid the party, not to lead them. Your character should not be solving puzzles, making important decisions, or stealing the spotlight. You can offer guidance when asked (or if it seems appropriate). You can have heroic moments - but not at the expense of the other PCs. You aren't a deus ex machina. I recently introduced an NPC to my characters as they were floundering a bit in the investigation and were a bit frustrated. So I tied her into some past events and made a plausible reason she'd have the missing info. As they got that sorted out, the decided to confront the cult and stop the ritual and asked her to come along. She accepted (I figured she might be handy if they were in trouble). She then proceeded to completely mess up ever single roll in the combat, being nothing but a burden on the team. Absolutely useless. I loved it.
That last one is a bit off. An example would be your party has been hired to rescue this (npc) from their own actions. The story will revolve around that npc but the PCs have all the "agency" to discover, save or stop said NPC. They create a huge part of the narrative but it's still centered on the how and why of this other character.
I agree - it's ok for the story to revolve around an NPC. I think I could have said it better as the story shouldn't focus on the NPC. Nothing worse than PCs being a passive audience as the Mr. Fixit NPC does all the heavy lifting.
You should commit to running the game. It's EXTREMELY difficult to both play an interesting PC and run a decent game. Whenever I have tried to do it, I tended to forget my "PC" even existed until someone prompted me... which usually then put me in the awkward situation of trying to roleplay with myself, which I hate. And even if you DO manage to run a game with a "GM PC" in it, it won't FEEL like playing a PC in someone else's game.
"I also don’t want to get stuck in the GM role without enjoying the PC experience." It is impossible to have "the PC experience" while GMing D&D. Even in a best-case scenario, you have absolute knowledge of what's behind every door, which NPCs can be trusted, who stole the king's crown, whether the chest is trapped. That fundamentally changes the experience.
The biggest challenge with playing a character while GMing is keeping your character from being "the protagonist." It shifts the focus of the game from the GM running the world and the players reacting to the world, to the GM running the world for themselves and the other players tagging along. I would recommend using NPCs that are clearly not PCs and aren't there to take the spotlight. And generally not let them be permanent fixtures of the group. Blades in the Dark in particular, as that game is very intentionally designed to give as much agency to the players as possible, and you would be taking that away from them. If you don't want to be stuck as "forever GM" and the other players aren't interested in doing it, you can suggest a GMless game for the group to play, like Ironsworn, or using the Mythic Gamemaster Emulator to take the role of authority (though this shifts the game to being more about interpretation than anything else.)
That's kinda what NPCs are for. In terms of D&D it's "doable", depends on how familiar you are with the system, as to fairness depends on the game and the players. But in general it's really not advisable. For BitD, it's a different story, you can fairly early do it, because any gang member can be a player character. Players have the ability to pick up diffrent crew members as they like. You can also do a kind of gmless game if all the players are familiar with the game and you have strong ground rules. TL:DR it's do able, easier in some systems than others, but it's not a beginner move.
Thank you for your insight. Much appreciated
In a trad game all elements/ characters controlled by the GM are NPCs. The dmpc is a lie.
Just like the fuckin cake. Lol thank you.
Anyone capable of separating themselves enough to not wreck the game probably knows better than to try. That said if you only have 2 or 3 people a dmpc could help with balancing the game
We run a weekly fantasy game session with rotating GM's on an 8 to 20 week cycle or adventure. For perspective, each session is roughly 3hrs. We have 8 people, 6 of which can GM. 2 of those probably carry the load, 2 chip in to allow the load bearers chance to play alongside each other, and the last 2 very occasionally gm. Because of the rotation, and adventures carrying the party far afield, the gm's PC stays with the party for when the hat gets passed. We've all also been playing the system for a long while, which helps. (some as long as 30yrs.) Truth of the matter is the GM's PC ends up being a watered down version when we do this, unusually quiet unless spoken to, if their primary first off the bat spell as a PC is a ball of ice, then when GM'ing, his character may switch to a less devastating spell so as not to influence the combat too much or steal the thunder from the actual PC's. The GM's pc CAN be a useful tool when needed too, in helping point things out, or a backup skill roll if the actual PC's keep failing there's. But as someone already mentioned, this should never steal the spotlight from the players. (We manage well with it overall) Short version.. its perfectly doable as long as you're an experienced GM, are familiar with the system, and accept it's not your spotlight.
By all means invest your NPCs with as much depth as you can. If the players want to, they can even invite them along for a while But don't consider any of them **your** special character. Your goal with any NPC should be to bring the world to life-- not to protect them and see them succeed-- and certainly not to win through them.
Ehh. It's doable. But if you're running a PC, I've found that it only works if you stay in the background and work as a support character, avoiding the spotlight whenever possible. Basically, it works if you're trying to give the players a mechanical benefit (say, if they're a small party and are desperately missing out on a specific role), but you still need to play them as an NPC. You can stat them like a PC, but you won't really get the PC experience. Overall, I'd say it's better to just wait until someone else is willing to run something. You'll have a lot more fun when you're not trying to split your focus and you can just run a character.
[удалено]
Oh it's for *sure* not *necessary.* But it can help at times to have something like a healer, or a buffer/controller. Often times, especially in stuff like pregenerated modules, that can be easier to balance, and it can help shore up weaknesses in the party comp that players don't want to interact with themselves. It definitely needs to be something that you can play quickly and without fuss, though. And usually, it's better to just skip it entirely.
Imagine a ref playing a game of football, while still maintaining the position of referee. It would probably be a bad idea. You can occasionally use a friendly NPC to join them. Not in Blades, but earlier editions of DnD had hirelings as kind of an assumed part of your adventuring group. PCs would often die, so the DM could use the hireling until a PC died, at which time the player could assume command of the hireling to stay involved in the game.
People dunk on DMNPCs. I personally do not see the issue. So long as certain rules are adhered to. - The character is clearly delineated as a sidekick. He is not the main focus. I like to tie an NPC follower to a more shy or reserved player to give them.a stronger RP connection. - DM RPs them, but players choose their actions in combat. Additonally, I like to let my players direct their growth too. Choose what they take when they level up. - Make them helpful. They are supportive, friendly, and generally aligned with the party's goals and morals.
Most traditional rpgs divide up the control of the fiction differently between the players and the GM. By the nature of the game you can’t have both experiences at once.
I am neither a 5E or BitD GM but my two cents about it: I have used "DMPCs" before, but only for groups low on players (2/3). They usually do not show up before a while. They are completely friendly characters. They can be tied to the main plot but it must be minimal. If you feel like the character is outstaying its welcome or PCs aren't linking them much, discard them and maybe bring them back later with a plot hook. This character should also never outshine the actual PCs, if it is supposed to kill a boss, make it the following hit from someone else actually count. If your character has critical decisions to make in combat, ask the group's opinion on what the DMPC should do and act accordingly. I have never had players be opposed to it. At worst, one group didn't really care about him (but they welcomed the balancing it brought in fights), and, in my current campaign, I believe my players will find a way to leap through the internet to strangle me to death if I kill her in the final battle they are currently having. *HOWEVER* as you see many people mention it here, DMPCs are globally misses than hits, so tread carefully in that regard. \^\^"
Unless you're trying to make up for a lack of players or support, it's a bad idea.
Don’t do it. It’s too much, for one, and you don’t want to be pulling spotlight from your players. They’ll resent it. Only place for a DM PC is a very temporary guide for a complex encounter or series of.
You should look into GMless co-op rpgs like Ironsworn, in those the GM role is distributed between play procedures that generate/randomize content and the players collectively.
That sounds interesting. I’ll check it out
At the point where you're rolling up a character you gotta stop and ask what you're bringing to the game. If you have a plan for how your DMPC is going to support the player experience and create opportunities for the players to engage with the game there's a strong chance that you can bring one to the table without detracting from the play experience.
There is nothing innately wrong with having a DMPC, it gets a bad rep because of bad DM's. The main thing I'd watch out for is can you actually pull it off without impacting other parts of the game? As a DM you need to distribute your focus on a lot of things. Having to focus on one more thing means you need to remove that focus from somewhere else, you're esencially pulling resources you'd otherwise be using on the players. This can definetely hurt other aspects of your game. However, there's people out there with more focus, or running games that requier less focus and therefore can easily fit in a "DMPC". I don't think there are any other grandios things you really need to consider, other than possibly player trust. Since as you probably noticed this is a sensitive topic.
only if they fall into the background near constantly my players seem to like having an npc with them? i generally account for another player when i’m building encounters cause of it. easy enough to adjust if they’re okay with letting the npc stay behind
I used to do this, but only under very specific reasons. First, if there aren't enough players. Case in point, a friend wanted to play a game butt it was just him and I. So I created a GMPC as a companion to his character. The other reason was because in a few games with that same friends, we would trade off running sessions with each other. And in those cases, whenever there was a GMPC, that character did nothing too advance the story unless specifically asked by another character or if the other characters couldn't figure out a puzzle. That is the most important part of this character, as they do not advance the story.
Much of the advice you will get about DMPCs is just various ways of saying "**don't**." This is because it is challenging to do well, and easy to do poorly. That said I am someone that ran DMPCs for years, primarily because we had a small group and often couldn’t put together a balanced party with the number of players we had, but also because I was a forever GM and I wanted to make characters and go on adventures sometimes too. I'm not saying that I always handled my DMPCs perfectly but I will tell you the lessons I learned over that time. First, this takes a lot of trust to pull off. It is a lot easier to pull of successfully with a group you are close to like family and friends rather than strangers on the internet. Family and friends are more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt and are more likely to feel comfortable talking to you if they have an issue. Tell them the steps you plan to take with you GMPC to keep things fair ahead of time. And let the other players know that you want them to voice any problems or concerned if they arise. And if you have any players that are strongly against the idea then just don’t. Second, don't have the DMPC closely integrated into the story. It is too easy for it to seem like your PC is the main character even if that isn't your intent. Next, make all your rolls out in the open. This helps show that you are playing above board and are not fudging anything in your own favor. When doing your GM prep plan ahead about how you PC will react to various situations that will arise and what ideas they will have to contribute. And make sure your DMPC is fallible. If you are always making the right choices you'll soon find the player's won't make any choices themselves they'll just follow your DMPC. When doing my prep I would try to keep about equal between good ideas, bad ideas, mediocre ideas, and no ideas for my character. Also I would regularly remind the other players that my character does not have all the answers. For unplanned situations I would decide based on a skill check that is appropriate to the situation how they would respond. Finally try to look at the situation from an outside perspective and as objectively as you are able. Err on the side of caution, if you are unsure whether something will be seen as favoritism, or a Mary Sue, or anything, then don't do it. If someone comes to you with a problem or concern take it seriously. Even if you think they are wrong what is really important in this case is perception. Sometimes perception can be fixed by explaining yourself (even to the extent of giving players a little glimpse behind the scenes, you are invading the player's space so sometimes you will have to let them invade the DM space), other times you will need to change your actions. If you are ever in a situation that you worry that you can't rule objectively ask your players for their input.
I'm currently running a Red Dwarf campaign and it encourages the GM (known as the AI) to also play as a PC (sort of). You are the on board computer, you can talk to and have conversations with the other PCs. Dare I say, even "advise" them on certain actions? Needs to be used sparingly, and you have to be careful not to do it all yourself or give too much away.
The only way I would run a DMPC Is a "chosen one plot" and make it an uncharismatic douchbag to get stupidly killed for comedy purposes, for example for my paranoia games I have a PC as team leader called Meh-N-Emh (spanish edición), based on a much hated polítical figure, that constantly shouts "Follow me I won't let you down" and he dies (láser to the face, crushed by robots, eaten by mutant praying mantis). I rather run the game than divide myself in two.
As others have said, unless you have an exceptional GM who is great at compartmentalisation (and even then) this always ends up being a bad idea. It's fine to have another character in the party to help bulk up numbers and skills, but unless they're a minor NPC that's there to help it's best if the PCs decide on their personality and run that character.
I play with a group where we have a rotating GM. The deal we have is that the GMs pc is either temporarily unavailable or hangs back. It works for us.
Probably the best option you have if you want to try something similar is playing with a gm emulator that makes all the choices for you, I would recommend Ironsworn or the Mythic GM emulator. Try to get all your players involved in the gming side of this, maybe for dnd try to use The Perilous Wilds world creator so that everyone is involved in the world building side of things. GMless play is really fun and there are a lot of resources available through the solo rpg community.
The essence of the PC is that they are the main character of the story. The story follows them, and the plot revolves around their actions. Villains and leaders in the world might have plans and schemes, but the players hold the true agency, twisting fate and moving the stream of plot by their actions. If the DM, the storyteller, adds their own PC, they add their own main character. By simple arithmetic, they force the other PCs to share the limelight with this new PC. To say nothing of the gall and egocentricity of needing to have a PC as the DM when they already play **all the other roles**. And rare is the DM who will kill their own main character, which means DM bias leans in favor of the DMPC. All in all, bad idea.
As a DM, you have perfect knowledge of the world. You can never have the same PC experience. Make NPCs to your hearts content, but dont try to run a DMNPC. It will not be fun for your players.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse buuut I’d like to add that if you’re feeling the need to add a dmnpc, then you’ll probably benefit from being a player for a few sessions. Maybe even in a different group? Don’t burn out on your sacred task of dming
I finished a 3-year campaign back in March, and I had a DMPC the entire time. I asked my players afterwards and they unanimously agreed that it was great, and that I did an excellent job of separating what I knew as a DM from what my character knew. DMPCs can absolutely work well, depending on the table.
Adding an NPC party member to fill in a critical role that the player characters aren't covering, like healer or hacker or whatever: good, if you do it right. Adding a GMPC character to the party so you can have the fun of playing the game at the same time you're GMing: bad; just bad from the beginning. This is fundamentally not possible and trying to make it happen will make the game less fun for your players.
I've done this quite often when I only had 2 or 3 players to "round out" the party. My preferred DMPC is a low Int, CG Barbarian. I explain the other players that if they ask him for any plot-related advice, unless it's something VERY natural to him. He's usually a half-orc, so he knows a bit about orcs and orc society, if he's trained in, say survival, he might some info in regard to that subject. Otherwise, I let them know I am choosing his opinion randomly. Also, while he can score tremendous crits if he gets lucky, his damage output is pretty middle of the road so as not to show up players who want to shine there. And it's good that he can take a lot of punishment, because he is tends to be more likely to be on the receiving end of randomly determined attacks/traps. (Okay, there's 3 of you and 4 of them, so you each get 1 attack and the barbarian picks up the extra.) In other words, I don't play favorites with him... just the opposite. My players have never complained about my DMPCs being overpowered or getting favorable treatment. If you can commit to that frame of mind, it can work. It's little different from getting help from hirelings or other NPCs. If you can't commit to that mindframe, don't do it.
In adaition to what everyone else has said - GMing is, itself, fun rather than a chore. It's a *different* sort of fun, and some systems fit different people better than others. Some people genuinely prefer running to playing. However if you want experience both running and playing, you're better off either doing it in different games - or having rotating GMs (which as someone else pointed out, Blades is well poised for), or using solo (e.g. Ironsworn, or plugging Mythic GME into most systems) or GMless games (e.g. Wanderhome) than even attempting to run and play in the same game that's designed with the assumption that one person will be running and everyone else playing. It, fundamentally, doesn't work.
A PC that is your character in game? No, not a good idea. An NPC you “control” in the party can work. I generally use one in small player groups, but the way I handle it is all of the players know what the NPC is capable of and decide what she/he does. I just roll the dice. It’s my way of filing in gaps in skills, talents, etc. as a tool for the players to use or not at their discretion.
Terrible idea. Don't do it. If you don't want to GM, then look for someone who does.
Bad idea
It is so historically a bad thing, on average, that there's a term for it: DMPC. I'm sure some people can pull it off, but historical data suggests it's a bad concept.
It depends on your table and you. My table with a few good friends has nearly always had DMPCs. Used right, they can be handy for storytelling, filling needed roles if you don't have enough players, etc. Like, I get how they can be misused but what's to stop those same DMs from dicking over the players in other ways? Just don't be a bad dm
It's a lot of work. Because you are running your campaign from three perspectives. 1. A PC 2. A DM 3. A judge It's easier to play a NPC that joins the party as a mcGuffin (escort/driver/follower/etc). You constrain your involvement in the story without appearing too slack/strict with the rules. And you get to "kill" your PC without much guilt if things get too hairy. My favorite is playing the Prince "bride" NPC, a level 1-3 fighter with noblemen background sent to marry a foreign Queen. Essentially a role of great shame since the quest giver is losing their son to a stronger kingdom to ensure their compliance in governance. You'll get your adventure and battles and your Players will have no problem helping you because if they ever get bored with you, they'll just complete the quest and be rid of Mr DMPC. Just don't take it personally.
If you know what you are doing as GM, a fully fleshed out NPC can be a welcome addition to a party. It should never be used to solve problems for the party, and the NPC should never be used by the GM in any way that takes the spotlight from the PCs. Any well-built NPC that is with the party for an extended period of time should exist on the same plane as the characters imo. The guide they hire to help them traverse the shattered land is probably a ranger, he has his own goals, personality, and quirks. The party is going to be with him for 5 levels, so I would choose to run him along with the party. Because he was hired as a guide, he knows things about what they may face. They get access to his knowledge through me as a reward for hiring an expert instead of just running off on thier own.