Is it ok for DM to play a Character

[The DeathKnight]

Hello, i have played D&D on & off for a while, but only just started DMing

Recently two members of the party had to leave due to them expecting a baby, and now our party is left with a hole that not many people want to fill in :smallfrown:. But i digress.
The point i am trying to get to is should i as the DM make a character to put into the game and just pretend i don't know things only DM knows? and if so should i make a normal character, like the other PC's, or should i just make an NPC character/companion (Eg. like Irky Timbers from Sunless Citadel)?

[GreenETC]

Depends entirely on what you mean by hole. If you're talking about them losing their cleric, but the party is still 3+ people, feel free to just give them some Healing Belts or something to mitigate it. If they're nearing level 6, slap Leadership on somebody, and give him or her a -2 level Cohort that can be decent enough to make up for the gap, though try to stay mildly optimized if you want it to have roughly the same power level.

Playing a DMPC is usually a bad idea, simply because it puts you in the precarious position of being the guy who knows all the answers, and also an active member of the group trying to not die, meaning either you'll start having the party be bothered that the DMPC is always competent until things get tough, or you could end up railroading them needlessly as they turn to the DMPC for guidance.

[pbdr]

I'm actually in this situation now. I am DMing a group and we have one player that may or may not be continuing. He's playing the groups's cleric and this group tends to need a cleric. (also, each PC is one of the 4 elemental genasi, and at least for a while, they need to have all 4 because of game plot)

I am basically going to take the PC over, but treat it more of an NPC support and healing bot. Using buffs and healing for the rest of the party, plus knowledge skills, etc. when asked.

He'll take his share of the loot and xp, but the plan is to not to have him as a "featured" character or volunteering info (except maybe in rare case when it's needed).

[Mystia]

I think its perfectly fine, as long as you don't metagame, or try to somehow be better and ruin the fun for the others, etc. If you think that its technically hard to restrict yourself, just consider that it'd be like playing a NPC that accompanies the party. You still have to consider things from his/her perspective, what she knows/doesn't, roll her dices truthfully, etc. Not hard at all, right? The only thing is that you'd grow attached to that "NPC". But again, I find it really easy to become attached to the villains I create, even if the purpose of their existance is to be crushed by the heroes... So when your character rolls the unlucky 1 against the Bodak's glare, it shouldn't be too different from when Annihil A'tyon, the tyrant blackguard you have grown fond of ever since you've introduced him, is struck dead by the mighty paladin's Smite Evil at the end of the adventure.

It should be easy to do so, it just requires you roleplay a lot. In all these years I've already DM'ed, I've never done so without having my own "character", and my players never have complained or said I was unfair or something. The most complicated part is when you want to sneak in a puzzle or mystery, and you'd know where the answer and clues are right away.
The solution - your character is a Barbarian with a -1 INT modifier. "What? The altar says 'In the dawn the light shines forth to the right path'? Witchcraft, I say! Let me crush evil altar with might ax before it spells us!" Or just has some other funny flaw that makes she overall unreliable in intelectual matters. (this is very good for laughs) Other trick is to have your character take a Vow of Silence (not necessarily the feat), have had its tongue cut, being naturally mute, etc, since its easier to handle those things if you don't have to speak.
The most important part is, of course - speak to your players. If they somehow feel uncomfortable about it, don't do it. If you do, it shouldn't too hard, as long as you don't cheat. If you do cheat, thought - shame on you.

[Amphetryon]

Is it potentially okay? Yup.

Is it fraught with peril, pitfalls and pernicious problems that may cause disinterest, resentment, or even anger from the others at the game? Yup, particularly if the DM's Character becomes a Mary Sue or otherwise makes the rest of the party feel like Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane, just tagging along.

Proceed with caution.

[Gerrtt]

Sure, as long as three parties are comfortable with that:

1) The character's player.
2) The rest of the players.
3) You.

My recommendation is to not do this though unless you a) really need that character along for some special challenge you prepared (IE the party can't get into the special door you prepared that the cleric has to use a turn undead attempt on) b) ended the previous session in the middle of an adventure and it wouldn't make sense for the character to suddenly pop out of existence or c) the party's cohesion as a group relies on that character (the whole party exists because the paladin hired them for help, so it makes no sense for the paladin not to be here, etc).

I'd almost always rather tailor the challenges to meet the party where they are than to have another character to keep track of when I'm already doing so much else. If the character has to come along, I'd rather another player make decisions for the character than me.

[Aotrs Commander]

A DM character is just one more DMing tool. It can be useful, sometimes it's absolutely necessary and it can also be abused. A DM-controlled character (I'm avoiding the use of the phrase "DMPC" since the amount of arguments on terminology it used spawn on the WotC boards..!.) is one of the tools that takes a little finesse to use well.

The first and most important thing is keep your ego securely in check. Even if, by dint of character randomisation or something, your NPC is fantastic (as the only party I currently have one is, and she a) started out as a PC when someone else ran and b) my favourite character), keep them out of the lime-light. Don't use them to do much roleplaying (though they can be a useful mouth-piece to feed the PCs information if they get really stuck or something) - by which I mean, don't roleplay them so that they can get the PCs out of a problem. Ideally, your NPC should be engaging enough that the PCs want to interact with them as a part of the party or they should be banal, agreeable and inoffensive and mostly there to do a job the PCs otherwise can't fill.

Try to keep them fairly basic combat-wise or at least not make too big of a deal out of it if they are (or they have to be or something).

Especially, though, don't show them any favoritism (at least over the PCs - in my opinion, you should always show a little favouritism for the party over the opposition!). Don't give them special uber mega kit or special powers just to show how awesome they are, because that is absolutely the way to generate player resentment.

It is just about possible to do Gandalf-with-the-first-level-party, but it's very hard to balance right and you generally find you have to throw something at Gandalf's level for him to fight, while the PCs deal with his more level appropriate back-up. Generally, though, such a technique is best used very sparingly (and most of all only should be used because you want the PCs to interact with a major character in the world, not show off how awesome that character is in combat).

Absolutely do NOT use them as a cudgel to railroad the PCs into doing something, even if they are doing something really stupid and disruptive - even in that situation, it sets a bad president.

(As a DM, if the players won't stop being in-character pillocks when you say "guys, don't be pillocks" out of character - possible with younger and less mature players, Lichemaster knows I had a few instances of that when I was younger - then their are other ways to deal with it1, up to and including DM fiat.)


Always bear in mind that the NPC is ultimately there to back-up the PCs - supporting cast, if you will - not to do the adventure for them. That's said, it's okay if the players cheerfully take a liking to your NPC and keep shoving him to the front or something (I've heard tales on forums of parties so taken with the DM's character they've made him the party leader, much to the DM's consternation!) That occurance, though is pretty rare!

The main thing is, the players should not feel overshadowed by the character. At very worst, they should think of them as a sort of walking heal/trap/whateverjob-bot.



Another option we tend to use more as time goes on is to pass the character off to the players to use. If you're like our group, you frequently end up running more than one character anyway when people are away or something, so you get used to running two or more anyway.



1[Long aside]I told two players, "guys, this fighting between your characters everytime we tun this party is becoming really annoying. I didn't mind some conflict at first, but you're supposed to get over this. Cut it out now." They didn't. They nearly killed each other the next adventure (nearly bled to death) and I said "let that be a lesson to you. Now, seriously, guys, stop it." They didn't. I said "right, guys, I've asked nicely several times over the course of the last few day-quests for you to cut it out. If you do it again, I'm going to have your character's souls eaten." They didn't. Low and behold, they ended up running into a Bad Thing that ate souls - aside from including it in the adventure, I didn't make particular effort to go after them, but they and one of the NPCs ended up trying to fight it. All three had their souls eaten. (Poor Mr Information the Elf, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time...!) Even then, they might have been alright since I had planned to have a cleric-y sort of person around to be able to restore souls. But one of the player's other characters (it was a big crossover adventure between two parties I ran for my 18th birthday) killed another PC and that player was quite happy for him to stay dead, so the three soul-after victims stayed dead too.

Ironically, in all my twenty years of roleplaying, I have only (permenanty) killed those two characters (and had three fatalities in inter-party fighting) and those two players were involved in all of them! (You might ask why I kept having them back. Well, when they actually play characters that aren't silly and fractious they are some of the better ones... Well one of them is, and the other is my oldest mate...! And everyone knows to keep him in check now, so it's sort of a running gag.)

After the soul-eating incident, their replacement characters got on so well, I said they'd nearly make a sit-com...[/long aside]

[3WhiteFox3]

Have you considered asking one of the players to run the NPC for you? I've found that to be a good option, though you need a player who can handle the added complexity of another character. Just have the NPC be mostly silent and only take over role-playing him/her when necessary.

[LordErebus12]

As the DM, its one of your greatest tools as well as your greatest weakness.

If done right, all NPC's are your own characters and should be utilized as much as possible.

The one thing to remember is the support, cohort-y character is the best DM character. You're there, giving your two cents as a character and helping the party, but you're not leading them. You might voice an opinion, but its up to them to decide.

I ran a game where the party's lore master was also my character. He offered his knowledge for a price (he had some major gambling debts to pay off) and got the party into numerous amounts of trouble with the various loan sharks and gangs he had dealt with in the past. Also, he was a womanizer and stole the bride of a blackguard. This made an enemy for the party (the paladin hated him, naturally).

[Krobar]

My group does this. But we switch off DM'ing. Everybody has to DM, and everybody gets to play. Every PC in our party is important, so we all keep our PC's active. That said, they tend to take a back seat to the rest of the party and just do what's necessary when they're the DMPC.

[Deophaun]

To your title question: Yes. DMs do this all the time. Whenever the players need to see the king, the DM plays the king. When the characters need to fight a nest of kobolds, the DM plays the kobolds. The DM can easily have two, three, four, or greater the amount of actual play time in a game than any of the "players" because of this.

Now, if you meant "play a PC," no. It is impossible to do this. You, the DM, know the plot. You, the DM, know the hazards. You, the DM, know the tactics of the monsters. How are you going to possibly "play" a game where so much relies on discovery? Are you ever going to be thrown for a loop by your plot twists? No. You can't. Not as a player can. So just write that off all together: your DMPC will never experience the game as a PC.

If you want to just fill holes in the party, that's simple. Create a character or characters, and let the other players run them. Or let the other players create secondary characters to run. This is the better way to go, because as I said above, you already take up a disproportionate amount of the spotlight. However, if the other players don't want to bother, fine. It's now a companion character. It sits, doesn't talk, doesn't have input when the party plans. It just hits things when needed, doesn't act by its own volition, and it always does what the party wants it to do.

DMPCs are not bad because they kill joy, railroad the campaign, and are used as outlets for the DM's inner Mary Sue (although that is frequently the case). They are bad because whatever they are trying to do can be achieved in a superior manner through other means without courting temptation.

[CaladanMoonblad]

As a GM and Player for 20+ years, it's usually a bad idea for the following reasons;

1) conflict of interest. GMs are storytellers and arbiters of rules disputes. Having your own "skin in the game" will erode your ethos as a fair judge, especially when the GM's PC is part of that dispute.

2) Every NPC is "yours" as a GM. You play everything else in the entire world, from the High King to the High Cumulus clouds threatening rain; why would you want to influence the decisions your players make in the first place unless you think they are idiots? Something is wrong with a GM's encounters if the GM character is leading the group or hinting at ways to proceed. Suddenly, it becomes less about the players and more about the GM.

3) Treasure becomes suspect. When a GM has a PC at the same time they are also running the game, players will get angry if they perceive a GM is trying to "give their own PC" a specific item.


Now, that all being said, my current group has an "Open GM Policy." This means everyone has a character, but whoever is GMing, their character does not play. Ever. So no experience, no cash, and any treasure encountered can never ever be given to the GM's character. This is as close as I would ever recommend skirting the roles between GM and Player. I've played in games where the GM had their own character, and it was infuriating for the reasons I've illustrated above. Your job, as GM, is to ensure everyone else has a good time. Your authority as a rules arbiter is based upon the perception of indifference. The GM provides the story, the Players make decisions.

If there is a hole in your group, there's a reason why the DMG includes a section on Hirelings. As stated above, I will reiterate how useful Leadership can be (especially since there are no limits on what class becomes a follower). With enough NPCs under a player's control, a single GM and single Player can run an entire campaign (I've done this as well, although when the player is stumped by an encounter, this can be disastrous). Group decision making is generally preferable to a single person because there is almost always a better result.

[Sylthia]

I've done it, just don't be too attached to the character. You can even have a player play them during combat, or have them alternate.

I add an NPC to the party if two conditions are met.
1: There's a hole in the party.
2: There are less than 4 PCs in the party.

I prefer a party of 6 ideally, including any possible NPCs. My current party is 6 PCs + one NPC, but the 6th has only been able to make it once so far, do to scheduling conflicts, so it's usually 5PCs+1NPC, and even then we don't have the entire party there more often than not. I can run a party of 3, but I don't like to. Battles where one character goes down are much harder on a party of 3, than even a party of 4.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think its perfectly fine, as long as you don't metagame, or try to somehow be better and ruin the fun for the others, etc. If you think that its technically hard to restrict yourself, just consider that it'd be like playing a NPC that accompanies the party. You still have to consider things from his/her perspective, what she knows/doesn't, roll her dices truthfully, etc. Not hard at all, right? The only thing is that you'd grow attached to that "NPC". But again, I find it really easy to become attached to the villains I create, even if the purpose of their existance is to be crushed by the heroes... So when your character rolls the unlucky 1 against the Bodak's glare, it shouldn't be too different from when Annihil A'tyon, the tyrant blackguard you have grown fond of ever since you've introduced him, is struck dead by the mighty paladin's Smite Evil at the end of the adventure.

It should be easy to do so, it just requires you roleplay a lot. In all these years I've already DM'ed, I've never done so without having my own "character", and my players never have complained or said I was unfair or something. The most complicated part is when you want to sneak in a puzzle or mystery, and you'd know where the answer and clues are right away.
The solution - your character is a Barbarian with a -1 INT modifier. "What? The altar says 'In the dawn the light shines forth to the right path'? Witchcraft, I say! Let me crush evil altar with might ax before it spells us!" Or just has some other funny flaw that makes she overall unreliable in intelectual matters. (this is very good for laughs) Other trick is to have your character take a Vow of Silence (not necessarily the feat), have had its tongue cut, being naturally mute, etc, since its easier to handle those things if you don't have to speak.
The most important part is, of course - speak to your players. If they somehow feel uncomfortable about it, don't do it. If you do, it shouldn't too hard, as long as you don't cheat. If you do cheat, thought - shame on you.

This. Totally +1 here. All of the outcry about DMPCs is based on horror stories. Yes, it can go horribly wrong. But if you're smart enough to DM and a little disciplined, you can easily play a character and DM. Just make sure that your character's knowledge is segregated from that big stack of encounter plans and future plot you have over there behind the DM screen. Just like with every other NPC. It's totally not rocket science.

Now, if you feel that you'll be tempted to hog the spotlight, don't do it. Otherwise, have fun.

[Gildedragon]

Depending on the hole there are varieties of ways of filling it.
Fighter-types: encourage diplomacy and role playing. Pick combat encounters well

Magic: make wands and scrolls more common, items that grant UMD, incantations

Healing: as with magic, meat up the heal skill, magic items

Scout: familiars, items that grant trap finding, magic

Skills: magic items, hirelings, allow remaining pCs to retrain skills to cover more areas, wands of masters touch

Hirelings and Leadership help with your predicament, but one can help
the pcs be a complete party even if missing key elements

[Lord Torath]

Most importantly, ask your players their feelings about your DMPC after every session. And listen to their answers! If they start complaining about it, don't take it as a personal insult. Take as time to get rid of the DMPC.

If the players start muttering about murdering your DMPC in its sleep, it's time to have the DMPC leave the picture.

I've currently got two DMPC's in the campaign I'm running (both basic fighter types), and now that the PCs are hitting level 3-4, and are more resilient, I'm planning on retiring the higher level one (he's going back to his horse-training), and giving control of the other to the party. (This is also my kids' first campaign, so they really needed the help at first.)

I suppose the main thing to remember is to keep your DMPC out of the spotlight. That's for the PCs.

[Callin]

I would give the players a Henchman. Someone who is devoted to the party and the ideals and not to an individual person. Then I would let them vote as to who runs it for that game. Next game someone else runs it and so on and so forth. That way no one person is hogging the spotlight with multiple combat actions and such.

[Chronos]

I would say that there are definitely risks to it, but that if you're aware of the risks going in, it's not all that hard to avoid them. Just make sure to take a back seat to the other players (and make sure they understand that you're doing so), and you should be fine. Pick some simple, obvious tactics for your character (example: Cleric always spending his actions on healing the most-injured PC, or casting party-wide protective spells if nobody is injured; or wizard always fireballing the largest concentration of enemies, or Magic Missiling the one that's a biggest threat to himself if there are no concentrations), and don't do anything else unless one of the others suggests it.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I would advise this, control the cleric outside of combat roleplay it like any other NPC it just happens to be attached to the party.

But during combat have someone else control him/her and make the tactical decisions as to what spells to prepare and cast etc etc.

[Phelix-Mu]

Pick some simple, obvious tactics for your character (example: Cleric always spending his actions on healing the most-injured PC, or casting party-wide protective spells if nobody is injured; or wizard always fireballing the largest concentration of enemies, or Magic Missiling the one that's a biggest threat to himself if there are no concentrations), and don't do anything else unless one of the others suggests it.

While it definitely is important not to hog the spotlight, I find that sometimes there is a little too much emphasis on having some npc or other totally softball it in favor of letting the PCs shine.

Yes, the PCs should shine. But it shouldn't be because everyone else in the world stands back and lets the PCs look cool. NPCs and PCs run by the DM should behave in a manner consistent with their background, motives, and abilities. The DM would do well to not mash the optimization button too hard for these supporting cast, but the believability of the world suffers a bit if everyone else holds back out of some bizarre conspiracy to make the party look awesome.

I usually find it sufficient to just toss more and stronger stuff at the party to make sure that both my character and party members will be pushed to survive. If my character is intelligent, then he may well suggest useful strategy or tactics, but s/he won't push to force the party to follow good advice. If someone is a resource for the party, s/he should behave as such.

Just my personal preference, really. I still make sure there is plenty of action and glory to spread around. As DM, that's one of my many skills.:smallwink: