Dm's, help me, plz!

[Rarelyfly]

I just started playing d&d, and my new group has hit a slight bump ing the road... There are only three of us. Should one of us dm, and run a two player campaign? Or should one of us be both dm and player? Or is there a third option? Help would be appreciated.

[NecroRebel]

Both running a game and playing in it is fraught with peril. This is one of the leading causes of the dreaded DMPC, a character who is inexplicably more awesome than the other players (because the DM favors themself), more important to the story, and otherwise just makes the game unfun. I'd advise against that.

Games with only two PCs are also somewhat boring, both due to unbalanced roles in the party (you're necessarily missing two, basically). What you might do is have both players make two characters and play both simultaneously. This will make the party more balanced and hopefully keep them both more active. The problem with this is that it means that players have twice as much to keep track of, which can be difficult for newbies.

Really, what I'd suggest is trying to find a fourth, and ideally fifth, player. Ask other friends, ask at work or school, put out an ad on Craigslist or in your local game shop, whatever. You'd be surprised how many people are at least willing to try it out. Do make sure to run a single-adventure game with each new person you add to the group to make sure they mesh well with you and your friends, though, and don't be afraid to drop someone who is causing problems (even your friends).

[MrUberGr]

Well, IMO 4 people is the minimum for 4e. You could try and get someone and then the DM would throw in a DMPC, only for the combat. For example, we are 4+1 and noone really wants to play a Leader. Our dm will add a dmpc, that will be there only during the combat, meaning that he won't affect the RP aspect in any way. He'll be there to throw in a buff or two and a couple of heals or whatever.

[Unseenmal]

Well, IMO 4 people is the minimum for 4e. You could try and get someone and then the DM would throw in a DMPC, only for the combat. For example, we are 4+1 and noone really wants to play a Leader. Our dm will add a dmpc, that will be there only during the combat, meaning that he won't affect the RP aspect in any way. He'll be there to throw in a buff or two and a couple of heals or whatever.

I am actually doing this except it's with a striker. We have a DM (me) + 4 PCs but the guy playing the striker had to leave due to school workload. So I have taken up the mantle of stiker player. I only play him during combat. when he is needed to unlock doors/disable traps, etc, the other players handle that. They have even taken turns roleplaying him. It makes for an interesting PC since his personality will change slightly depending on who is currently running him. They try to stick to how the original player did it but it's hard to follow in the exact footsteps.

I think for the time being, let each player run 2 PC's and drop them as you get more people into the group. That might help you all learn more about the game. It can be confusing at first but once you get 2-3 games under your belt, you'll see the players get the flow of 2 PCs much, much easier.

[Juzer]

actually, I don't think DMPC is a bad idea: can be very helpful and give a sense of party and continuity and with 3 characters it's not too bad to play

important thing: DmPc has to be created after the Pgs and founding the needed niche useful for the players

even the DMPC's background has to be dependendent of the PG's

I did it and it worked well: in the party there was no leader and no one with high strengh or charisma, so I made a Warlord and the players dediced the race

The PG's background had a city in common, so in the short and setting-explaining Dmpc's background there was: he was once a guard in that town and the parents owned the tavern where the PCs meeted many times

I controlled it in combat, as a buffer trying to be helpful abour PGs needs, outside of combat the PGs had sorta control over him: "since he can convince people (due to trained cha skills) I ask him to explain to the duke my point of view, that..."

The DMPC had no plots circling around him and always asked for personal issues "guys, since I was a city guard I don't feel we should betray these soldiers even if they see corrupt: what do you think about it?"

So, I would suggest: search for other players, meanwhile start and adventure with 2 PGs and a DMPG which has not to rob the spitlight in any way

[Tvtyrant]

Currently running a game with three PCs and a pacifist cleric bot who has social phobias and owes the party a debt, seems to work okay. Pacifist cleric saves lives but makes combat much, much longer which is not great (no striker in group.)

[Jigürd]

You could have a Defender DMPC who acts as a bodyguard. Maybe he is a golem made by the more magically inclined in the party, maybe a PC comes from a wealthy family and hired him/her.

[Angel Bob]

I played a three-man campaign with my best D&D buddies. One guy was the DM, and I and the other guy both made two characters; I had the Defender and Striker, the other guy took the Leader and Controller. It was a very enjoyable campaign, and combat went pretty quickly.

Of course, this was probably in no small part because we were all very familiar with the system. If you're new to the game, running two characters increases the amount of rules-checking and will definitely slow down the game -- but it is more balanced, and will also give you more of a feel for which role you prefer. Mixed blessings, I guess.

[Juzer]

...I suggest not to use monsters as DMPG: rather have a proper PG, just controlled by the DM

I think the 2 players have to give advice on it
and the DM is encouraged to use flat borign equipment for it

I think, with proper build, a Hybrid DMPG can be the basis of a host party with 3 members (hoping the 2 players choose are not both strikers/defenders/...)

[Badgerish]

For the combat side:
I would recommend looking at the 'companion character' rules in DMG2 and use those for an allied NPC, possibly a less-human one (an elemental or beast).

For the social/skill side:
I'd strongly recommend that the NPC stays out of this, or just follows the PC's plans and/or aid-others.

[Epinephrine]

A lazy leader makes for a decent DMPC, as it doesn't tend to steal any spotlight. A character that throws heals and saves to keep the real players running, and uses actions to get the real players extra attacks is hard to resent, and can't really steal the spotlight. Moving people into position, enabling their attacks, etc. Many players avoid the leader role anyway, so it's not a bad place to go for a DMPC.