Suggestions for a GMPC

[Camman1984]

I am running a fairly casual campaign and want to throw in a GMPC for me to play. He is going to be an archeologist who has hired the party to help him unearth a hidden ancient temple, unfortunately things go wrong and it ruins him so he joins them as an equal rather than a boss. Hoping to find some ancient treasure to rebuild his fortune.

He will be the same level as the party, but i dont want him to either overshadow the party or become a crutch, i am currently thinking int based character, probably wizard, but worried the players will always turn to him and ask "what do you think" . I dont want a cha based build as then i would be expected to have conversations with myself.

I have run GMPC's before with varying results.

Any suggestions for builds? Or ideas to keep him from adversly affecting the players game.

[JNAProductions]

Why is a GMPC needed? Why can't he just be a civilian who hides in the corner for fights?

[Coidzor]

Is there a gap in the PCs' capabilities that you want to fill?

Is there a reason you want a GMPC instead of an NPC ally?

[DanyBallon]

A lore bard with the sage background, or a thief rogue with a merchant background, could be interesting idea. Without knowing the strength of your players group, the bard option allow you a DMPC that can possibly fill any of the major roles (fighting, skill monkey, healer, and spell caster) without overshadowing any of them. And even if you play a bard, you don't need to be the party face.

[Starsinger]

Battlemaster Fighter and give him maneuvers that bolster allies.

[PotatoGolem]

Couple things I've used to stop DMPCs overshadowing PCs:

1) Give them lower and less optimized stats. I generally assign DMPC stats rather than rolling or using point buy, but you want to make sure their stats are lower than those of the party. The PCs are the heroes, after all, and this is just some guy. Also, make the stats less optimized. In-world, people don't choose their stats- they develop them naturally, like real people. So maybe your wizard has a Cha of 12 but only 6 Con, or your medium armor cleric has a Dex penalty.

2) Another option I like is giving DMPCs a class, but no subclass. This makes them SIGNIFICANTLY weaker than PCs.

Either way works for a DMPC that can contribute, but isn't going to overshadow any of the PCs. And yes, you're 100% right about not making them a face character. Even if they have high Cha, make them good-looking and likable but shy, withdrawn, or somehow opposed to leadership.

[Ardantis]

Archaeologist who won't overshadow in social or combat equals high Intelligence (no subclass) Rogue to me. His combats consist of trying (but not too hard) to get advantage without exposing himself.

Let him decode ancient hieroglyphs for the party and generally act as a walking Macguffin generator.

"We have to get down to level three because of the Orb of Manchesness there opens the portal to the Nether Chamber."

He can speak primarily in Proper Nouns and point in various directions throughout the battle.

In fact, he sort of sounds like a Monty Python character to me!

[BootStrapTommy]

Why is a GMPC needed? Why can't he just be a civilian who hides in the corner for fights? Because obviously the OP wants to play, but situation has dictated them the DM...

[Kane0]

Knowledge cleric? Lore bard (stealing heals and buffs)?

Spam bless in combat, healing after fights, make him wear respectable armor so he's not squishy.

In emergencies, activate spirit guardians/sanctuary as self defense.

Have them one level behind or with lower than average stats. Will be less likely to steal the show without stopping the flow of buffy goodness.

[JoeJ]

One way to keep from, even unconsciously, overshadowing the party is to plan ahead for this character to get killed partway through the dungeon. You can even go for the dramatic: Let the BBEG get surprise by fiat and use its first round to kill the closest character, who just happens to be the archaeologist. The rest of the encounter can then proceed as normal.

[Rallicus]

DMPCs: not even once.

In all seriousness though, why? 5e has negated the need for DMPCs significantly; you don't necessarily need a healbot or "rounding off" party member as much anymore.

If you're doing it because of what BootStrapTommy suggested, don't. Learn to love the fun aspects of DMing... don't just do it because you have to, or because nobody else wants to.

[Person_Man]

I would strongly recommend against any DM PC. The DM gets to control every NPC in the game world, every monster, and is a part of almost every interaction. You don't need to also play a PC, and doing so takes away from each player's limited spotlight time, and forces you to play a very metagamey PC (because you have to constantly separate out what you know as DM from what he knows as a PC).

If your players need healing, have an NPC sell potions. If your players don't have a trap finder, then make traps rare. If your players don't have a tank, then let them figure out alternative combat tactics (hit and run, scry and die, etc). There is absolutely no need for you to be a PC, even if you just have 1 player.

[zinycor]

First of all, Please try to not have any GMPC, they aren't needed and are an open door to problems. If what you want is to play instead of GMing, tell your group so, and maybe one of them will be willing to play as GM, if not, try to find another group to play with.

Now, if you absolutely want to have a GMPC, (Again, bad idea) try to make a very focused kind of character, if he's a diviner wizard for exmple, he will ,for the most part, only have divination spells, if he is a healer, go Full Support, and so on. This way you will be able to prepare spells for him (or even the PCs will be able) without having to think much about it.

Don't make him effective, build your GMPC in such a way that he will barely be able to do what you built him for. This way, if one of your players want to play a similar role to the GMPC he won't feel overshadowed, and everyone will be able to enjoy the game. Don't try to compete with your players.

Make him to be dumb, that way players won't bother to try to get info from him, Since you will know that he barely knows anylthing, the risk of metagaming will be lower.


But, again, try to not have a GMPC on your game. It just sucks.

[Camman1984]

An NPC ally would also work, but i do kind of want to have a character. I am the only 'trained DM' in my group so dont get to play, ever.

Its mainly because i want them to stay with the party in a realistic way, rather than having an unstatted NPC who just goes 'poof' during every round of combat.

My current group are war cleric, a paladin, a valor bard and an on/off monk. They are doing great, so my character does not need a lot of power or even a specific role, particularly as 5th ed seems to have done away with the tank/dps/healer requirements.

I like the idea of giving him weak stats or leaving him a level or two below the party so although he can fight and be a realistic party member. He is not frontline.

[eastmabl]

Archaeologist who won't overshadow in social or combat equals high Intelligence (no subclass) Rogue to me. His combats consist of trying (but not too hard) to get advantage without exposing himself.

Let him decode ancient hieroglyphs for the party and generally act as a walking Macguffin generator.

"We have to get down to level three because of the Orb of Manchesness there opens the portal to the Nether Chamber."

He can speak primarily in Proper Nouns and point in various directions throughout the battle.

So you're bringing Daniel Jackson?

[KorvinStarmast]

I am the only 'trained DM' in my group so dont get to play, ever. My current group are war cleric, a paladin, a valor bard and an on/off monk. They are doing great, so my character does not need a lot of power or even a specific role, particularly as 5th ed seems to have done away with the tank/dps/healer requirements. Why not just play the monk when he's not there, and just DM the rest of the time.

[mephnick]

I am the only 'trained DM' in my group so dont get to play, ever.

The only way to "train" being a DM is to do it a whole lot.

If none of the others start DMing, they never will and you'll never play again.

[zinycor]

An NPC ally would also work, but i do kind of want to have a character. I am the only 'trained DM' in my group so dont get to play, ever.

Its mainly because i want them to stay with the party in a realistic way, rather than having an unstatted NPC who just goes 'poof' during every round of combat.

My current group are war cleric, a paladin, a valor bard and an on/off monk. They are doing great, so my character does not need a lot of power or even a specific role, particularly as 5th ed seems to have done away with the tank/dps/healer requirements.

I like the idea of giving him weak stats or leaving him a level or two below the party so although he can fight and be a realistic party member. He is not frontline.

Just tell someone else to GM, don't worry about how trained they are. Or join another group as a player.

Please GMPCs, I sincerely think GMPCs are the worst.

[VoxRationis]

Just tell someone else to GM, don't worry about how trained they are. Or join another group as a player.

Please GMPCs, I sincerely think GMPCs are the worst.

They're often done poorly, but they have their place. GMPCs can fill out a too-small party or provide support in an otherwise-neglected role, and more importantly, can be useful guides. All too often, everyone ends up rolling characters that have no in-character familiarity with the setting you've actually put them in. My current campaign has a not-particularly-well-optimized fighter GMPC whose main purpose is to know the politics and geography of the region. He's reasonably capable in combat, enough that he's appreciated by the players, but not enough to make the campaign his story.

[mephnick]

I think it's much better to have tag-along NPCs that change depending on the quest, like a fighter that helps you track down his missing squad and a few sessions later, a wizard that helps you get to another plane. Therefore, you get to "play", but you don't get attached to a single character and it's easy to have them seem like help, as opposed to "DM's baby". You also don't have to worry about keeping the character consistent, as you have so much else to think about.

Of course, not having one at all is probably better...

[Crusadr]

Sounds like a lot of people have had some bad experiences with dmpcs here, with a proper dm behind them they really shouldn't present a problem or overshadow the party at all. You don't really need much for tips on how to avoid this besides just don't do it.

If the character is an archaelogist the class doesn't really matter at all, you mentioned wanting to avoid a high INT or CHR character to avoid having to talk to yourself or have an exposition fairy but all your dmpc really needs is the history skill and proficiency in archaelogist's tools(?).

[rlc]

I'd go with the npc ally who gets killed partway through the adventure. it could be the attack by bad guy, or even a boulder trap that your archaeologist doesn't Indiana Jones his way out of.

[Camman1984]

I have decided to go with a ranger, but without spell casting or the ranger archetype abilities.

He basically has hit points and the ability to swing a sword or shoot a bow with mundane effectiveness. But his 'main abilities' is his in depth knowledge of underground terrain and his enhanced ability to track and understand a particular race*. He has picked up archeologists tools from his background.

*i havent decided what flavour these ancient ruins are yet so favoured enemy will apply to whoever built the ruins.


I think this strikes a good balance, bare bones enough to be seen as a one dimensional npc tag along that i wont get attached to. But fleshed out enough so that he seems real and doesnt need to vanish all the time.

It also means he has so few combat abilities he just 'shoots his bow' rather than me having to manage him too much while running the encounter

[mephnick]

Sounds like a lot of people have had some bad experiences with dmpcs here, with a proper dm behind them they really shouldn't present a problem or overshadow the party at all. You don't really need much for tips on how to avoid this besides just don't do it.

It's still a needless use of focus and time with which the DM could be doing other things. Those are limited resources whether you're Gary Gygax or some schlub in a comic shop. Also, every turn he takes can only bore the party and bog down the action. Sure, a good DM could make a DMPC less obtrusive, but it will still be somewhat obtrusive by design. It's simply better DMing to work with the party you have and focus your talents on everything else in the setting. If the ultimate success of DMPC is not to steal focus from the party, or alter the course of the campaign, why have one in the first place?

[Shaofoo]

If the problem is that you really want to play then ask someone else to DM and you be the player, even if the other players haven't DMed ever they can learn and eventually they might be able to tell their own stories.

If you don't want to DM and no one else does them maybe it is best to shelve D&D and play another game for a bit, there is no shame in playing another game if you are tired of D&D, if someone really wants to play D&D I am sure they'd be willing to DM. Go play a board game (heck go buy the D&D board games and play that, Lords of Waterdeep is an excellent game) and then after you stop being burned out then go back to DMing.

[Ardantis]

i would strongly recommend against any dm pc. The dm gets to control every npc in the game world, every monster, and is a part of almost every interaction. You don't need to also play a pc, and doing so takes away from each player's limited spotlight time, and forces you to play a very metagamey pc (because you have to constantly separate out what you know as dm from what he knows as a pc).

If your players need healing, have an npc sell potions. If your players don't have a trap finder, then make traps rare. If your players don't have a tank, then let them figure out alternative combat tactics (hit and run, scry and die, etc). There is absolutely no need for you to be a pc, even if you just have 1 player.

person man is right again

yet again

[Velaryon]

The real problem with DMPC's is that they put a lot of people's hackles up, as seen by most of the posts in this topic. It's so easy for DMPC's to be used poorly that many people have the mindset that they are by definition a bad thing. That's because most of us have seen the stereotypical Mary Sue DMPC in action: always has the cool powers, gets great loot that's just perfect for him/her, knows just what to do or where to go, steals the glory from the other players, and just generally makes everyone feel like the DM isn't so much running a group-focused game as he is elaborately telling them a story about how cool this one character is. And nobody wants that.

It can be done well, and there are times when it's appropriate. As has been mentioned already, it helps to fill a role in a smaller group, or provide some occasional guidance or knowledge about the game world (as long as you use this function sparingly). And it allows the DM to partially experience what it would be like to play in their own game, since of course they know best what kind of game they want to play and in theory are best able to provide that exact game experience.

A good DMPC (and counter to what many people will tell you, there is such a thing) should have many if not most of these qualities:
-fills a support role within the party, rather than taking the lead or being the resident badass,
-tends toward a quieter personality and is more comfortable in the background,
-doesn't have as cool loot as the other characters,
-has minimal overlap in capabilities with the other characters and does not outshine or compete with any of them in their primary roles,
-adds to the story and enjoyment of the game while rarely if ever being at the center of it,
-being a comic relief character or minion is not necessary but is often a good fit.

Basically, make it so that the DMPC is never the center of the game, never outshines the other players or makes their characters feel useless, and never appears to enjoy favoritism over the other players' characters, and you'll usually be fine. It's a hot-button issue for some people so you need to know your players and whether they'll be comfortable with this, but if you're good and they trust you, it should work just fine.

[Thrudd]

As the GM, you should not think of yourself as playing a character in the party. You have to play every character in the world other than the PCs. Since you are planning the adventure and controlling everything, any NPC that accompanies the party should not be making decisions. NPCs that are not lower level henchmen of the PCs should be limited to participating on a temporary basis only. For you, the game is designing the world, describing it to the players, and reacting to their actions. You don't "play" the same way they do.

[MaxWilson]

Just tell someone else to GM, don't worry about how trained they are. Or join another group as a player.

Please GMPCs, I sincerely think GMPCs are the worst.

...especially for the DM. Some people love to play chess against themselves, but when I'm in the mood to play D&D against myself I just do it solo, and players would just get in the way.

The one circumstance I can think of where an NPC run directly or semi-directly by the DM would be if your party has a critical out of party weakness that gets in the way of the story. For example, my players never scout out the enemy effectively. This baffles me, but I don't want to design the world around them with "just right" encounters either. One possible solution would be to re-introduce one of the NPCs they've interacted with in the past as a kind of intel specialist who scouts ahead and supplies information on enemy dispositions ("there are four orcs ahead guarding the gate, and what looks like another fifteen or twenty inside the compound") while staying mostly out of the way during combat. A shadow monk or rogue would be ideal.

Even in this circumstance, a DM-run party member would be kind of a pain and I wish I could think of a better way.

[Thrudd]

...especially for the DM. Some people love to play chess against themselves, but when I'm in the mood to play D&D against myself I just do it solo, and players would just get in the way.

The one circumstance I can think of where an NPC run directly or semi-directly by the DM would be if your party has a critical out of party weakness that gets in the way of the story. For example, my players never scout out the enemy effectively. This baffles me, but I don't want to design the world around them with "just right" encounters either. One possible solution would be to re-introduce one of the NPCs they've interacted with in the past as a kind of intel specialist who scouts ahead and supplies information on enemy dispositions ("there are four orcs ahead guarding the gate, and what looks like another fifteen or twenty inside the compound") while staying mostly out of the way during combat. A shadow monk or rogue would be ideal.

Even in this circumstance, a DM-run party member would be kind of a pain and I wish I could think of a better way.

They'll start scouting ahead when they lose a couple battles. You don't need an NPC for that. The players choosing to play recklessly is not a problem you need to solve, it's a choice they are making. If their choice has consequences for their characters, well that's how the game goes.

[Shaofoo]

A good thing that you can do is to have a player have two characters under his control, you can even tell him to make it an archaeologist but the details can be left up to him in powers, personality and so on. But this is only if you believe that there are a lack of PCs, the problem is stemming that the DM wants to play in the players side.

[Tenmujiin]

Treating anything run by the DM as a "PC" is probably going to end badly but there is nothing wrong with having a NPC along for the ride, the key is to make them unobtrusive. Their turn should take about as much time as any enemy NPC (I.E. long enough to describe the action and roll some dice) and they should generally follow the player's orders. Anything more than that and you risk stepping on the player's toes or getting too attached to the character.

Warlocks, buff clerics and rogues are ideal from what I've seen since they either have few decisions to make or are focused on making the players awesome. For bonus points let whichever player takes the fastest turn or who doesn't have a character to control at the time (due to control spells, unconsciousness, non-presence or otherwise). I've only run one character that could be considered DMPC (and only because the players insisted that the goblin accompany them even after I warned them it would soak XP) he was a mute warlock that split his time between eldritch blast and running portions between the players. Ironically he is the second most remembered character from that campaign, after the cleric that overshadowed the entire party combined.

Edit: the goblin also had low stats.

[endur]

An NPC ally would also work, but i do kind of want to have a character. I am the only 'trained DM' in my group so dont get to play, ever.

Its mainly because i want them to stay with the party in a realistic way, rather than having an unstatted NPC who just goes 'poof' during every round of combat.


My recommendation is to not have a GM PC. If you want to play, make one of the other players run as GM for a night.

As a GM, I personally love the idea of GM PCs ... but they bring up too many issues and there are too many risks. You will have a better game without a GM PC.

I even try and minimize NPC hirelings, etc. that accompany the party.

NPC Questgivers are ok, but I try and avoid having any NPCs actually accompany the party.

If you are worried about missing skills/capabilities in the party, you can either subtly encourage the players to select those abilities when they level up, or give them magic items, etc. that fill the gap when they find treasure, or just minimize the issues that the skill gap may cause, or make them pay the price for missing a particular ability.

[Ghostwheel]

I am running a fairly casual campaign and want to throw in a GMPC for me to play. He is going to be an archeologist who has hired the party to help him unearth a hidden ancient temple, unfortunately things go wrong and it ruins him so he joins them as an equal rather than a boss. Hoping to find some ancient treasure to rebuild his fortune.

He will be the same level as the party, but i dont want him to either overshadow the party or become a crutch, i am currently thinking int based character, probably wizard, but worried the players will always turn to him and ask "what do you think" . I dont want a cha based build as then i would be expected to have conversations with myself.

I have run GMPC's before with varying results.

Any suggestions for builds? Or ideas to keep him from adversly affecting the players game.

GMPC is very avoidable situation. NPC characters can fill almost any gaps in an unbalanced party. Knowledge can be imparted in myriad ways. Role-playing opportunities for the GM can be accomplished with minimal NPC development.

GMPC is a concept that should be rejected as soon as it is considered. Someone (You!) is the GM. The other people at the table are the players in your game. If you can't or don't want to play that role, you are on the wrong side of the screen.