Small groups, DMPCs, and how to run them

[Dragons_Ire]

So, I'm setting up a campaign for me (as DM), my sister, and possibly Dad.

My sister will be playing 3 characters, as will I. Yes, I realize DMPCs are considered distasteful by many, but I think I can keep them unobtrusive, and they were requested by my sister (she would prefer to have other people in the party to talk to). My dad, who hasn't played since AD&D 2e, may be joining us as well. If he does, he will probably only play one character, and he's leaning towards barbarian. The party having 7 PCs and me being somewhat generous with magic items means I can throw stronger monsters at the party (or use larger numbers)

As for setting, common items (think the items from Xanathar's) can be purchased for sub-100 gp in a large town, items up to uncommon can be purchased in large cities for a reasonable price, and +1 weapons with no other properties can be produced (and then purchased, albeit for a high price). Not exactly a super high magic setting, but they definitely won't be scarce.

All that to say, I've never really run a DMPC before. How do you do it well, and if 3 is too many what should I reduce it to?

[mephnick]

All that to say, I've never really run a DMPC before. How do you do it well, and if 3 is too many what should I reduce it to?

Zero. Maybe run an NPC with a simplified statblock (like the guys in Volo's) who you control but is not yourcharacter. You say you'll keep them unobtrusive but this is impossible because the mental energy it takes to run 3 PCs will have a negative impact on your ability to run the game in general. DMs already shoulder 99% of the mental load to run a combat or social interaction, you don't need anything else to focus on. Have NPCs filter in and out of the adventures in a natural way and control them in combat if you have to. There's never a reason to run a full fledged DMPC.

[Sigreid]

I run a dmpc as we rotate DM and it just keeps the group together. Here's how I handle it.

1. The other players know roughly what he can do so they can ask him to act.
2. I dont make decisions for or course of action suggestions for the group.
3. If the party wants him to make a decision, it's almost always going to be a bad idea.
4. I mildly over target him to ensure that I'm not coddling my own character.
5. I set off a lot of traps if left unsupervised.

Now when someone else is DM. I make decisions and play as crafty as I can.

[Unoriginal]

I strongly advise you against having your sister or yourself handle 3 PCs. It's a logistic nightmare, and will likely result in playing the sheets, not the characters.




Zero. Maybe run an NPC with a simplified statblock (like the guys in Volo's) who you control but is not yourcharacter. You say you'll keep them unobtrusive but this is impossible because the mental energy it takes to run 3 PCs will have a negative impact on your ability to run the game in general. DMs already shoulder 99% of the mental load to run a combat or social interaction, you don't need anything else to focus on. Have NPCs filter in and out of the adventures in a natural way and control them in combat if you have to. There's never a reason to run a full fledged DMPC.

Basically this, but if you want you could have a more permanent companion of the PC rather than an endless rotation of assistants.

[Pelle]

Reduce it to zero. 4 is more than enough characters, and the more characters involved the more unwieldy combat encounters become.

[Cespenar]

If it's mainly because your sister wants different characters to chat to (which is one of the better reasons to want them), make some helper NPCs with very simplified statblocks who don't contribute to combat but have some expertise in certain areas. For example:

A scout from the native folk who knows the area.
A healer.
A young squire-like fellow who takes care of all the small things as well as carry some of the heavier stuff.
A bard who documents the party's adventures and also can provide some key information about lore stuff.

[Sigreid]

If it's mainly because your sister wants different characters to chat to (which is one of the better reasons to want them), make some helper NPCs with very simplified statblocks who don't contribute to combat but have some expertise in certain areas. For example:

A scout from the native folk who knows the area.
A healer.
A young squire-like fellow who takes care of all the small things as well as carry some of the heavier stuff.
A bard who documents the party's adventures and also can provide some key information about lore stuff.

Or let her have an intelligent magic item she can talk to.

[Knaight]

You're in a bit of an awkward place in terms of planning here - one player and one GM is a viable style, as is two players and one GM. They're drastically different styles though, which warrant very different handling.

For the one player and one GM approach, having her control three characters in combat then having two revert to NPCs outside it can work. Generally it helps if you structure it such that they're likely to be comparable to secondary characters. Quieter, less authoritative, underlings, etc. This helps provide the character with others to talk to, while avoiding full fledged DMPCs with everything that comes along with that. Examples of this would include a noble and two servants, a military officer and two troops, or just an adventurer and two hirelings.

For the two player case you need none of this, and can instead mine a different source of material - partners. One of the best sources of inspiration here is, of all things, buddy cop movies. Note that this involves exactly zero DMPCs, or even NPCs in the party.

[Isaire]

I'm inclined to agree that if she wants someone to talk to, you could have a retainer follow the "party" or something like that. More in a sillier funny compaign, but one DM I play with plays an Alfred type butler to the knight - I'm the only magic user in the group, and the only one at all aware that the butler is a powerful wizard of some kind, who does all his service with magic, but the important thing is that the magic is only ever used for roleplaying, and he would never appear in combat. Indeed is often only noticed to be around when someone calls his name... This obviously requires some sort of understanding with the knight's player that he is happy to be oblivious to all of this.

The idea that you could roleplay two characters but control neither in combat, giving a 3 member party total with your sister role-playing one character and using 3 in combat, is quite an interesting one too. But if you have two players, I would absolutely just go for a 2 player party and maybe an npc non-combatant follower if you want to engage in banter with them :P

[DMThac0]

In my best Navi impression: Hey, listen!

I'm going to speak from the other side of the fence now.

There's nothing wrong with DMPCs, I say that because I use one in many of my campaigns. The thing about DMPCs, and why people find them distasteful, is because they are often used for the wrong reason. More often than not it's because the DM doesn't want to, instead they want to play, so they interject their character into the game with some misguided reason to be there. The other common reason is because the DM feels the players need help and think throwing their DMPC into the mix will give them the guidance they need. A true DMPC is nothing more than an NPC with a more influential place in the world than Tillie, the Herbalist from Talmond.

As I said, I've used a DMPC in many of my campaigns, and he is the same one over and over again. I decided a long time ago that I really liked the idea of a "Cid" type character in my games, for those who don't get it; Cid is a recurring character in the Final Fantasy franchise. I created Aerik, the owner of the Boar's Head Inn, who was the information broker that the players could talk to. He would join them on missions, run tasks for the group, he'd just happen to have the right bit of information that the players would need, and he was memorable. He was also stronger than the group, always at a default level 20, and had access to exactly what was needed. He was a literal embodiment of the DM inside the game.

With that being said, he never disrupted the game. Aerik's sole purpose, until my fiancee asked me to make him for CoS, was to help the players out in a bind. I had to make that limitation; he was in the background until the group needed him. He didn't do anything, except polish his mugs, unless the players made a request. He didn't offer information, other than to answer the question he was asked. He never left the Boar's Head unless it was to go grab some ale, or the party asked him to help. He was also slippery, when the players were really close to finding an answer and decided "Let's go talk to Aerik", he'd just happen to be on the way to White Bridge looking to grab a delivery or something.

Aerik was also really annoyed with combat, another decision I had to make, since he was level 20. The players would persuade him to help with a mission and then combat would break out, as it does in D&D. Being a Ranger/Rogue, he'd hide, flank, disarm, trip, harass, or just happen to wander off before combat would happen. He'd take off, the players were on their own, and if they failed, he'd come drag them off to a safe place and nurse them to health. It was easy enough to give some story about saving them from flanking monsters or disabling a trap, something to make him useful while still contributing little to the combat. Sometimes it was fun to have him make a mistake and the players would have to rescue him.

The DMPC is a tool, something to add to the way you can help the players move forward in the game without taking the spotlight off of their actions. They are there to give a push forward, to break tension, to point out something the players missed. They are not there to fix mistakes, to fight, to show off what a character can do if you play it. They are a story driven set piece, doing what needs to be done in a scene and oblivious to the rest of the world, just like the players. They are also much, much more ignorant of what's going on than the players. They only know what the players tell them, which is less than what the DM tells the Players (usually). I don't feel that is what you're looking for in this group, I think you need to reduce the number of player controlled characters and scale the adventure to fit.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Running for a small group (1-2 players) is no problem. I think it's a better option for you that trying to run 3 PC's (logistical nightmare).

If you're afraid the group likes a solid front-line just run her PC's 'faithful manservant' as an NPC. Anything from the MM with decent AC/HP will do, including perhaps some sort of magical beast or animal companion?

[Dragons_Ire]

Thanks for the input so far, everyone!
I will see what I can do to reduce/eliminate the DMPCs, but for me running an NPC often involves using class levels, as I give player class levels to most semi-important and important NPCs. I may start a couple of characters with the party, who then leave later as their goals diverge. Or the party, if they care enough about them, can help them achieve their goals and earn a permanent ally!

[DMThac0]

I may start a couple of characters with the party, who then leave later as their goals diverge. Or the party, if they care enough about them, can help them achieve their goals and earn a permanent ally!

That is a wonderful approach. When I was teaching my kids how to play I would use this tactic all the time to help them out. Just remember to take notes, take notes of notes, and then make sure someone else is note taking too. If you have a revolving door of NPCs it can get confusing after a time who is who.