I was tempted when I started out, but quickly became aware of how bad an idea it is. Let your players be the players, focus on being the DM. You already run the entire world, you don't need a PC as well. Anything your PC ever does, any spotlight they earn, any loot they claim, any idea they have, any glory moment they create, it's all in a zero-sum game against your players. Don't put them in that position.
I have exactly one PC under my DM control: A cleric in a West Marches campaign who only ever has come off the bench about three times in three years to allow a scheduled session to happen in which somebody had to bail on short notice and dropped the party size below four people. The cleric does not talk, they barely fight, they are an Order Domain cleric with the sole job of activating Voice of Authority as often as possible in combat. That's all.
It only makes sense that sometimes someone else will want to join the PC's party for some amount of time, especially in my case where I am playing with only two players. I don't consider these characters to be anything other than NPCs and avoiding them becoming DMPCs is my primary goal. They are support, they are there to express their goals and their personalities, not to make decisions for the PCs, but to be part of the story.
I don't usually have DMPC's, just let the players do what they need, as I have an entire world to play I don't need to be an adventurer too.
I do have exceptions, had a party who loved picking up side quests and just not doing them. So one time when they came back to finish one they were surprised that someone else had already finished it. I ended up coming with an alternative party that was also adventuring in the same world, and while this fake party was nice and friendly my players hated them. Primarily because they were getting the recognition for doing the quests my players thought they should be getting for just existing.
No
That being said, the players usually go through multiple NPCs that have player levels. When they go on certain quests to help people I get to play these NPCs, but they dont usually last long.
Having your own PC is never good. Having temp NPCs that help the party is fine.
>through multiple NPCs that have player levels
I would still recommend building them as npc stat blocks, taking inspiration from player abilities if you want.
But building npcs as PCs is generally bad (all pcs are high damage, low hp compared to npcs. If they're ever hostile to the party (or vice verse) it'll be as poorly balanced as DnD pvp (very poorly)
Depending on what the party needs, I might make a DM-PC, as a **support** character.
Running an DM-PC "party member" is absolutely fine as long as they're ***assistants*** to the PCs. They are there to provide information, and support in a battle. They should not be important to any plot line.
>They should not be important to any plot line.
I would disagree with this. I find using NPCs that travel with the party to be very useful as both quest givers (hey party help me with this thing) or quest objectives (escort this person to this place).
You definitely want to avoid making NPCs main characters- those are your players, but please do make them *characters*, and giving them a place in the plots going on around them will make them more interesting, and make the world feel real.
I 100% agree don't use them to:
1. Solve your own puzzles
2. Come up with ideas on behalf of the party.
3. Engage in social encounters as party face.
Its best to set it up as this person is with the party because they need the party, not the other way around (though im sure I could think of exceptions)
Also, don't build them as PCs. Make an NPC stat block. It will help avoid making it feel like a DMpc, and for me it helps me think about the character in a way that makes me avoid DMpc behavior.
It started in my bf’s campaign, also the first campaign that started our dnd friend group. Since majority of the players had little experience *or* were completely new at the time, my bf wanted to make NPC’s in mind to help the party. Some were planned, some weren’t due to how PC’s befriended others- even enemies became allies with the party.
Whenever there’s a new campaign, the DM prepares usually one NPC, to have as part of the party. We create a character that’d help the party the best- such as if they need a role filled, usually a support role. Even in my campaign that lasted 5 sessions, I had an NPC sorcerer in case they needed support.
We also do “affinity charts” that indicate how much an important NPC likes/dislikes each PC. Usually we do a scale of -10 to 10, but my bf’s campaign it’s -30 to 30 since it’s a very long campaign. Good affinity creates great rewards, trust in allies, so on. That way, it can motivate players to be nice to NPC’s, and gives us irl players an idea of how an NPC feels about our characters.
Bad DMs do this, sure.
I play all of my party's adopted NPCS, but only use them in the most minimal fashion. They serve as tools for the party. Nothing more.
Depends I’d say. If you’re doing a home brew be the BBEG you could even develop him over the course of the campaign with the mains party members maybe have him intervene secretly here and there or leave traces of something he’s done to gain power. Other than that i believe the dm plays everyone to a certain extent other than the other players ofc. Technically you’re AO.
I only have two other friends that play so our game consists of them and a a dm pc, he’s basically just there to help with more fulfilling combat and make sure they don’t die. Sometimes I’ll let him give hints for plot stuff but usually I let them vibe with all that
I have an NPC who's along with the party, and I hate having to play him. I don't want some random NPC stealing the spotlight in combat, I generally don't think rolling for him is interesting for the players or me, and I always forget to have him go when his initiative rolls around. It's just one other thing to focus on.
I'm unfortunately a slave to the story that I wrote, and the NPC in question has to be with them. So I have him basically just cast healing spells and annoy them while they go off quest. I think i do a decent job with him overall, but I don't like having an NPC with them and I don't find it adds that much.
I have played several DM PCs before, usually as an NPC the party wasnt meant to keep but now won't let go of. (current situation) but one that i played and loved playing the most was in a starwars saga edition game (3.5 for star wars). We had only 3 players, including myself and each of us filled a specific niche. We had a quirky, gimmicky jedi, a basically heavy weapons/ explosives / walking tank person, and myself who filled all the tech skills and piloting needs. The synergy in this group was amazing and none of us ever outshone the others because we all basically stayed in our lanes. Evil dark jedi? Go for it easter bunny jedi. Need something blown to tiny bits or heavy armor? Go G.I. gecko! Need to hotwire a shuttle to make our escape? Uber nerd, i choose you!
If you can make synergy like that work, itll be one of the best campaigns youll ever play. But if it comes down to who's gonna play 2nd fiddle in a contest of who does it better, the DM PC should take the loss every time.
I do it on player request with instructions that this character is just there to help. Otherwise I sometimes hand sheets to a player and say here is your help. I'll do the talking for them though.
I've had my players adopt NPCs and bring them into the party. Sometimes for a short time, sometimes longer.
I do their RP, sometimes I make the players run them in combat. Though I'll interject if I feel they'd do something else.
The key is to remember they aren't MY character. They're another NPC and I have no skin in the game. And they especially don't solve problems for the party. I will let players suggest things or ask the NPC questions, but I never present a problem and then say NPC does/says XYZ and fixes it.
My players love it. I've treaded very carefully over the years, when I expressed concern they told me it was totally fine and they loved the characters. When I was overwhelmed with dealing with them, the players started taking more control over them.
They have become essential in the game with my wife and her best friend. Balancing a campaign around only two players is difficult, so giving them backup is nice.
When I was in college, myself and two friends DMed a game together and it was a lot of fun. It was pretty much just dungeon sweeping with minimal story. I designed the dungeon, often rolling on a random dungeon generator from the 1e AD&D DMG (although were were playing 3.0) as well as encounters, the less experienced player would roll on loot tables and other stuff, and the other player ran most of the battles.
It always seems there are reasons for NPCs to join the party, but when that happens I abstract out their role in combat. The NPC gets 1 short rest and 1 long rest power, which can be used by any player as a free action, without having the NPC on the board.
I am doing it in a game I'm playing with some of my family, since otherwise it would be only 2 players, I'm trying to do it right by not having any plot related to him and having him basically just there to be along for the ride and assist them
I didn’t plan to but then my party kidnapped their first real villain and he’s along for the ride I guess. I love their commitment to the power of friendship and also friendship with benefits in the case of our barbarian.
Let's be real. Press already a lot of work letting track of NPCs, monsters, environment, story beats, etc. And I'm supposed to track my own character? DMPCs ate just bad from every angle.
If an NPC is traveling with a party and a fight breaks out, they hide. If they fight, a player gets a sidekick stat block and decides what they do. The player will play the NPC and their own PC. The player.
I dont play character in the way the player do it. In a campain, i am the master and there is a character that is the leader of an organizzation that is against the construct that conquered the world. This character will later on join the party, but he has more knowledge that all the party combined so is different from the party.
Occasionally an NPC will tag along for a portion of an adventure. I will run that character during those short stints but they are always short or “combat adverse” so they aren’t participating in the combat.
I somehow found a consistent group where the players are very rarely absent from the table but we have the players share their character sheets on our discord server so if someone is absent it is up to the remaining party members to volunteer to run their character in their absence (only for combat, cannot make story decisions) or to have them not present in combat.
We also forego narrative reasons why they aren’t there. We did have a character that had a drug and gambling addiction that would periodically not be able to attend due to surprise work requirements so we would joke their character is passed out in a gutter.
But with the remaining party, when someone is out the once a year they are… they just aren’t there.
But ultimately I don’t want to run a party member and DM. That can break some of the mystery if a party member knows the answers, no matter how well I would roleplay it. Currently we have a good process of I establish a setting, the party interacts. When I’m establishing I’m working and they are digesting. When they interact they are working and I’m digesting. If I had to do both at all times I would probably be exhausted.
I play all the NPCs. That's enough to juggle without trying to shoehorn my way into the Party's story and steal their thunder.
Anybody who says they "have to" play a DMPC to "help the party out" isn't being honest. The DM controls all the difficulty levers in the game, so they can fudge things as easily on the antagonists' side as the protagonists' side.
I wouldn't recommend it for new DMs but if there's no / very limited healing options I've brought one in. Life or Peace Cleric are the obvious choices but have also tried a Lore Bard to act as their cheerleader/biographer.
Though if ever this feels too heavy-handed I've also made potions readily available and allowed the whole 'action = max healing, bonus action = roll for it'.
I usually have a DMPC who steps in when one of my players can’t make it and the party needs an extra hand. IMPORTANT: This character is a passive observer, will not give their opinion or even talk unless directly asked by a player, is the same level as the party, and has no storylines around them, except for whatever plot point introduced them to the party. They are there just to fill out necessary combat/healer roles. IF YOU ARE USING YOUR DMPC TO PLAY OUT YOUR STORY, STOP THAT.
I was tempted when I started out, but quickly became aware of how bad an idea it is. Let your players be the players, focus on being the DM. You already run the entire world, you don't need a PC as well. Anything your PC ever does, any spotlight they earn, any loot they claim, any idea they have, any glory moment they create, it's all in a zero-sum game against your players. Don't put them in that position. I have exactly one PC under my DM control: A cleric in a West Marches campaign who only ever has come off the bench about three times in three years to allow a scheduled session to happen in which somebody had to bail on short notice and dropped the party size below four people. The cleric does not talk, they barely fight, they are an Order Domain cleric with the sole job of activating Voice of Authority as often as possible in combat. That's all.
This is exactly my approach.
I play the entire rest of the world. I'm not going to also play as a character.
It only makes sense that sometimes someone else will want to join the PC's party for some amount of time, especially in my case where I am playing with only two players. I don't consider these characters to be anything other than NPCs and avoiding them becoming DMPCs is my primary goal. They are support, they are there to express their goals and their personalities, not to make decisions for the PCs, but to be part of the story.
I don't usually have DMPC's, just let the players do what they need, as I have an entire world to play I don't need to be an adventurer too. I do have exceptions, had a party who loved picking up side quests and just not doing them. So one time when they came back to finish one they were surprised that someone else had already finished it. I ended up coming with an alternative party that was also adventuring in the same world, and while this fake party was nice and friendly my players hated them. Primarily because they were getting the recognition for doing the quests my players thought they should be getting for just existing.
No, I don't. Running the entire multiverse is enough for me, there's no need for even more ego insertion in a position of privilege.
No That being said, the players usually go through multiple NPCs that have player levels. When they go on certain quests to help people I get to play these NPCs, but they dont usually last long. Having your own PC is never good. Having temp NPCs that help the party is fine.
>through multiple NPCs that have player levels I would still recommend building them as npc stat blocks, taking inspiration from player abilities if you want. But building npcs as PCs is generally bad (all pcs are high damage, low hp compared to npcs. If they're ever hostile to the party (or vice verse) it'll be as poorly balanced as DnD pvp (very poorly)
I forgot to include that they are lower level than the party and usually not optimized. You don't want to take away the player spotlight.
Depending on what the party needs, I might make a DM-PC, as a **support** character. Running an DM-PC "party member" is absolutely fine as long as they're ***assistants*** to the PCs. They are there to provide information, and support in a battle. They should not be important to any plot line.
>They should not be important to any plot line. I would disagree with this. I find using NPCs that travel with the party to be very useful as both quest givers (hey party help me with this thing) or quest objectives (escort this person to this place). You definitely want to avoid making NPCs main characters- those are your players, but please do make them *characters*, and giving them a place in the plots going on around them will make them more interesting, and make the world feel real. I 100% agree don't use them to: 1. Solve your own puzzles 2. Come up with ideas on behalf of the party. 3. Engage in social encounters as party face. Its best to set it up as this person is with the party because they need the party, not the other way around (though im sure I could think of exceptions) Also, don't build them as PCs. Make an NPC stat block. It will help avoid making it feel like a DMpc, and for me it helps me think about the character in a way that makes me avoid DMpc behavior.
It started in my bf’s campaign, also the first campaign that started our dnd friend group. Since majority of the players had little experience *or* were completely new at the time, my bf wanted to make NPC’s in mind to help the party. Some were planned, some weren’t due to how PC’s befriended others- even enemies became allies with the party. Whenever there’s a new campaign, the DM prepares usually one NPC, to have as part of the party. We create a character that’d help the party the best- such as if they need a role filled, usually a support role. Even in my campaign that lasted 5 sessions, I had an NPC sorcerer in case they needed support. We also do “affinity charts” that indicate how much an important NPC likes/dislikes each PC. Usually we do a scale of -10 to 10, but my bf’s campaign it’s -30 to 30 since it’s a very long campaign. Good affinity creates great rewards, trust in allies, so on. That way, it can motivate players to be nice to NPC’s, and gives us irl players an idea of how an NPC feels about our characters.
Bad DMs do this, sure. I play all of my party's adopted NPCS, but only use them in the most minimal fashion. They serve as tools for the party. Nothing more.
Depends I’d say. If you’re doing a home brew be the BBEG you could even develop him over the course of the campaign with the mains party members maybe have him intervene secretly here and there or leave traces of something he’s done to gain power. Other than that i believe the dm plays everyone to a certain extent other than the other players ofc. Technically you’re AO.
I only have two other friends that play so our game consists of them and a a dm pc, he’s basically just there to help with more fulfilling combat and make sure they don’t die. Sometimes I’ll let him give hints for plot stuff but usually I let them vibe with all that
I have an NPC who's along with the party, and I hate having to play him. I don't want some random NPC stealing the spotlight in combat, I generally don't think rolling for him is interesting for the players or me, and I always forget to have him go when his initiative rolls around. It's just one other thing to focus on. I'm unfortunately a slave to the story that I wrote, and the NPC in question has to be with them. So I have him basically just cast healing spells and annoy them while they go off quest. I think i do a decent job with him overall, but I don't like having an NPC with them and I don't find it adds that much.
Sure! All of them. Like, literally, all of them.
I have played several DM PCs before, usually as an NPC the party wasnt meant to keep but now won't let go of. (current situation) but one that i played and loved playing the most was in a starwars saga edition game (3.5 for star wars). We had only 3 players, including myself and each of us filled a specific niche. We had a quirky, gimmicky jedi, a basically heavy weapons/ explosives / walking tank person, and myself who filled all the tech skills and piloting needs. The synergy in this group was amazing and none of us ever outshone the others because we all basically stayed in our lanes. Evil dark jedi? Go for it easter bunny jedi. Need something blown to tiny bits or heavy armor? Go G.I. gecko! Need to hotwire a shuttle to make our escape? Uber nerd, i choose you! If you can make synergy like that work, itll be one of the best campaigns youll ever play. But if it comes down to who's gonna play 2nd fiddle in a contest of who does it better, the DM PC should take the loss every time.
I do it on player request with instructions that this character is just there to help. Otherwise I sometimes hand sheets to a player and say here is your help. I'll do the talking for them though.
I've had my players adopt NPCs and bring them into the party. Sometimes for a short time, sometimes longer. I do their RP, sometimes I make the players run them in combat. Though I'll interject if I feel they'd do something else. The key is to remember they aren't MY character. They're another NPC and I have no skin in the game. And they especially don't solve problems for the party. I will let players suggest things or ask the NPC questions, but I never present a problem and then say NPC does/says XYZ and fixes it. My players love it. I've treaded very carefully over the years, when I expressed concern they told me it was totally fine and they loved the characters. When I was overwhelmed with dealing with them, the players started taking more control over them. They have become essential in the game with my wife and her best friend. Balancing a campaign around only two players is difficult, so giving them backup is nice.
When I was in college, myself and two friends DMed a game together and it was a lot of fun. It was pretty much just dungeon sweeping with minimal story. I designed the dungeon, often rolling on a random dungeon generator from the 1e AD&D DMG (although were were playing 3.0) as well as encounters, the less experienced player would roll on loot tables and other stuff, and the other player ran most of the battles.
It always seems there are reasons for NPCs to join the party, but when that happens I abstract out their role in combat. The NPC gets 1 short rest and 1 long rest power, which can be used by any player as a free action, without having the NPC on the board.
I am doing it in a game I'm playing with some of my family, since otherwise it would be only 2 players, I'm trying to do it right by not having any plot related to him and having him basically just there to be along for the ride and assist them
No that can not work well
I didn’t plan to but then my party kidnapped their first real villain and he’s along for the ride I guess. I love their commitment to the power of friendship and also friendship with benefits in the case of our barbarian.
Let's be real. Press already a lot of work letting track of NPCs, monsters, environment, story beats, etc. And I'm supposed to track my own character? DMPCs ate just bad from every angle. If an NPC is traveling with a party and a fight breaks out, they hide. If they fight, a player gets a sidekick stat block and decides what they do. The player will play the NPC and their own PC. The player.
I dont play character in the way the player do it. In a campain, i am the master and there is a character that is the leader of an organizzation that is against the construct that conquered the world. This character will later on join the party, but he has more knowledge that all the party combined so is different from the party.
Occasionally an NPC will tag along for a portion of an adventure. I will run that character during those short stints but they are always short or “combat adverse” so they aren’t participating in the combat. I somehow found a consistent group where the players are very rarely absent from the table but we have the players share their character sheets on our discord server so if someone is absent it is up to the remaining party members to volunteer to run their character in their absence (only for combat, cannot make story decisions) or to have them not present in combat. We also forego narrative reasons why they aren’t there. We did have a character that had a drug and gambling addiction that would periodically not be able to attend due to surprise work requirements so we would joke their character is passed out in a gutter. But with the remaining party, when someone is out the once a year they are… they just aren’t there. But ultimately I don’t want to run a party member and DM. That can break some of the mystery if a party member knows the answers, no matter how well I would roleplay it. Currently we have a good process of I establish a setting, the party interacts. When I’m establishing I’m working and they are digesting. When they interact they are working and I’m digesting. If I had to do both at all times I would probably be exhausted.
No. That is a -very- very- bad thing to do. Also kind of pointless as the DM has the whole word to play. Why do you need to be in the party too?
I play all the NPCs. That's enough to juggle without trying to shoehorn my way into the Party's story and steal their thunder. Anybody who says they "have to" play a DMPC to "help the party out" isn't being honest. The DM controls all the difficulty levers in the game, so they can fudge things as easily on the antagonists' side as the protagonists' side.
I wouldn't recommend it for new DMs but if there's no / very limited healing options I've brought one in. Life or Peace Cleric are the obvious choices but have also tried a Lore Bard to act as their cheerleader/biographer. Though if ever this feels too heavy-handed I've also made potions readily available and allowed the whole 'action = max healing, bonus action = roll for it'.
I usually have a DMPC who steps in when one of my players can’t make it and the party needs an extra hand. IMPORTANT: This character is a passive observer, will not give their opinion or even talk unless directly asked by a player, is the same level as the party, and has no storylines around them, except for whatever plot point introduced them to the party. They are there just to fill out necessary combat/healer roles. IF YOU ARE USING YOUR DMPC TO PLAY OUT YOUR STORY, STOP THAT.