So what would some of you say to GMs making a PC or if you like an NPC that they play that is helpful to the party but one that sticks with them and shares in xp and loot and anything else?
If you do agree that GMs could play a party member, do you have any tips on how to keep some of the metagaming to a minimum, such as players knowing that this is a GM character and asking every plot twist/enemies weakness and anything like that.
Also should the GM not play or at least try to avoid playing one class over the other due to tipping the balance in some way, and alternatively is there any class or type that works really well?
Thanks again community!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So long as the DMPC doesn't steal the show they're usually fine. Although the good DM's ive known don't like to have one because it's just one more thing to keep up with.
I have done it in shorter games. I find the best class is some sort of utility caster. Bard is great of course, utility sorcerer (while normally a suboptimal choice for players) works great as a GMPC, and of course you can always be nice and be the group's main healer, if not an outright dedicated healer.
I also find that the best race for GMPCs is the half elf. They have a number of feats that boost their allies capabilities rather than their own, and the paragon surge spell from the ARG makes them the ultimate utility casters. In other words put all your character-building focus into making a character who is useful by buffing/aiding their allies, rather than by overshadowing them at anything.
To keep metagaming to a minimum, I dumped Int and made Wis only average, then had the character openly admit she's not the smartest and that decision making should probably be left to the others. On top of that, I created a personality for her, and when I acted, I did so according to what she would do, not what I would do.
So yeah, my favourite GMPC is a half elf utility sorcerer with minor self-confidence issues.
bard! no one ever wants to play them but they are a great character to bring to the table.
Who'se this "no one" you're talking about? I happen to love bards, they're my favourite class!
I highly advise against the temptation to make "DMPC's".
1. As GM, you have to remain objective. You can't do that if you're invested in the party.
2. As GM, you have to allow players their AGENCY (their sense of freedom and the sense that their choices matter, and the consequences are theirs).
Being a DMPC will tempt you to steer the story. This will seem simple and elementary at first, but will soon frustrate you, and rob the players of agency.
If you're doing a round-robin of Gamemastering, have your PC character step in as an NPC from time to time with "information" or some vital part, but for one reason or another, he can't stick around. Let the players have all the XP.
|
I could never try to play a PC and GM at the same time. It's way too easy for me to steal the spotlight from my players and my villains tend to suffer. I do occasionally deploy friendly NPCs to help in combat and whatnot, but never as a regular member of the party.
There's been one too many times where I've gotten two NPCs having a conversation in the same encounter and I've realized that I'm basically talking to myself while the party watches. ^_^
Bards are great as 'buff others' with side ability to heal...they'll never take the spotlight, but they really help the party shine.
Another is 'the healer'. Having a DM toe around with a devoted healer character helps take the rub off characters needing healing, and its mostly out of combat. Add a few buff spells, and basically it frees up the casters to do great stuff while the DMPC just helps the party gogogo.
Probably the best at this would be a Life Oracle...the DM can set spell selection to make it impossible for the character to take the spotlight, shaft Str to make melee combat a meh, and then you have a support character.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a DM in a one-PC campaign, I can tell you what's worked for me in terms of providing NPCs that don't steal the spotlight:
A knowledge monkey (gives hints to the PCs when they really need them)
A High AC character (gives you an out with melee monsters when you miscalculated the strength of the encounter)
A buffing spell caster (makes the PCs look good)
A sorcerer (spontaneous casters are the easiest to work with when you've got your hands full)
Do NOT choose a character with a lot of options in combat: I choose feats that are strictly under the hood: save boosters like Iron Will, dodge, toughness, Weapon Focus, etc. A DMPC's job is to make the PCs shine.
You've failed if you've got a DMPC who's AM BARBARIAN or a GOD WIZARD.
|
I like to avoid any class that can take extra time away from the PCs who should always be the spotlight, not the GMPC. This can often mean spellcasters and classes with animal companions.
I also tend to play GMPCs as indecisive or shy, so they aren't likely to make plot-effecting decisions or sway the party one way or another. They are however great for handing out clues or bringing things to the PCs attention that they may have other wised missed. The phrase "Hey guys! What's this?" is often heard at my table in these cases.
Unless I'm GMing a 3-PC party, I try to shy away from running a GMPC. I have too many other characters to worry about. Plus, I will run the PC of an absent player, and having two such characters gets annoying. Not having a regular GMPC opens up the possibility for the party to have an adventure with a "Special Guest Star" as well.
When I do decide to run a GMPC, I also make the character average-to-below-average in Int and Wis. Usually, the GMPC offers terrible advice, but can serve as a moral prod. ("Hey, guys, I don't think the gods will like it if we murder these prisoners in cold blood.") Having one is also a decent plot device ("The slavers kidnapped Charlie!") Also, the GMPC is a good target for bad guys' immobilizing special abilities in combat-- the party gets hurt without any of the players having to sit out the rest of the encounter. ("Damn! Charlie got petrified again!")
What I don't recommend is players running more than one character. That's a huge challenge even to very experienced RPers.
I have long been against GMPC's in gaming groups. The player party is and should be the games focus and far too many times I have seen DMPC's (even from DM's with only the best intentions) turn into the games focus with the party as their 'helpers' or the DMPC do things that the party cannot do and outshine them, etc.
Also, no matter how hard you try a dm character can and will know things it shouldn't since the DM knows it. It WILL cause problems when the GMPC starts solving the problems the part is supposed to or gives clues away that the DM did not mean to during conversations.
Lastly there is the perceived problem of favoritism, whethere it exists or not. GMPC's will need gold, equipment, experience points and all that has to come out of the players shares OR the GM will need to artificually inflate their take to make sure his personal character is taken care of. In either case it is a no win situation.
Note I am not referring to NPC's, those characters that are part of the story and advcenture that come and go. I am referring to Game Masters running their own characters in their own games, GMPC's, wether they exist from other games or are made up only for theirs. There IS a difference.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Confessions of a repentant DMPC running DM.
Hi, I have been DMing since around 1975 or so. And, like many of you, I used to run DMPCs. Funny, most of the time, when other DM’s did it, I didn’t much care for it, or even actively hated it. But I never said anything about it to my DM. I did complain to my fellow players and once I even stopped showing up for the games.
Then, I got into a conversation with one of my players, and we’d both been playing in another DM’s game, where he ran a DMPC. The other player & I were complaining about this. Then, I thought smugly to myself- “But of course, everyone likes it when *I* run a DMPC…” …then it hit me. No, they didn’t. It was just that I wasn’t obnoxious about it like the guy most of us walked out on.
Then I thought, well, maybe sometimes the party needs another PC (Usually a healer)- then I thought about seeing others introduce a NPC, which was roleplayed by the DM during the introduction, then handed over to the players to run- with the DM stepping in if the players got silly or stupid.
I then thought back about the ONE DM I had where we all loved her DMPCs- then realized her DMPCs never did anything- well maybe healed us after battle or said things like “Hmm, I wonder what the Elvish word for “friend” is?”. Sure, she roleplayed, but the party was always her protector, not the other way around, and during combat or adventuring she did almost nothing. In fact many times we had no idea of what class she was- and of course, it didn’t matter. Her DMPC was just a Macguffin.
I then swore off the bad habit forever. Now, if the party needs another PC, I give them a real NPC- as above, one they run.
I saw it already in this thread I ussually use a spontanous caster if the party doesnt have healing I use an Oracle if the party doesnt have an arcane caster I use a Sorcerer it has worked pretty well so far for the Adventure paths (and they are easy characters so if one of our friends is in town its an easy character to pick up)
Probably the best at this would be a Life Oracle...the DM can set spell selection to make it impossible for the character to take the spotlight, shaft Str to make melee combat a meh, and then you have a support character.
I'm running an Oracle of Life right now as a GMPC in my game and I sort of regret it. While I agree it does a great job of not stealing the spotlight, (my turns go by very quickly and are never flashy) be mindful that it can put the game on easy mode.
We're running through the first part of Rise of the Runelords, which is already a fairly easy adventure path. (At least thus far) The one time I actually got one of the players to drop to negative hit points, he was up and killing things the next round due to my crazy amounts of healing. The few times my players actually succumbed to some ability damage, poof, it was gone. While this isn't such a bad thing, you must be aware that the party now has a means to counter many debilitating situations with ease. You need to step up the difficulty of combat and build combats with your GMPCs likely contributions in mind.
This may require a lot more bad guys to make combat interesting. Or maybe your GMPC separates from the group for some of the combats. Or maybe the enemies focus your Oracle and the healer is down for the combat.
…an interesting idea in and of itself; players don't like being specifically targeted, but you can get around that by doing it to yourself. If you are taken down, this can strike fear in the hearts of the players; something that’s been lacking in my game. What fun is a game if the enemies aren’t the slightest bit scary? The best part is you can incite fear without actually doing anything to the PCs, other than deprive them of their super amazing band-aid. Neat!
Perhaps this will become less of an issue over time, as healing scales poorly with level. (until you hit Heal) Just always endeavor to challenge PCs and fight for the ultimate goal; everyone having fun!
TL;DR: I goofed in adding an Oracle of Life to game with 4-5 PCs in a set adventure path. So be prepared to modify combats to increase the difficulty and hopefully the enjoyment for all players.
|
Sure. They're called DMPCs, and they are usually used to help boost a numbers-challanged party even up. For instance, a friend in our gaming group has a lot of trouble getting to meetings, since he lives far away. That drops out number of guys down to 3, and we have a challange-heavey GM. So he gave us a DMPC.
The best DMPCs are classes that don't steal the spotlight. Buffs and debuffs are the best, and they should be simple. A shield-based fighter (acting as a meatshield without actually hitting for overwhelming damage), or even someone with levels in Stalwart Defender is a good one for a party low on melee combatants and heavy with spellcasters. Bards are good, so long as you stick to buff spells and bardic performance, rather than making them a face or a skill monkey (because you'd essentially end up solving your own challenges and talking to yourself for half the time).
Personally, my favorite DMPC of all time would be a witch. They have little to no combat spells of any kind (and the ones they do have, other classes can make better use of, and they tend to be the suckier battle spells available), and they have no actual combat abilities to speak of, or skills. And they work of Intelligence, not Charisma, so no "DMPC and NPC" conversations, since they don't make good faces. But they have great debuff abilities, decent buff spells, and great battlefield control. The witch gives every other party member a chance to shine without taking any of the sole credit (because a lone witch really can't take care of him/herself, not for all the gold on Golarion). Makes the challenges lower, and lets your PCs feel like they have a balanced party. Plus, witches make great plot hooks, considering how ambiguous the source of their power is, and they can know all sorts of dark secrets that are just juicy plot bait for a clever or spontaneous DM. Seriously, it's like the class was made for the role, or something. Ironically, assuming you have enough players, witches also make good PC characters too, so if a DMPC ever becomes unnecessary, the players might just step in and provide their own backup...
I play in a regular game which only has 4 people. 3 of us take turns at DMing an AP. We usually run a DMPC each time, but only after the PC's are made, and just fill the gap with an average healer or fighter, whatevers needed. There's never any metagaming, in Kingmaker the DMPC became the ruler of our country because no PC wanted to do it. So the DM retired her and just made a new DMPC.
It is my opinion that if a GM needs to add a GMPC to the party, he is better served by correcting the inequalities in the games adventure that require the GMPC to begin with.
Just because an AP exists does not mean you cannot tweak it for the party your running. In fact IMO you ALWAYS should tweak published material for the group makeup your running to make sure all players have a chance to shine and are engaged in the game and story.
My general rule, personally, is to run my PC as 1-2 levels lower than the rest of the party and to make sure if fills some gap. A couple levels lower means that you are not going to outshine the PCs.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you take anything away from all this, it should be that a DMPC, like many other facets of DM'ing, is a tool, and like all DM tools, it can be improperly used.
Now, that's not to say that there is a right and a wrong way to use a DMPC, but rather that the tool needs to be used in the right situations, and you should always have the tool as an option should a situation in which it can be used arise.
Each DM should be flexible enough to know when and when not to use one of his tools, but we'll all make mistakes. The thing to remember is that it isn't the tool's fault you messed up, it's your own, and you never see a repairman throw away a perfectly good wrench when a clamp was what was needed. He just puts it on the shelf for when he does need it, and picks the right tool.
bard! no one ever wants to play them but they are a great character to bring to the table.
I want to play mine
On the topic of targetting yourself:
I used to DM my brother and friends, and play a DMPC. My character would always be volunteered to open doors and chests and walk down corridors, because I wouldn't kill my characters now, would I?
So, I made a save in an open roll, failed it, and squashed my character.
The looks I got were priceless. They were very quick to raise my character, but they understood then that I wasn't going to pull any punches thereafter, and I didn't.
And we all had a lot more fun for it. Did I still annoy them at times? yeah, but this was 1E, and you could be more forgiving, and we generally only had 2-3 players, and everyone played multiples. I just understood how to run both sides of things, and some of the epic battles we had where I'm trying to figure out how to beat them, and letting them figure out where my characters should do and go to support things, were pretty cool.
Now, open table, DMPC favored over PC's? Yeah, I'd get miffed like everyone else. Not supposed to steal the spotlight. And my bro and friends always did like it when they got to keep all the loot and fight all the monsters.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I often play a DMPC, seeing as that my usual group consists of only 2-3 other people most times.
I have some helpful guidelines:
1.) Keep your optimization low. i.e. if playing a tier 1 or 2 class, don't optimize much, if playing a martial class, feel free. Each groups optimization level is different, but this works for my group. An optimized rogue doesn't steal much spotlight... unlike an optimized Cleric.
2.) If you can, avoid rolling for your DMPC. Sure, he may be present in the battles, sure, he might be present for negotiations... But don't sit there and roll out all of his attacks against the mooks.
3.) Have your DMPC do something else during the big bad boss fight. Let the PC's kill the BBEG and save the day... let your DMPC help but holding off minions at the same time, or contribute some other way. Only use your DMPC in a boss fight if they look to be in trouble.
4.) if it looks like one of your PC's is in trouble, use your DMPC! Don't be afraid of letting your DMPC die for a PC... DMPC's are a dime a dozen, and the story isn't REALLY about them anyway.
5.) Fill a niche. That's generally why you've got a DMPC, because your group is too small, or for some other reason, you are filling a niche that your players aren't. (For example, my group is guaranteed to have a caster and a martial damage dealer... sometimes they need a skillmonkey or another warrior type.)
6.) Let the PC's figure things out in the story... only use your DMPC to point out details that the PC's didn't notice for some reason. For Example: don't let the DMPC discover why the local Baron is only seen at night (he's a vampire)... Just have the DMPC point at they only see him at night. Let the party figure the rest out. (its something obvious, but the PC's didnt notice/remember from the last session. You aren't railroading them, merely providing a hint they didn't notice the significance of/forgot in the last week.)
Anyway, yeah. My general guidelines for DMPC's. There are a lot of them, but runnign a DMPC is a difficult balancing act that has taken me many years to get right.
Hope this helps!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to see a game where there was a DMPC that worked. I have met several DMs who say it is ok in their game. Then you talk with the players and the players will tell you it does not work.
I have DMed for almost 35 years and never have I needed to play a PC. It is not a good idea at all and is not needed. If you, as the DM, believe an additional PC is needed allow one of the players to drive the additional PC.
If you take anything away from all this, it should be that a DMPC, like many other facets of DM'ing, is a tool, and like all DM tools, it can be improperly used.
Now, that's not to say that there is a right and a wrong way to use a DMPC, but rather that the tool needs to be used in the right situations, and you should always have the tool as an option should a situation in which it can be used arise.
Each DM should be flexible enough to know when and when not to use one of his tools, but we'll all make mistakes. The thing to remember is that it isn't the tool's fault you messed up, it's your own, and you never see a repairman throw away a perfectly good wrench when a clamp was what was needed. He just puts it on the shelf for when he does need it, and picks the right tool.
True. But do note that just about every pro-DMPC post is from a DMPC running DM. Not a player in a campaign where the DM runs a DMPC. Interesting, eh?
I was in denial. Maybe some others here are too.
|
I've done it. I still don't think it's a good idea, though.
The only reason I'd run a DMPC is when the party is lacking some important capability vital to the success of the plot. But filling that void with a DMPC is often unsatisfactory. The idea is for the party to come up with the solution to a challenge. If the DMPC is anything other than a provider of a simple passive activity, there's a problem. If the DMPC is the only one who can succeed at a particular activity, it boils down to the GM making a roll with no player involvement, and the fate of the whole mission (or at least this part of it) depends on that roll. That's about as satisfactory as a railroad plot line.
From the other side of the fence: I've been in a very small party (two players, at one point) running in a Paizo adventure path (Jade Regent). There are a lot of NPCs available there, so we generally supplemented the cast with a judicious selection from those available. But when you've lost both your major damage dealer and the group's only arcane caster there's only so much you can do. We were actually just about to try doubling up, and having each of the two players run two characters, when we got another player. While he vanished again after a few weeks we had found another one, and limped along with three for a while. We were still light on attack strength, though, so the DM threw in a DMPC barbarian as well (and there were still NPCs available occasionally). That worked because the DMPC was fairly one-dimensional; she didn't contribute to the overall mission planning, she just charged up to things and hit them. If they were still standing next round she hit them again. Eventually more players joined the group, and so we were able to retire the GMPC, and leave the NPCs off the mission roster. From a player perspective that seemed to work considerably better (although sometimes I think the old barbarian was less trouble than the current one ...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. But do note that just about every pro-DMPC post is from a DMPC running DM. Not a player in a campaign where the DM runs a DMPC. Interesting, eh?
I was in denial. Maybe some others here are too.
I play in a group of three people. Each of us run our own campaigns. I actually rather enjoy the DMPCs the other guys run. So far, each of them has kept situations to a 40-40-20% contribution ratio, with the DMPCs contributing the 20% and filling in gaps in the player group. So I'm certainly cool with it.
In my own campaigns, we don't use XP, so there's no need to split that. I keep a stable of NPCs that are more or less cohort level PCs that come along with the party(2 PCs and their cohorts) when appropriate to the story. They have, on occasion, outshined a cohort. And one time I had to pull a "let's get dangerous" full power use of the character when the players rolled nothing above a three multiple turns in a row. But for the most part, they're mostly there to soak up a little damage, either buff the party or put out a little of their own damage and occasionally spot a hint the party overlooked.
So, I think my running of "DMPCs" is going well, but I know I am certainly cool with the ones my friends run.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. But do note that just about every pro-DMPC post is from a DMPC running DM. Not a player in a campaign where the DM runs a DMPC. Interesting, eh?
I was in denial. Maybe some others here are too.
I'll speak up as one of those players in a game with a GMPC (a 3.5 game). I really enjoyed that my GM was willing to step up to help out and provide a scout (something my group severely lacked at the time) character. He always made sure to avoid the spotlight, but kept the character as a part of the group.
In another game (HERO, this time), I had a different GM who had a GMPC. I hated his GMPC, because he always took the spotlight, and made myself and the other player feel useless.
And as far as my players go, they were genuinely sad when I decided that my GMPC was no longer necessary, and removed her from the campaign (well, dropped her from active adventuring and made her an NPC in one of the big cities). Is it possible that they were lying to me about enjoying having my GMPC in the game? Sure. But they've told me when they disliked other aspects of my campaign, so I'm inclined to trust them on the matter.
So, yeah, a GMPC can either ruin a game, or improve it significantly, the same as any other campaign tool. You just have to make sure your players are open and honest about whether they like your GMPC or not to make sure that it's okay to have it there. If they'd prefer to go without the GMPC? Well, it's time to make the sacrifice, and take the GMPC out. But if they're okay with it? Full steam ahead, captain.
bard! no one ever wants to play them but they are a great character to bring to the table.
+1
I would make him a shy guy who only tells what he knows when asked as not to overshadow other PCs with knowledge skills.
Give him the flagbearer feat for buffing and the trait two world magic (ray of frost) so he can throw rays of frost (which are buffed by inspire courage and flagbearer) to do something in addition to buffing when his normal spells run out.
I might work in NPC's that help out but they don't join the party full time, leveling up and taking a full share of treasure and such.
I only run NPCs, never PCs, event though they can be party members for a while. When I do it has often been a very specialized role and usually plain weaker than the PCs unless the NPC was hiding it's true potential for some reason.
I used a bard, though he was just so-so in combat he had the ability to inspire the party but mostly he was there to supply the party with connections among the aristocracy. He had a fancy flaming sword but when it got down to it he just wasn't that impressive in combat.
I find NPC classes work fine for this though they are often either hiring the PCs or being hired themselves. The sage (expert), the scout(expert), the healer (adept), the hired sword (warrior) often I mix them with a few levels in PC classes.
Rarely I have them hook up with a character that shares in the loot like a PC, a greedy dwarven fighter which got his hands on a treasure map looking for capable hired hands, usually they are not optimized though, the dwarven fighter might have extremely high constitution rather than strength and some unusual fun feats, they usually leave after the adventure though.
I love playing bards.
I run one DMPC in my online game, as I took over the game because I liked my character...
I will only run a DMPC in a low PC game (except my PbP). No point in making a 5th or 6th character as they bump up the CR of the encounters, making it more likely to kill one of the PCs.
I have 3 tales that I'd like to tell, the first of a GMPC gone wrong. The second of a GMPC that was unplanned, and the third of GMPC who was loved.
It was my first time playing D&D and there were 3 of us, including the DM. I was getting my character introduced to the game, and as I watched them get to a point where they could meet me. The other PC was annoyed with the GMPC in and out of game so he was running away. I was running from other shenanagins gone wrong but we both ended up being teleported to the middle of nowhere. Both of us roleplayed it pretty well I thought and we set off mildly distrustful of each other. The two of us had to work our asses off to make our characters strong enough to compete with the GMPC who was Overpowered to say the last.
We ended up meeting up with him again and he took a less leadership role. He sat back and let us play and joined us to fight off hordes of monsters because I was an assassin and the other PC was a Sorcerer. The GMPC was a Fighter that was broken up the wazoo. We ended up having a good game but the GM had to tone his role down a lot.
I was playing a game with one of my best friends. He played a very Homebrew game that was really quite fun. But we ended up saving a Prisoner at a place we were invading and he was an orcish blacksmiths assistant. Grok became legen, wait for it...Dary. He was nothing until, I proposed to introduce him to my god who cleansed people by fire and gave my character a new life. So he did the same to Grok and little Grok became a Cleric of Ilmasitor. He didn't do a whole lot, and as a matter in fact our GM forgot about him most of the time. It was us who rolled his initiative and told him what to do in combat becuase he was not very bright. I asked him to craft a few things for me, which turned out terrible but it was fun. Grok belonged with us and we loved him. If he had done anymore we might have gotten annoyed but the GM often forgot he was in combat for the first few rounds. He healed us and offered a sort of comic relief sometimes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use the 3.5 Miniatures Handbook Healer class.
No combat ability, some extra healing to keep the party going, and a voice to advise the party when they are stumped and need some direction.
The only time I ever worried about overshadowing the party was a fight against a dracolich, where the prepared Heal spells dealt a large amount of damage. However, the party was hard pressed and grateful for the assist. Undead encounters are the only ones I need to watch out for, and the danger of melee makes up for the power.
The only thing you need to remember is that the DMPC should not tell the party what to do. Suggest and advise, never lead, and sometimes be wrong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True. But do note that just about every pro-DMPC post is from a DMPC running DM. Not a player in a campaign where the DM runs a DMPC. Interesting, eh?I was in denial. Maybe some others here are too.
Actually, my wife and I tend to play solo games, mostly because she has a very specific playstyle and doesn't like playing in large groups because it's so time consuming. She has told me straight, a number of times, that sometimes she hates DMPC's, and sometimes she loves them. Ironically enough, she hates incompetent or otherwise useless ones (dedicated healer/buffers/non-combat oriented characters), and loves having optimized companions. She hates jerks and super confident ones, and loves humble/kind ones.
Keep in mind, this isn't my interpretation. This is straight out of her mouth.
In my group my brother and I trade off DMing modules and we also run each other's characters when the other is DMing. Works very well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are a couple of situations where a DMPC can be helpful to the overall game experience. For example, if the party is very small, then a DMPC can make the party more viable while allowing the players to focus on their character. Sometimes it is beneficial to the party to have a "guide" or "mentor" that helps the party follow the storyline without being overtly railroaded. Finally a DMPC can be necessary for certain storyline situations (such as an ultimate betrayal, or a BBEG spy in the party).
I won't go so far as to say that it is "generally a bad idea" to have a DMPC because I think there are situations where it's a good idea. But it is something that needs to be done carefully by a GM who is aware of the dangers of metagaming, railroading or overshadowing the game play of the players' characters.
There are options to most situations where DMPCs are introduced that don't require the GM running a character in the party. Gestalt characters can provide more party versatility without increasing the party size. PCs can take the "leadership" feat to provide support capabilities for the party. Highly experienced players can run two characters simultaneously.
I have been in many campaigns where I ran two (or even three) characters simultaneously. One of the most fun and challenging campaigns I ever went through was one where I played an illusionist and ranger simultaneously. This was back in AD&D days. That campaign went from level 1 to level 14 and every session was a dual-character session. I felt I was able to run both characters, develop their unique personalities and manage their abilities both inside and outside of combat perfectly well. I would much prefer a player run two characters than have the GM try to run the campaign and run a PC simultaneously.
I've GMed with my PC in the party. Had game were we would switch out GMs at the end of each story usually lasting 1 to 2 levels. So each player end up being the GM at least once with PC in the party.
...it is something that needs to be done carefully by a GM who is aware of the dangers of metagaming, railroading or overshadowing the game play of the players' characters...
Bold emphasis mine.
This is the biggest concern I usually have. It is very easy for the GM to make a character optimally designed for the campaign. Or to give out loot that is tailor made for his character. Then the GMPC makes all the PC's feel like the comic sidekick.{ EX: I once saw a DMPC archer ranger that just happened to have all the favored enemies that made up most of the module. There also seemed to be bundles of the correct X bane arrows all over the place. }
However, even if the GM manages to avoid any of that; the players might think he's doing it even when he is not.
{ In the above example, the GM actually didn't metagame anything at all. The same begining info that all the players got told them what 3 races would be most of the enemies. The arrows were already in the module because it kind of revolved around an archery tournament. The wording of the module really assumed at least 1 player would be running and archer ranger. But none of the players did. So it seemed like the GM was running for his GMPC but he really wasn't. }
The times I've seen it work best is if the GM makes a support character that is significantly underpowered or at least not a good design for that campaign.
{ EX: Currently our GM has a witch traveling with the group. I think the witch is actually a level higher than us but is very non-optimized. She has the healing hex so can help out with our hps a little, but not enough to really heal up the group. Only has 1 offensive spell (lightning bolt) that won't even work against some of the things we've encountered. Has several skills that none of us usually take, like knowledge nobility. And a craft or profession skill that has been somewhat useful on a couple of occasions. But the GM can use the witch to remind us of something we have forgotten or hint that something we are considering is hideously dangerous. }
I have actually run several gmpc's and learned a few things from them. You should shy away from raw damage dealers, the closest you want to this is some sort of bodyguard tank so that your not contantly killing things the other pc's want to kill. Highly time consuming characters of any kind just end up getting in the way, it's bad enough when a player does it, but when a GM does it with "the help" it's just insane.
I actually recently started a game where the GMPC running around with the group is one of the BBEG's in the campaign and every now and then comes up with a sidequest that though profitable, helps him much more than anyone else. He's a drow bard that the party simply believes is an elf because of a couple handy magic items and a REALLY high bluff score =). I highly expect game books to be thrown at my head when I finally get around to revealing his true nature and that of these little "sidetrips" that he's been guiding them on to elevate his status and recruit more monsters and other drow into his mercenary band.
Asta
PSY
|
|
I have an NPC in the game that the partied hired as a spy. I use him whenever the PC's are stuck or if they need plot hooks. He stays on their ship most of the time and they pay him to look for clues on stuff they wish to investigate. They love him and treat him like he was in the party most of the time. He is a rouge/master spy, and he's seen combat once (2 of my 4 players were absent and they still wanted to play.) and was quite underwhelming.
It gets them something to go off of, and works really well with how big a world I run. (Multiple continents all fleshed out with their own things) He is the closest thing I would come to using a DMPC. Because if you are doing a DMPC right, then it is just an NPC that the party likes to keep around.
Due to low player numbers I've pretty much always done this, and I've never had a Player complain. Just make sure not to dominate in any way.
Definitely avoid "optimizing" or otherwise making the NPC awesome. You can use it to fill in holes in the party, but try not to make it so the NPC is "smarter" than the PCs, otherwise he/she ends up solving all your riddles and traps.
Buffing characters are good choices, but straight up combat support is not bad either.
The most common DMPC character I've played is a generic battle-cleric which can wade into melee to absorb some damage, and who can heal at need and who provides buffs and utility spells. I tend to play them as if they have taken a vow of silence or as if they are dumb as a rock. That seems to work very well. They give the party a very big survivability boost but most of their contributions are hidden behind the player characters actions and so the players never feel like they are being upstaged.