What do you think about a DM joining a group of players and making his own player character?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the DM/GM/Storyteller/etc. has plenty of characters to play already, and I've rarely seen a DM PC handled well.
Depends on the DM, the group, and the character.
Some DM's run a DMPC and end up railroading the party with it.
Some don't.
Some groups need or would appreciate the help of a DMPC.
Some won't.
Some DMPC's steal the show with abilities "he/she would just have".
Some don't.
I think as long as the players don't mind, and the DM remembers not to let his DMPC's actions overshadow the PC's actions, it can work.
Look up the thread called "Worst game ever." There's some horror stories there about when it doesn't work.
If the DM makes sure his DMPC is at the same level, or actually weaker than the rest of the group it can work. Using it to railroad the group is still possible and should be avoided.
Making the DMPC way stronger than anyone else in the party is a sure recipe for desaster though.
I play in a Star Wars game where the GM has a DMPC, and usually that one keeps in the background, lends support if asked for it, but usually lets others hog the spotlight. Works quite well.
|
I have played in games where there was 8 people, but 3 of those 8 people where DMs, same story, Just one DM one week, the next week another DM.
We each had are characters, and WE NPCed are PCs when it was are turn to dm.
How we did it is they stayed in the background, and only did things if the PCs out of character told me to make him/her do that. And I would only do that if i thought it was in my character persona. But most of the time the PCs did it them selves.
One example of them asking my character to do something was my character was a social character, and had all the social skills, so they used her to talk, but i made them say what she said and roll for her even...
It was interesting seeing how they vied her.
Mostly it was the groups 'npc' Or chorhart, but i still could veto any decion they made, since it was 'my PC'
|
|
I have played in games where there was 8 people, but 3 of those 8 people where DMs, same story, Just one DM one week, the next week another DM.
We each had are characters, and WE NPCed are PCs when it was are turn to dm.
How we did it is they stayed in the background, and only did things if the PCs out of character told me to make him/her do that. And I would only do that if i thought it was in my character persona. But most of the time the PCs did it them selves.
One example of them asking my character to do something was my character was a social character, and had all the social skills, so they used her to talk, but i made them say what she said and roll for her even...
It was interesting seeing how they vied her.
Mostly it was the groups 'npc' Or chorhart, but i still could veto any decion they made, since it was 'my PC'
This is one of three ways I think its acceptable to have a GM PC. The other two are comic relief, or as a red shirt to get killed gruesomely by the BBEG to reinforce just how scary they are.
In short, if you are behind the screen, you don't belong as a regular member of your group's party.
I've really only had a DMPC as a cleric to help prevent a TPK when the dice were rolling good for me, yet poorly for my players.
He wouldn't help the party if they were to wipe for being careless or idiots, but sometimes the dice have a bad karma night and everyone seems to be drawing critical fumble cards.
If the DM brings in their PC to 'hang' with the party with a vorpal sword +100 and unlimited stats, the game will quickly turn into DM-Theatre and IMHO they really shouldn't be DM'ing.
|
|
Nothing irritates most players more than Deus ex Machina using the DM PC. If you can refrain from that and being obnoxious or more powerful than the rest of the party, then most of the major issues are avoided. Still, I would rather have the party rely on potions and wands than have a "party bandaid" along for the ride. Just my 2cp...
Generally speaking, I think DMPCs are a bad idea. Sometimes they can be used to benefit the party, by filling a vital role that nobody in the group wants to play (healer is one example). However, alot of times they end up dominating the PCs. I play in a Pathfinder campaign and I GM a Warhammer 40K: Deathwatch campaign, and I have never used a DMPC as a GM. I feel they take the spotlight away from the PCs, where it should be.
From personal experience, here are a few examples of DMPCs. One is done well, the other done poorly.
GM #1 (Bad Example): GM #1 always uses DMPCs in his groups, no matter what the campaign is. His DMPCs are always overbearing, opinionated, dominating and obnoxious, and generally are violently hated by the rest of the group.
GM #2 (Good example): GM #2 uses his DMPC to fill a role in the group that is missing. His DMPCs are without any opinions or ideas, take a back seat and let the PCs do the driving, and they usually have pleasant personalities as well.
GM #3 (Me): GM #3 hates playing regular DMPCs with a passion, and feels that the PCs should have the spotlight fixed on them at all times.
GM styles 2 and 3 work well with most groups, GM style 1 will kill alot of campaigns.
I've had characters I've run as a DM before that have joined with the party for one reason or another. They're called NPCs, because they're run by the DM, not by a player.
In our group there is usually one NPC to round out the party.
This NPC is only mildly controled by the DM. His or her character sheet is handed to one of the players, who controls the character in combat and in most of the interactions (although the NPC is always a low profile character in interactions).
The DM takes over the NPC occansionally to launch some ideas the group is missing or to moderately steer the group in a certain direction if the road ahead is unclear.
There are some advantages to this NPC joining the party:
- it can fill out weak spots in the party (at the moment we have three players and we're missing a tank, so our DM gave us a tank NPC;
- the NPC can tie in to certain plot points and join the party for a limited period of time, which makes the party more involved;
- the NPC can be used for dramatic effect (e.g. in the last campaign I DM'ed, an NPC joined the party for some time - even developed a love interest with one of the PCs - and was then brutally killed which greatly enhanced party involvement in the plot);
- as I already pointed out, the NPC can occasionally be used by the DM to launch ideas, although these occasions are very rare;
- when we have very lengthy in-party-discussions, the NPC can give the DM an opportunity to participate a bit, instead of just sitting by and listening for 2 hours on end. The DM wants to have some fun too during his roleplay evening
I'm actually curious as to what opinions you might hold on what I'd consider something of a middle ground. I've just started a Carrion Crown game for a few friends of mine, but with only two PCs, who are playing gestalt characters. I'm hoping this will help to abate some of the loss that comes with 2 bodies, but the action economy is still going to be a problem, so I'm planning on using select helpful NPCs (Kendra, Quinzly, Horace Croon, being a few) as DMNPCs which will (no more than one at a time) accompany them into dungeons and whatnot. Thoughts on this practice?
Like everyone said, DMPCs have the potential to be real bad. Many "worst game ever" stories hinge on them. Mostly because they are a clear window to bad GMs.
I like to have them in the party, not just to fill missing roles (which they do a good job at) but to inject some common sense. When the quiet guy in the back who almost never chimes in spouts "I think that's a bad idea, we'll all get killed" you might want to listen. Much better then a TPK because the PCs decided to do something recklessly stupid, or forgot a major clue/plot point.
The common sense check can also be performed by animal companions/familiars, but not every group has those. It's nice to have a voice in the party in case they need a nudge.
|
If you're talking about going on all the adventures with them and standing in the front lines, then I'd recommend against it.
If you need to fill in the party a bit, then it could work, but just make sure to build it sub-optimally and stop a level or so short of the PC's.
Remember, everything you as the GM control exists solely to make telling the story more fun. You're not intended to enjoy the story yourself. You're the guy telling it. Your satisfaction is supposed to come from a job well done.
I think it is required at some stages to move the plot along; introduce new plots and story threads and give the pc more play options.
The type npc's in player group I dont really like; unless they are hirelings, which almost never occurs, is the stop gap npc. I dont like cookie cutter groups, that is where someone has to play the fighter; someone the mage; someone the cleric; and so on. Some people think this is the only way to go so sometimes gm's end up playing the missing link; so to speak.
Take my PBP game, Valgrymr's two. There is an npc in the party called Mox. He followed a pc from one continent to another to join the pc in invading a goblin lair. Seems outragous; a goblin joining a dwarf to invade a goblin infested dwarven hold, but learn the whole story and it makes perfect sense. I have been running my "at the table" game for about 30 years; so have had many pc's do many things; Mox is from a goblin tribe that a pc mixed with wererats and they all worship this pc; so this older more powerful pc send this npc to help and to dominate the other goblins; hey; maybe the pc can get more followers. it is even more complex than that really, this is a very simplified version, but basically; mox is not really any tuffer than other party members; speaks goblin and has a good sense of smell and has his own purpose and desires. He is serving his pc "goddess" from another group. So the overall story of each of my groups all fit together in the worlds activities. Each of my pc groups, I have about 4 , get chances to interact with the activities of other groups from time to time. NPC sometimes help facilitate this ,especially guys like Mox; who is a champion of his own tribe; doing another PC's bidding; he adds color and humor to the party.
Power is overated by players; all players seem to always want to live in a vaccum unto themselves and be the biggest baddest things in the universe; this is silly. Some npc will be weaker than you or tuffer than you. As you level; this percentage will change. For me, nothing is more important than the story; why are you doing what your doing. That is true if I am playing or Gming. Mostly I play/run campaigns; not just a single dungeon adventure. If your playing a stand alone adventure; your totally right that all players or npc players should be the same power level. But in a campaign; that is almost never true, and you never know the truth either; maybe some guy is just faking it; a con artist, pretending to be something he isnt.
If by a npc joining the party to run and dominate the party; I certainly agree that should not be done. Try to understand also a gm's frustration of a party that just sits there and seems listless and undecisive; then it is very very tempting for any gm to throw in a npc just to point them in a direction; any direction. Hehe; I had a gm once, Neff, who used to chase us with a pack of monsters everywhere to keep us going; we couldnt stop to long cause we had to stay in front of this pack of monsters; hehe, so I guess there is many ways to handle it.
Bad idea. If the party needs a NPC to round things out, then give the NPC to the players to run as a henchman.
I ran a DMPC once but ended up killing off my character after a couple of levels.
What do you think about a DM joining a group of players and making his own player character?
Ask yourself: would you feel comfortable if your DMPC gets killed? Would you feel comfortable to cede control of the DMPC to a player?
If you answer both questions with yes, then you still shouldn't make a DMPC. If you really need someone to help the party, create an NPC and give it to the player who's turns are the shortest.
What do you think about a DM joining a group of players and making his own player character?
I would say more often than not, it's not a great idea---the PCs are the protagonists of the story. Whether in over their heads or gleefully trouncing the enemy, it's their role to overcome the odds and shine, without constant NPC glorystealing. Many GMs (myself included *sigh*) have included GMPCs in games I've played and it's seldom ended well---usually they become a distraction for the GM who should be focusing on playing the villains and support NPCs, and frustrating for the players who will by design never know what is going on as much as their "fellow party member" does, and it's frustrating and disheartening.
That said, there are times when it makes sense for an NPC to act alongside the party for a certain period of time. Maybe they are traveling together, such as they hired a guide, or are escorting someone. But that character is in most cases not desirably in the party constantly. When I have such "escort" NPCs, I usually make them lower level than the party, or higher level but very specialized/there with the abilities they have for a specific purpose. Guides are easy because you can make a lowish level ranger or even expert with the right set of abilities that can fill their role without stepping on the toes of the party.
I've at times been in an odd situation where I've had the PCs "adopt" an NPC and want to take them along--when I have no interest in playing them on the long term (as Lilith above notes, I've got enough characters to track). However, if it was cool with the party and particularly their idea to have an NPC along with them--even of equivalent level--it might be alright if the GM can handle it. (In those cases, me, I usually kept them with the party awhile, but tended to separate them at points to make sure the party could focus on pushing the plot forward while I could focus on antagonists, if not tried to get rid of them outright at a point where it made sense in the story (and making it clear to the players that I felt overwhelmed continually playing that NPC and that I wasn't trying to take their friend away just to be mean; they've normally been quite understanding)).
What do you think about a DM joining a group of players and making his own player character?
Ask yourself: would you feel comfortable if your DMPC gets killed? Would you feel comfortable to cede control of the DMPC to a player?
If you answer both questions with yes, then you still shouldn't make a DMPC. If you really need someone to help the party, create an NPC and give it to the player who's turns are the shortest.
Also if you answer the first question with "no" you shouldn't do it. Because the threat that you make "your" PC stronger than the others so it survives, or fudge rolls, or have enemies never attack him even if it makes sense is just too great.
And if you're ok with it, then it's more an NPC that joined the party than a DMPC anyway.
I wouldn't even say it's important to give control to the players. It's a NON-PC after all :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will often include an NPC ally (what some might call a DMPC) with the party.
Most of the time I do this is because the group feels like they need a certain type of character to fill a role, but nobody wants to play it (healer is the most common). Now I know they party can do with out it, finding other ways around it, but the group wants one. Of course, I could just let the group work it out, but I dislike this solution, and here is why.
Most often the most laid back, easy going player, or the most timid player gets bullied into playing the missing character instead of the character they want to. I can step in, but ultimately this creates an uncomfortable gaming environment. So instead I tell my groups, "Play whatever character you wish, if the group feels it needs something else, I can always make up someone to fill that need if you want."
Can an NPC ally cause problems? Well it can certainly be the tool of a poor GM to give the group problems, but let us not forget that the BBEG can also be a tool by which a poor GM can give the group problems. The PC of the GM's significant other or the GM's best friend, can also cause problems. Should groups ban anyone that the GM may have some favoritism to? Ultimately, when NPC allies become problems, this can always be tracked down to the GM being the source of the problem. My suggestion, find a GM that you trust not to be a douchebag.
What do you think about a DM joining a group of players and making his own player character?
Ask yourself: would you feel comfortable if your DMPC gets killed? Would you feel comfortable to cede control of the DMPC to a player?
If you answer both questions with yes, then you still shouldn't make a DMPC. If you really need someone to help the party, create an NPC and give it to the player who's turns are the shortest.
Also if you answer the first question with "no" you shouldn't do it. Because the threat that you make "your" PC stronger than the others so it survives, or fudge rolls, or have enemies never attack him even if it makes sense is just too great.
And if you're ok with it, then it's more an NPC that joined the party than a DMPC anyway.
I wouldn't even say it's important to give control to the players. It's a NON-PC after all :)
What if I as a player, not the GM, in a game am comfortable with my PC getting killed? Does that make it more of an NPC? Not every player has a Blackleaf moment when their character dies.
My first gaming experience was with a GM who insisted upon playing a character,too, and this proved to be much more advantageous for him than us. His character always got to the really good magic items first, his swings never missed, and he obviously had the most powerful character in the group from the get go. Now I realize that this was a personal character flaw of his, but after that I was strongly against GMs having their own characters in a group they were running. The next group I played with, the GM was very experienced and ran a character skillfully and well, which made me doubt my opinion. Now, I play with a group where the GM does not run a character and, to be honest, I prefer that. The NPCs are character enough, I think.
What if I as a player, not the GM, in a game am comfortable with my PC getting killed? Does that make it more of an NPC? Not every player has a Blackleaf moment when their character dies.What do you think about a DM joining a group of players and making his own player character?
Ask yourself: would you feel comfortable if your DMPC gets killed? Would you feel comfortable to cede control of the DMPC to a player?
If you answer both questions with yes, then you still shouldn't make a DMPC. If you really need someone to help the party, create an NPC and give it to the player who's turns are the shortest.
Also if you answer the first question with "no" you shouldn't do it. Because the threat that you make "your" PC stronger than the others so it survives, or fudge rolls, or have enemies never attack him even if it makes sense is just too great.
And if you're ok with it, then it's more an NPC that joined the party than a DMPC anyway.
I wouldn't even say it's important to give control to the players. It's a NON-PC after all :)
I don't say every player does. And if a player does, it's not a bad thing.
But if the DM does, then he should not play a character in the game, because it means he's too attached to that one character. It's not simply "just another NPC thats with the party". The chances are too great that he gets tempted to cheat to save him, even if only subconciously, or that he wants to give his character the moments of glory.
I've been of the opinion that GMPCs are a bad thing since I turned 15. Mind you, that took me almost five years of experience, but ever since then I've learned the only time for your own character to be involved is if he's a mindless robot who tanks for the party, or a band-aid machine who has no personality. You don't want to take the PC spotlight away.
As a DM, I have enough fun with all of my NPCs to be bothered with throwing out my own PC.
If I want to play a PC, I'll sit on the pretty side of the DM screen.
I think it depends a lot on the game. When I DM, I may toss in a NPC that joins with the party temporarily, to help move the plot along(not railroad, the party goes where they please). Maybe this NPC is an informant, a contact, someone to help get the group where they need to be, if they might not have been otherwise able to.
I just joined a group recently and the DM tends to always make a DMPC's from what I hear. We are only 3 players, and the DM insists it's to help balance encounters better(by bumping us up to 4 characters), but I think he just wants to play. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, and as long as the character gets along with us, I'm fine with it. If this DMPC turns into an ego trip, I'm putting my foot down.
I've rarely seen a DM PC handled well.
That's because you're not in my group.
However, I do think that GMs should only run his own character if it's necessary - which it is in my group, since there are only 2 players plus me as the GM, and that is a bit weak even with generous character generation parameters.
The important part is not to have the GMC overshadow the other characters. Go for support roles, be more passive in roleplaying situations, and so on. On the other hand, that GMC makes a great mouthpiece for the GM!
I had a GMPC in a game once.
He was obvious about being a GMPC though, did nothing to help the party, and turned out to be the really definitely final boss. The party took great pleasure in killing him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the Browncoats:
A good example of a GMPC: Shepherd Book. A bad example: River Tam.
I had a GMPC in a game once.
He was obvious about being a GMPC though, did nothing to help the party
And wasn't kicked from the party? Or was that one of the "this guy is in your party now, nothing you can do about it" situations?
Absolutely not!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It strikes me as a bit odd that there would be so many vocal opponents to having a constant non-player member of the party who is actively engaged. Both Serpent's Skull and Jade Regent are heavily based upon NPCs that are [arguably] so heavily written into the story that they might as well become GMPCs if they are truly given life as you're supposed to.
Of course, there are many different playstyles so that could be part of the difference too. For example, some groups see the "story" aspect of an RPG as an incidental byproduct of what they see first and foremost as a game. From that standpoint, I can certainly see a GMPC garnering enmity.
However, I know that there are more than a few GMs [myself included] who run a game primarily because they love the story aspect. Speaking for myself, I see the rules as more of an aid to help with the storytelling than the main focus. When they get in the way they get put aside for a while.
By the same token, there are several types of stories/tropes that are best served by having a constant NPC/GMPC. In the case of my own Serpent's Skull/homebrew PbP, in the most basic sense, you could take the premise of Jade Regent (escort a noble across the world, develop strong relationships) and swap out Ameiko for Alis.
Is it somehow 'ok' when Paizo does this and Wrong Bad Fun™ when a GM does it? That seems rather arbitrary to me.
I would agree though that GMs and players need to be up-front about their expectations. I've tried to be exhaustive in enumerating mine, but it's always interesting to learn more about such things — namely when they show up in contrast against those of someone else. Live and learn...
It strikes me as a bit odd that there would be so many vocal opponents to having a constant non-player member of the party who is actively engaged. Both Serpent's Skull and Jade Regent are heavily based upon NPCs that are [arguably] so heavily written into the story that they might as well become GMPCs if they are truly given life as you're supposed to.
The problem as I see it, is that GMPC is used for two different things.
1) a constant NPC ally: There's usually nothing wrong with that, and it's not really a GMPC.
2) a mary sue character for the GM: That's the GMPC or DMPC. He tries to show the party that he's so much cooler and without his uber-NPC they would be totally lost, and all those horror stories.
Technically of course you can say that 1) is a GMPC as well, because its a PC played by the GM, but that term has gotten such a negative reputation over the years, that it really only applies to 2) anymore. And so when you ask for GMPCs that is the association that most people make.
For the most part I would say no, it's not a good idea. It's difficult to pull off properly and find that sweet spot where the character is a real part of the group, rather than a cardboard stand in, but doesn't overshadow them.
However, I've done it my-self. If the party is short on numbers I've played a character, generally a support character such as a Bard or healing focused Cleric. I've also had the players ask for a certain character class for the party, such as a wizard when no one wanted to play a magic heavy class but they still wanted to have access to magic item creation and utility spells like teleport.
If the party needs or wants another member I'm more inclined to give a willing player a slightly water-downed version of Leadership than have to play my own character.
|
I roll a Healer DMPC that joins the group most of the time. Gives the party some healing resources, and allows me to have a constant voice to nudge the party along when they are floundering. The only time it has ever been even close to a problem is fighting undead, as all that healing ability is strong against undead.
|
I run GMPCs all the time. It's no biggie. Besides, it's nice to be able to help someone else shine. Someone who consistently uses aid another, or who took a skill that would come in handy that people rarely take (I'm looking at you climb skill and carrying a knotted rope) and various other things can easily be played. It's not like it has to consistently remain the same GMPC either. The PCs can travel with whomever they want.
Really, I think a good question is: If you're running a GMPC because you can't let the other players be heroes, should you be GMing at all?
My GM has a long history of running GMPCs. For a while, my group had no stake in the plot, which was very frustrating. But hey, we were 13.
As a whole, our group is generally okay with it.
Me personally? I'd be more okay with it if his NPCs actually followed the rules instead of just being a smattering of class abilities ripped from different classes. There's a real double standard where he'll deny his PCs a lot of cool toys and run DMPCs that are smite-eviling ninja rangers. Urgh.
Now, as a DM, I can tell you a different story. If you've ever run a paizo AP, there are a lot of throwaway NPCs that make for great DMPCs. However the key here is to mix it up. Rather than having one NPC that is a permanent member of the party, cycle through a bunch of friends that your party could invite along. The variety will make for a lot more fun for your players and the GM.
I run GMPCs all the time. It's no biggie. Besides, it's nice to be able to help someone else shine. Someone who consistently uses aid another, or who took a skill that would come in handy that people rarely take (I'm looking at you climb skill and carrying a knotted rope) and various other things can easily be played. It's not like it has to consistently remain the same GMPC either. The PCs can travel with whomever they want.
Really, I think a good question is: If you're running a GMPC because you can't let the other players be heroes, should you be GMing at all?
I agree. GMPC's seem to work best when the GM doesn't have any ulterior motives or aspirations of championing their own story. GMPC's should be only be worked in when it is clear right up front that they are "support-only." They should be flanking with the party Rogue and helping grant Sneak Attacks, Aiding another on skill checks, distracting foes so the party mages can cast spells uninterrupted, etc.
In one game I ran, all the players made spellcasters. After getting mauled in a lot of combats(they were low level), I rolled them up a Knight(3.5) solely to put some distance between the monsters and the party, so they could cast their spells more freely, without running for cover and constantly getting battered while casting. This worked out well for while, until one player rolled a new, more melee focused character. The party no longer needed the knight, so he returned to his post.
GMPC's can be great to fill in gaps and roles the players don't want to play, like the Healer. I see lots of GMPC healers. I believe players should make what they want to play as, not what the party "should" have. Nobody likes getting stuck in the <insert unwanted class here> role when they really want to play something else. Fun is the goal here, not necessarily "efficiency."
It strikes me as a bit odd that there would be so many vocal opponents to having a constant non-player member of the party who is actively engaged. Both Serpent's Skull and Jade Regent are heavily based upon NPCs that are [arguably] so heavily written into the story that they might as well become GMPCs if they are truly given life as you're supposed to.The problem as I see it, is that GMPC is used for two different things.
1) a constant NPC ally: There's usually nothing wrong with that, and it's not really a GMPC.
2) a mary sue character for the GM: That's the GMPC or DMPC. He tries to show the party that he's so much cooler and without his uber-NPC they would be totally lost, and all those horror stories.
Technically of course you can say that 1) is a GMPC as well, because its a PC played by the GM, but that term has gotten such a negative reputation over the years, that it really only applies to 2) anymore. And so when you ask for GMPCs that is the association that most people make.
Yeah, I always find this strange. I think #1 makes more sense for the term, most specifically when the NPC ally is designed using the exact same rules (available classes, races, equipment, starting level, etc) as the PCs. The Mary Sue/Uber-NPC never made sense to me to be called a GMPC, because it was nothing at all like a PC.
I understand that it has gotten that derogatory definition as well, as more of a tongue in cheek way of describing character. So, I'm fine with people using it as #2, but everyone should try to understand which definition the particular person is using when they are speaking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you think about a DM joining a group of players and making his own player character?
I DMPC'd the party healer (Favored Soul based on Kyra) through the entirety of Savage Tide because none of the 4 players I had at the time wanted to play the "party Cleric."
I made a number of very conscious decisions from the beginning:
1) spontaneous spellcaster so I only had to choose spells 1/level instead of every time we rested, plus the party couldn't convince the healer to just prepare a "trump spell" for tomorrow as her spells known were limited;
2) she was always the same level as the party;
3) she always took the last split of loot and never the best items;
4) she was never a party decision maker;
5) I always under played her in that she was a healer/buffer first and a combatant second (although she was pretty tough).
So it can be done, the DM just has to exercise some discipline and remember what is his primary role in the group.
-Skeld
Only as a voiceless NPC tag-along who may as well be a sock puppet, and with no GM attachment, ie can be discarded at a whim.
NPC yes.
PC no.
|
|
As a DM, I think that the DM should not havea dedicated PC (NPC really, but that's for another discussion), unless there are alternating DMs, which I have seen in larger groups. In a smaller campaign with only 2 players I did have a dedicated GMPC, but that's because there were only 2 players and they didn't want to add in any other player, because both of them hate most gamers, but love to game (PARADOX!!)
As a DM, I do run NPCs that travel with the party and are stronger than a normal NPC that help out the players. There are various reasons why I have an NPC travel with the players, but primarily as a guide or because the players lack a certain utility.
But here is the guideline me and the primary player of our group decided on how a DM should handle a DM playing a character that is around for many adventures or combat:
1) They should be way less equiped than the party.
2) They should not be involved in roleplaying with other NPCs (I.E. when there is a big RP scene where the players should be the primary role-players.
3) They should be support characters or have utility to the party that the other players do not have to help balance their combat effectivness (*This is really for smaller gaming groups).
4) The loot should belong to the players and should not be shared by the DM.
5) I often RP with the NPC in combat with the players asking them what "I can do to help," or cower in fear of the enemies or glorify their exploits.
Played correctly an NPC that's a tag-along can bring more roleplaying opportunies. Those NPCs can help spread the reputation or plant more storyline for the character if played correctly.
In fact in Age of Worms, I had the wizard start out more powerful than the PCs and paid the PCs to do some work. After the story unfolded and became huge, the PCs started to surpass the wizards level, and they were amazed at how they were more powerful than him when he joined them on a few occasions. The wizard was still involved in some combat near end game around when they were level 18 and the wizard was only level 12 still. The players absolutely loved the fact that he started out as this powerful (level 8) rich NPC that they met at level 2, and helped them early on, half way through, and near the end and watched as their power grew. More art than science, but played correctly the DM can use many NPCs throughout the campaign that help the party, are involved in combat, and make a fun and lasting impression on the campaign itself as long as the GM doesn't exploit his position.
@Zexcir: Your conditions aren't necessarily bad, but I would offer a point of caution about a couple. #1 and #4, if the NPC ally is suppose to "hold his own" as a full party member in combats, then these can be extreme hindrances. In the end, these may cause the NPC ally to become The Load, and end up wasting a lot of character actions just trying to keep such a character alive. Ultimately, this may cause the party to abandon the character, which I guess might be the desire of the GM in this case anyway.