Right now as I learn the ropes of RPing outside of videogames, it's just me and one friend playing Pathfinder. I ended up GMing for various reasons, but I also wanted to play a character at the same time. In some ways it's a bad idea because your character knows what the GM knows, which is unfair, so you have to kind of "nerf" your character's decisions in many ways. In other ways it's a good idea because it gives you an in-universe, in-character way to drop hints to the player and enhance his experience - kind of like being Midna to his Link. Not to mention, it's a way of having more than just a solo adventure and a way for me to learn about playing the game as well as GMing it. But naturally, it's in regard to the bad side of it that I come to you for advice...
The idea struck me to make my character mute - it would be convenient because as GM I can't have my character saying "Hmm, I have a strange feeling there's a hidden passageway here!" and things like that. If she were mute, it would naturally explain why she doesn't have much direct, explicit input to the player's actions and would also get me out of having to talk to myself, as my cleric talks to the innkeeper or whoever. But as you may have just noticed, I said "cleric". A cleric that cannot talk cannot cast most (any?) of the spells, and that's quite a problem.
I've toyed with different ideas, from her having a bird on her shoulder - like Mormont with his crow in A Song of Ice and Fire - who says the components for her, deducing from her somatic gestures which words he's to say, or the same basic idea but my friend's character filling in the verbal component for her. There'd be some rule, like he'd have to spend a free action and possibly be within so many yards. So most importantly I'm wondering does that even make sense? Can someone else offer the verbal component? Secondly, do you have any other ideas to get around the whole mute/verbal component issue? Thirdly, can you think of another way to explain why my character never offers any advice or anything? I've thought of "strong silent type" and "vow of silence (apart from spells)" but they both seem a bit silly and don't really explain why she'd remain silent in a perilous situation when her very life is at stake.
I'm going to recommend against you playing a character while you're DMing and recommend instead that you play a highly developed NPC or series of NPCs. Particularly if you only have a single person playing an actual character.
The reason is that if you think of the character as your character you will over invest in them. With only two players if you are playing both sides of the game you will end up playing against yourself for well over half of your game time, even if the character never speaks. Just imagine a combat with your two PCs versus two monsters. You're running 75% of the pieces on the board (so to speak). With four monsters you're now running almost 85% of the combatants. This is going to leave your friend sitting around and watching far too much of the time.
Instead if you make them a well developed NPC you can let your friend run them during combat (difficult to do if you are invested in them as your character) which helps balance how much play time each of you will have at the table.
Additionally if they are a well developed NPC you can swap them out for different well developed NPCs which can open up different adventure directions for your campaign (stealth mission team him with a rogue, divine mission with a cleric, wilderness mission with a ranger or druid, and so on) and you won't feel like you're getting rid of your own character to do it.
Just my two cents.
In my current campaign I am DMing for some friends and I made my own character. However the way we work it is that we have 2 DM's who alternate. I write the overall storyline for our campaign, and my Co-DM does other segments that can fit anywhere. This allows both of us to play our characters and DM equally.
Usually when we are DMing we don't actually play our own character. We use them as support for the other PC's. That way we don't mess with the sticky situation of a PC having the knowledge of a DM.
Hope this helps.
|
If you're new to tabletop RPGs, the short answer is "don't". You don't want to take the focus from the players; and inevitably you will have enough to deal with in NPCs. Your great ideas can become good back characters / plot hooks, but having an active role is never a good idea, especially for new GMs.
when i ran D&D 3.0 i always ran into the problem of the Pcs running into a fork and just staring at my PCNPC, i had gotten so annoyed he just began to shrugg, which can be kinda D-baggy, so i just stopped PCNPCing..But for me its easier to do that because i have 2 groups i play with. and 1 group we alternate 2 APs by each book. so i can run and play. if you cant do that, then i would say just to not play a guy. as Thalin expressed, it can take the spotlight away from the players. i have ran games off and on for years, and still cant find a way to run and play in the same game. best of luck to you
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whilst I agree with Thalin that, as a new GM, playing a character along with GMing is just a bad idea, if you are dead set on doing it there are some things you need to remember.
The first and most important is
This is called the metagame. You, especially as the GM, know a lot about the world, the layout of a dungeon, etc. The character does not have this knowledge. The character knows what the character knows and that is how they should be played.
This happens even with normal players and their characters. For example a player might know that a gelatinous cube is essentially a rolling block of solid-form acid, but their character might not have that knowledge. The character may haven never seen a gelatinous cube before in their lives, and never even heard of one. In which case they would proceed in their attacks on said creature without that knowledge.
Or a player might know that a Wight is immune to any mind-affecting spell, but the player might not. This is where the roleplaying part of the game because ultimately important. You have to separate what you, the player knows, from what the character knows, and play accordingly.
Do you know there's a secret passage somewhere? Sure, but does your cleric know that? Even further, would they even think to make a perception check for a secret passage if the room showed no other interesting traits?
In my estimation being mute isn't the answer. Being good at separating what you know from what the cleric knows is the key.
|
I agree with what's stated above. I've run many sessions of Pathfinder, and though it seems like it's fun to make a character to run with the party it can get really complicated really fast. That other problem arises is how it affects the party. Say that another player is having trouble rolling or gets locked out of the fight or just about anything else - if your character just demolishes everything, what's the players point in being there? Same thing with role-playing - if your character gets too involved in talking, you take away the opportunity for your players to do the same. It's a really hard line to walk between helping and stealing the show.
As for your character idea, the oracle from the Advanced Player's Guide has a similar curse that renders the character Deaf. Since an oracle is a divine caster, it's not that different from a cleric, but if you really want to play a cleric look to adapt that ability, perhaps replacing a domain or taking up a feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, you want to play too. So my suggestion is this; why don't you both take turns DMing? You'll both learn the ropes at the same time, from either side of the screen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a very similar situation when I was just starting out with the D&D basic set. A friend and I both created characters and then I DM'd the scenario while my highly intelligent Elf character followed my friend's clone of Conan around as combat support without ever proposing any ideas for how to resolve a problem. Every once in a while my friend would DM a game and suddenly my Elf would be super outgoing while 'Conan' trotted along silently behind him. This is similar to the mute approach you are considering and probably the best course for a new GM if they have a 'character of their own' involved at all. If you stick with the mute idea I'd suggest giving the character the 'Silent Spell' meta-magic feat with no increase on the level of spell cast... basically they can cast spells as normal, just without needing to speak.
Once you get the hang of having NPCs that the party encounters provide information, suggestions, and/or resources WITHOUT basically solving half the adventure themselves you'll be in better shape for judging how much support an 'NPC party member' should and should not provide. Other than college I've always had fairly small groups of players and thus have often included an NPC support character. One group of players had all fighter types with some healing, so in the early sessions of the campaign they ran into a few 'guest appearance' NPCs who could cover their weaknesses... eventually they wound up asking a Pech Bard to join the group. He was a bit of an outsider on the surface world, so he generally kept quiet and let the tall people do the talking... just providing buff support and taking his share of the treasure (mostly in gemstones). Every so often he'd volunteer a bit of bardic lore which just happened to point the way towards an adventure, and of course he was able to answer knowledge questions (with a successful roll) put to him by the other party members just like a PC could. Et cetera.
I would suggest that the way you are doing it now is pretty good, since you've said it's just you and a friend. Providing a cleric backup for the player allows him or her to focus on the "cool" aspects of the game -- fighting or casting spells -- while providing support with healing and the occasional buffing spell.
The best thing you can do to prevent the negatives that a game-mastered player character (DMPC) can create is to think of your character as an NPC. You can like your NPC, but don't think of him/her as YOUR character as a player would.
Use the NPC for all the good things you've mentioned in your first post. Aid, assist, and throw out the occasional hint. "We seem to be getting nowhere. Perhaps there's a hidden passage we missed?" Just remember that the spotlight should be always on the PC. That doesn't mean your NPC can't save the day if it's called for, but don't try to force it.
I also like to use those kinds of NPCs as the target of all the bad effects that most players hate: mind control, polymorphing, curses and the like. As the game master, you can provide the cures to such afflictions whenever you want. Players don't have that option, which is one of the reasons they don't like them.
If you've done your job right, the player will like the NPC and want to find the cure. That's a new plot hook for further adventure. If not, he'll leave him as a statue, or a frog, etc. and move on. At least you'll know.
So there is just 2 people playing?
My full recommendation:
Check out this. I am a strong advocate of low level modules for first time GMs, as it gives you a good feel of how the game and story are supposed to flow. I enjoy creating stories more as a GM than running modules, but it is great practice.
You and your friend can swap off GMing, without a GMPC involved. The modules are made for one person, so there's no need to curve/fiat encounters. You both get to play characters and GM. (I am also a strong advocate of every person in a party taking a shot at GMing, because it makes you a more understanding and better player - you understand what problems a GM has to deal with, and you learn the rules better. Even if they don't stick with it, maybe just running a short module.)
Other recommendations:
The mute option for the GMPC is a good idea. You will definitely run into the issue of having info you shouldn't and have to speak carefully. Also talk to your friend, let him know your dilemma and that your character simply can't be much help. If you definitely want to play and your friend is not interested in GMing at all, then do as recommended above: play a support class, such as cleric (actually, oracle might interest you, what with some of the curses [might be a legit way of keeping your character from being too involved in the story]).
If you aren't interested/can't afford the 1-on-1 modules, then go cliche - giant rats in the basement, goblins raiding travelers near town, go get X item from Y person Z towns away. Don't worry too much about the story being complex and intricate, because you will have plenty to deal with in just keeping the encounters in line with one person (or even two - CRs are based around 4 PCs). Once you get a handle on GMing, then you can focus on crafting an interesting story.
If it turns out you can't separate your GMPC's knowledge from your own (given, it's not necessarily an easy task, depending on the situation), but you still want to play, just take the game less serious and don't worry about breaking the 4th wall. You will get better at doing it, and when you do, you can go back to being more "real" within the game world, but it will just lead to frustration if your desires and your actions are conflicting over and over.
I merged the two threads on this topic.
Thanks for the advice so far, everyone. I know that at its core, it's a bad idea but the problematic nature of it is counteracted quite strongly by a couple of things;
Some specific points I want to respond to:
@MendedWall12: I've partly addressed your point in the first point above, but as for the mute thing, it's more because if my friend's character asks my character anything, I'll have to feign ignorance in most cases. This can be hard to do convincingly vocally, but easy to do mutely. Also, if and when I give an in-character hint, it will be innately vague since it will involve pointing or nodding rather than more specific and revealing dialogue. It also removes my character's ability to interact verbally with NPCs, which would both take away from my friend's interactions and "spotlight" and also just make me feel pretty silly talking to myself and asking myself for information and quests.
@Venis: Thanks, those 1-on-1 modules seem really cool.
Well, I'll be honest. When i GM in my homegame with some of my friends i have a character for one reason, to keep things moving. If ever the party is trapped in a room and they spend a good twenty minutes randomly saying things that are pointless such as bashing an adamantine wall doing nothing at all i have my character "attempt" something and just call it a fail no matter the roll. As for combat I generally have a transmutation wizard, or some other class that can support sit in the back to show them effectiveness of it because most of the people i play with believe fighters and their variants are gods. Also it allows me to create plot twists in the story using my character that would otherwise be impossible because my group entirely despises NPC's in the party, no idea why really.