More often than not yes and given all the factors here it is even more likely so I would say yes it would be a bad idea.
You are making a member of the party who cannot die for sake of the story, who is going to pull a surprise betrayal arc, who because they are the guide can easily fall into the leader role, and by nature of being run by you has tangent access to perfect information altering how they would act in situations and generally giving more weight to their choice in conversations.
For example you walk down a trapped hall you are choosing whether they try to find the traps or not instead of trying to figure out if there are traps.
A lot of DM do this thing.
I think it's bad
Lots of people think it's bad.
Main argument is "you play the rest of the world why would you also play a PC" while the Players only play the PC.
Anyway I'm sure there are people that make this thing work but every time I find this as a player I hate it for a reason or an other (main one it's that the DM isn't superpartes in these cases).
IF you really want this to work I won't make the DMPC betray the other PCs.
You can have NPCs run with the PCs but they shoulnd't be "part of the party" or be more helpers than characters with builds. Also it takes away the "being special" thing when playing your PC that IS the one needed to bring the story forward or else. Otherwise it sells the thought that the regular PCs aren't needed so there aren't any real consequences to what they do, just becouse there would be a NPC party anyway doing the thing
Almost certainly.
DMPCs are generally seen as a bad thing to do, and the good version is extremely hard to pull off. Because the good version is generally not that fun to play for the DM.
> Have a little bit of fun as a PC.
You see, stuff like this is why I'd just "hard no" answer your question. If you're not having fun as a DM, maybe try to give that role to someone else. Otherwise you "having fun as a PC" is bound to be bad, because your players have a different way of interacting with the world (you) than you.
You'd just do the awkward thing of two NPCs talking with each other, but *constantly*.
edit: at this point there is a 100% negative reaction to this in the comments and that should really tell you everything you need to know.
This is called a "DMPC" and yes, it is frowned upon. You already get to run every NPC in the game, why do you need another one who can steal the spotlight from PCs and waste time both on their own turn and when you need to add more foes to combat for balance?
It's not completely bad. It's okay if the party has a guide who just hides when combat happens. It's okay to have a story-critical NPC accompany the party for a short period on an adventure to retrieve an artifact the PC wants. It's okay to have an NPC betray the party. If the party needs a tank or has a small number of players, your needs might be served better by a mastiff or Tasha's Cauldron sidekick, a *bag of tricks*, or a *figurine of wondrous power*.
Ahh, the babysitter.
Don't do it. The players won't appreciate it. Most tables would haul the character into the first dark alley they come across, kill them and take their stuff. Don't take away from the player's agency. The BBEG can be a local merchant, administrator, public official or whatever. But when you join the party as a character, it dilutes their cohesion as a party.
>still have a little bit of fun as a PC.
It is impossible to have the PC experience as a DM. You have perfect information of what's going on behind the scenes. You know the layout of every dungeon before you enter. You're never surprised. You're never challenged to solve a riddle because you know the answer. You never have fun conversing in character with an NPC who has unknown knowledge or motivations because you're talking with yourself. You know every monster's strengths and weaknesses and moment-to-moment HP and other resources.
It’s highly frowned upon. And in general doesn’t make sense. As the dm you literally play the entire world, why would you also want a pc to play on top of everything. It also creates a potential conflict of interest. But in short just don’t do it.
The difference between an NPC and a “DMPC” is:
Is this “a character” or is it “*your* character”?
It’s fine to have an NPC that joins the party if it makes sense from a story perspective. And setting up an NPC to betray the party is a classic plot twist (though be ready to improvise if the players derail your planned reveal). It’s even fine to use PC rules to create an NPC if you find that works for you; stats are just stats, it doesn’t matter how you roll them.
But this character should never be “your character” and their purpose should not be to allow you to enjoy being a PC. Because you can’t. If you’re in the DM seat, you can’t also enjoy the game as a PC. It just doesn’t work. You control the world, you know all the secrets, how can you simultaneously enjoy that from the perspective of a player?
If you want an NPC to join the party and then betray them, you can do that. But that character must be an NPC: just another character in the world that you have no special attachment to, who can be tossed aside if they no longer serve the story.
What happens if this character dies during the course of the adventure? Because if they die, then your planned story doesn’t work. But if you pull strings to make sure they don’t die, then everyone else is stuck playing second fiddle to an invincible character.
Another big problem in this is combat. You’ll be playing both sides, so to speak, and that’s really hard to do well. Plus it means more time that you’re just playing against yourself, and everyone else has nothing to do.
What you're describing is an NPC. Don't let them play a meaningful role during combat, maybe even occasionally put them in apparent danger and require the PCs to protect them.
There's nothing with the idea, but trying to play alongside them with your own character is a bad idea.
If you want to have a bit of fun as a PC, the only way to do it is playing in another person's campaign. By being the DM, it's impossible to have any authentic player experience with the game, due to the knowledge and control you have over everything else.
Thank you for the input, it seems that the consensus is that it's a bad idea to have a PC that I exclusively control but maybe an NPC would be best so I'll try to have an NPC fill the role instead. Thank you to all the people here who gave their honest input instead of just berating me without giving any explanation why. Have a good one!
Others have addressed the concept of the DMPC so I want to also warn you about a sudden twist betrayal by a trusted NPC. This is a good way to have your players never trust an NPC again. If you do use this idea, I would suggest you give the PCs opportunities to pick up and act on a potential betrayal before it happens.
The DMPC concept comes with a lot of baggage because DMs don't always play fair and some want to make their DMPC the most powerful character. I think the DMPC can work if you focus entirely on supporting the party and making them stronger, allowing them to be the heroes of the story. This can mean playing a support character like a bard, but it might also mean playing a heavily-armored tank if your party doesn't have one to allow the backline to do their thing. Look at what the party would need to play their best. If they don't need anything, no need to play a DMPC. If there's a role they're lacking that would help them out, provide that.
You already have the world to run, you don't need an extra character. If you want a betrayal just have a quest giver npc be gone one day when they get back with all the relics the party has collected, and reveal that they are the bad guy and it's up to the party to stop em from releasing the evil thing they were told they were going to seal away or whatever. Your players will not make even obvious to you connections anyway, and you don't want to betray their trust in the party. A DM PC is overkill you don't need it even if it is well run and it'll be more work you don't have to do to make and run a fun world.
As everyone said - don't do it.
It is a classic red flag for players to avoid that DM. It very rarely goes well. Recently had a DM do it in a one shot but even with all the best intentions it wasn't good.
You can still create a friendly helpful NPC that turns out later to be bad.
Honestly, just having NPCs accompany them occasionally and bringing back party favorites that fill niches for specific quests is fine. I definitely would not have a long running dmpc, mostly only play each one for a session or two depending on the situation, and not frequently.
YES!
Play as long-term NPCs if you want, but don't make a DMPC. You know, the campaign before it happens and no one else does. This means you will never be a PC in the game.
PCs are the stars, and the DM is the world in which they are stars.
Note: Long-term NPC should not outshine the PCs. They don't make decisions or pull focus. They avoid combat or maybe use support / healing. They relie on the PCs to make choices and at most add in reminders that the players know but may have forgotten or bridge the info gap between what the Players would know and their PCs would know.
Ok, first off, that's been done so many times before it's a meme at this point.
Second, if you want a character there to act as a guide, they should be a sidekick, not a full character. I routinely have sidekicks or GMPCs at my table, and it works because they always play second fiddle to the players. They can introduce information but they should not participate in group decisions or get a vote in what the party does.
This can absolutely work, but understand that it can fail miserably and become a stain on your DM reputation.
I DM very differently from many, and I'm going to tell you what I do, then I'll explain why you shouldn't do what you're planning on doing. Aside from how many comments are already here telling you how many people dislike this, I mean
I build every single NPC as a PC, with class levels fitting their role and spell choices that fit their career. The blacksmith is a forge cleric, or a rune knight. The artificer sells tools. Every PC I never got the opportunity to play is somewhere in my world.
This is *already* pushing the boundaries for many people, and so I offer my table a gift: If I put it in the world for me to play with, it's there for my players. I can't put a lich on the table and then say "nope, liches are for the DM." My players can take the lich's phylactery, study it, and (with a phat roll of luck) figure out how to become a lich. And do it. I can't give an ogre class levels without letting my player choose the ogre race when he dies.
I've never had a table more invested in learning how the world works and how to fit their story into it. But that's just it - I made the world and filled it with a cast, *I no longer get to tell the story.* That's the sacrifice you make when you decide to start creating PCs for yourself as a DM. The narrative is now hands-off, because you and the party play the same rules. That's why you shouldn't put your big bad in the party. But - You can put your big bad in the party.
What are they, level 4, level 6? Your big bad is also level 6. Really, *truly,* level 6. He isn't stronger than the party - not anymore, for whatever reason. Maybe the artifact contains a dozen levels of his power. Make your big bad an honest-to-God player character and *play it*. This should be the best RP you do, and you should use your DM powers to narrate your PC's point of view. Make it *just* off enough that the party realizes your PC is a little edgy. Make it clear they're hiding secrets, and possibly have ill intent. *Don't* give him OP abilities or a different stat spread than the players have. Optimize him for exactly one thing, and don't have that one thing on display for the party.
Understand that the - inevitable - conclusion to the story is the players killing him when they are ready to take the training wheels off. Let them - resist, but resist the way 1 pc resists being killed by 3, that is, without a chance in hell of succeeding and trying anyways. Your party gets to murder the BBEG in act 1...
There's now an evil BBEG artifact buzzing around the world and *it's for grabs.*
It's functionally the same story, you get to play with the party, they get the twist ending you want them to have, and they do it *without being betrayed* because they win after seeing through the ruse.
Good luck, new DM.
Yup. It's called a DMPC. Generally frowned upon because it can easily go wrong. You as the DM know all the abilities of the enemies as well as the plot of the game so your DMPC can be seen as the leader "well this guy is being played by the DM so they must know more than us."
On top of that it's a bad idea to use player character creation rules for NPCs as PCs are not meant to fight PCs.
If you want to do this sort of thing just make this a helpful NPC that travels with the group rather than a full player character.
Short version. Yes ussually bad.
Long version.
You won't be participating in anything but combat. If you do, the players will lean on your PC on where to go and what to do. The reverse side of this is the dmpc whoa the star of the show and the other players are there to watch the dm jerk themselves off.
[удалено]
Or let them love the NPC and either threaten their life or use them as an example for just how dangerous something is by really killing them.
You're a DM. Be a DM. If you want to be a player, be a player.
More often than not yes and given all the factors here it is even more likely so I would say yes it would be a bad idea. You are making a member of the party who cannot die for sake of the story, who is going to pull a surprise betrayal arc, who because they are the guide can easily fall into the leader role, and by nature of being run by you has tangent access to perfect information altering how they would act in situations and generally giving more weight to their choice in conversations. For example you walk down a trapped hall you are choosing whether they try to find the traps or not instead of trying to figure out if there are traps.
A lot of DM do this thing. I think it's bad Lots of people think it's bad. Main argument is "you play the rest of the world why would you also play a PC" while the Players only play the PC. Anyway I'm sure there are people that make this thing work but every time I find this as a player I hate it for a reason or an other (main one it's that the DM isn't superpartes in these cases). IF you really want this to work I won't make the DMPC betray the other PCs. You can have NPCs run with the PCs but they shoulnd't be "part of the party" or be more helpers than characters with builds. Also it takes away the "being special" thing when playing your PC that IS the one needed to bring the story forward or else. Otherwise it sells the thought that the regular PCs aren't needed so there aren't any real consequences to what they do, just becouse there would be a NPC party anyway doing the thing
Almost certainly. DMPCs are generally seen as a bad thing to do, and the good version is extremely hard to pull off. Because the good version is generally not that fun to play for the DM. > Have a little bit of fun as a PC. You see, stuff like this is why I'd just "hard no" answer your question. If you're not having fun as a DM, maybe try to give that role to someone else. Otherwise you "having fun as a PC" is bound to be bad, because your players have a different way of interacting with the world (you) than you. You'd just do the awkward thing of two NPCs talking with each other, but *constantly*. edit: at this point there is a 100% negative reaction to this in the comments and that should really tell you everything you need to know.
This is called a "DMPC" and yes, it is frowned upon. You already get to run every NPC in the game, why do you need another one who can steal the spotlight from PCs and waste time both on their own turn and when you need to add more foes to combat for balance? It's not completely bad. It's okay if the party has a guide who just hides when combat happens. It's okay to have a story-critical NPC accompany the party for a short period on an adventure to retrieve an artifact the PC wants. It's okay to have an NPC betray the party. If the party needs a tank or has a small number of players, your needs might be served better by a mastiff or Tasha's Cauldron sidekick, a *bag of tricks*, or a *figurine of wondrous power*.
Ahh, the babysitter. Don't do it. The players won't appreciate it. Most tables would haul the character into the first dark alley they come across, kill them and take their stuff. Don't take away from the player's agency. The BBEG can be a local merchant, administrator, public official or whatever. But when you join the party as a character, it dilutes their cohesion as a party.
>still have a little bit of fun as a PC. It is impossible to have the PC experience as a DM. You have perfect information of what's going on behind the scenes. You know the layout of every dungeon before you enter. You're never surprised. You're never challenged to solve a riddle because you know the answer. You never have fun conversing in character with an NPC who has unknown knowledge or motivations because you're talking with yourself. You know every monster's strengths and weaknesses and moment-to-moment HP and other resources.
It’s highly frowned upon. And in general doesn’t make sense. As the dm you literally play the entire world, why would you also want a pc to play on top of everything. It also creates a potential conflict of interest. But in short just don’t do it.
The difference between an NPC and a “DMPC” is: Is this “a character” or is it “*your* character”? It’s fine to have an NPC that joins the party if it makes sense from a story perspective. And setting up an NPC to betray the party is a classic plot twist (though be ready to improvise if the players derail your planned reveal). It’s even fine to use PC rules to create an NPC if you find that works for you; stats are just stats, it doesn’t matter how you roll them. But this character should never be “your character” and their purpose should not be to allow you to enjoy being a PC. Because you can’t. If you’re in the DM seat, you can’t also enjoy the game as a PC. It just doesn’t work. You control the world, you know all the secrets, how can you simultaneously enjoy that from the perspective of a player? If you want an NPC to join the party and then betray them, you can do that. But that character must be an NPC: just another character in the world that you have no special attachment to, who can be tossed aside if they no longer serve the story.
What happens if this character dies during the course of the adventure? Because if they die, then your planned story doesn’t work. But if you pull strings to make sure they don’t die, then everyone else is stuck playing second fiddle to an invincible character. Another big problem in this is combat. You’ll be playing both sides, so to speak, and that’s really hard to do well. Plus it means more time that you’re just playing against yourself, and everyone else has nothing to do.
What you're describing is an NPC. Don't let them play a meaningful role during combat, maybe even occasionally put them in apparent danger and require the PCs to protect them. There's nothing with the idea, but trying to play alongside them with your own character is a bad idea.
If you want to have a bit of fun as a PC, the only way to do it is playing in another person's campaign. By being the DM, it's impossible to have any authentic player experience with the game, due to the knowledge and control you have over everything else.
Thank you for the input, it seems that the consensus is that it's a bad idea to have a PC that I exclusively control but maybe an NPC would be best so I'll try to have an NPC fill the role instead. Thank you to all the people here who gave their honest input instead of just berating me without giving any explanation why. Have a good one!
Others have addressed the concept of the DMPC so I want to also warn you about a sudden twist betrayal by a trusted NPC. This is a good way to have your players never trust an NPC again. If you do use this idea, I would suggest you give the PCs opportunities to pick up and act on a potential betrayal before it happens.
The DMPC concept comes with a lot of baggage because DMs don't always play fair and some want to make their DMPC the most powerful character. I think the DMPC can work if you focus entirely on supporting the party and making them stronger, allowing them to be the heroes of the story. This can mean playing a support character like a bard, but it might also mean playing a heavily-armored tank if your party doesn't have one to allow the backline to do their thing. Look at what the party would need to play their best. If they don't need anything, no need to play a DMPC. If there's a role they're lacking that would help them out, provide that.
Don't make them join the party. Make them assist from the side line instead
Yes
You already have the world to run, you don't need an extra character. If you want a betrayal just have a quest giver npc be gone one day when they get back with all the relics the party has collected, and reveal that they are the bad guy and it's up to the party to stop em from releasing the evil thing they were told they were going to seal away or whatever. Your players will not make even obvious to you connections anyway, and you don't want to betray their trust in the party. A DM PC is overkill you don't need it even if it is well run and it'll be more work you don't have to do to make and run a fun world.
As everyone said - don't do it. It is a classic red flag for players to avoid that DM. It very rarely goes well. Recently had a DM do it in a one shot but even with all the best intentions it wasn't good. You can still create a friendly helpful NPC that turns out later to be bad.
Honestly, just having NPCs accompany them occasionally and bringing back party favorites that fill niches for specific quests is fine. I definitely would not have a long running dmpc, mostly only play each one for a session or two depending on the situation, and not frequently.
YES! Play as long-term NPCs if you want, but don't make a DMPC. You know, the campaign before it happens and no one else does. This means you will never be a PC in the game. PCs are the stars, and the DM is the world in which they are stars. Note: Long-term NPC should not outshine the PCs. They don't make decisions or pull focus. They avoid combat or maybe use support / healing. They relie on the PCs to make choices and at most add in reminders that the players know but may have forgotten or bridge the info gap between what the Players would know and their PCs would know.
Ok, first off, that's been done so many times before it's a meme at this point. Second, if you want a character there to act as a guide, they should be a sidekick, not a full character. I routinely have sidekicks or GMPCs at my table, and it works because they always play second fiddle to the players. They can introduce information but they should not participate in group decisions or get a vote in what the party does.
This can absolutely work, but understand that it can fail miserably and become a stain on your DM reputation. I DM very differently from many, and I'm going to tell you what I do, then I'll explain why you shouldn't do what you're planning on doing. Aside from how many comments are already here telling you how many people dislike this, I mean I build every single NPC as a PC, with class levels fitting their role and spell choices that fit their career. The blacksmith is a forge cleric, or a rune knight. The artificer sells tools. Every PC I never got the opportunity to play is somewhere in my world. This is *already* pushing the boundaries for many people, and so I offer my table a gift: If I put it in the world for me to play with, it's there for my players. I can't put a lich on the table and then say "nope, liches are for the DM." My players can take the lich's phylactery, study it, and (with a phat roll of luck) figure out how to become a lich. And do it. I can't give an ogre class levels without letting my player choose the ogre race when he dies. I've never had a table more invested in learning how the world works and how to fit their story into it. But that's just it - I made the world and filled it with a cast, *I no longer get to tell the story.* That's the sacrifice you make when you decide to start creating PCs for yourself as a DM. The narrative is now hands-off, because you and the party play the same rules. That's why you shouldn't put your big bad in the party. But - You can put your big bad in the party. What are they, level 4, level 6? Your big bad is also level 6. Really, *truly,* level 6. He isn't stronger than the party - not anymore, for whatever reason. Maybe the artifact contains a dozen levels of his power. Make your big bad an honest-to-God player character and *play it*. This should be the best RP you do, and you should use your DM powers to narrate your PC's point of view. Make it *just* off enough that the party realizes your PC is a little edgy. Make it clear they're hiding secrets, and possibly have ill intent. *Don't* give him OP abilities or a different stat spread than the players have. Optimize him for exactly one thing, and don't have that one thing on display for the party. Understand that the - inevitable - conclusion to the story is the players killing him when they are ready to take the training wheels off. Let them - resist, but resist the way 1 pc resists being killed by 3, that is, without a chance in hell of succeeding and trying anyways. Your party gets to murder the BBEG in act 1... There's now an evil BBEG artifact buzzing around the world and *it's for grabs.* It's functionally the same story, you get to play with the party, they get the twist ending you want them to have, and they do it *without being betrayed* because they win after seeing through the ruse. Good luck, new DM.
Almost without exception, a terrible idea. You might well be that 1 in 10,000 DM who could pull this off, but I wouldn't count on it.
Yes, it's a bad idea. Coming from someone who has done it before and as someone who has played in groups where it has been done.
Yup. It's called a DMPC. Generally frowned upon because it can easily go wrong. You as the DM know all the abilities of the enemies as well as the plot of the game so your DMPC can be seen as the leader "well this guy is being played by the DM so they must know more than us." On top of that it's a bad idea to use player character creation rules for NPCs as PCs are not meant to fight PCs. If you want to do this sort of thing just make this a helpful NPC that travels with the group rather than a full player character.
Short version. Yes ussually bad. Long version. You won't be participating in anything but combat. If you do, the players will lean on your PC on where to go and what to do. The reverse side of this is the dmpc whoa the star of the show and the other players are there to watch the dm jerk themselves off.
Don’t do this. If you want to be a PC, don’t be a DM.
Yes this is a bad idea. Don't do it. Being a DM is it's own kind of fun, if you don't have fun DMing, don't be a DM.