Being DM and player [Archive] - Wizards Community

Being DM and player [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Bruenor CrimsonHammer
05-29-06, 10:54 AM In my campaing, I am the DM and I am one of the player, but I don't give important decision nor I give hint of what to do, but i'm the group mage.

It is correct to you as fellow DMs and Players?
Witch
05-29-06, 10:57 AM It's generally a bad idea.
Bruenor CrimsonHammer
05-29-06, 11:24 AM thanks for the honesty, can I ask you why?
It is only to be a better DM that I ask
Witch
05-29-06, 11:30 AM There's lengthy discussions about this issue.
A few of the problems are that he usually either ends up to lead the group, or fades back into inexistance out of combat. He's usually a lot better than the PCs as well.
BrokenClock
05-29-06, 11:32 AM Part of being a player is engaging in roleplaying and problem solving. If you already know what the plot is, then you can't problem solve. Even roleplaying would be difficult, given that you have to roleplay a huge list of NPCs. In adition to that, it's not fair to your players to roleplay a character while dming. Why, you ask? Because, the time you spend roleplaying a character and putting thought in to his lines, could be spent making your NPCs richer and more interesting or having your room descriptions become more alive. You could be an amazing story teller and a great rper, but there is no denying that both your rp and storytelling will take a hit when you have to do both. You basicly become a henchmen that casts spells and does little else to help the party. I'm not sure I see the fun in that. Although I do understand the desire to play while dming. Everyone loves to play.
Darckchild
05-29-06, 11:32 AM see this thread for the entire pros and cons

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=635185
celtredleg
05-29-06, 11:34 AM Because even if you are completely open about everything, a player can decide that you are being unfair in favor of your charecter. It is just like playing an athletic game and being the referee at the same time.

And you cant really play anyway. If you have a trap or puzzle to figure out, no matter what you do, you already have the answer. Many people have had such bad experiences of this that they will not play as soon as they realize that there is a DMPC in the group.

The boards are filled with players mad about DMPCs.
Voldar_Mecorthio
05-29-06, 11:34 AM I do the same thing. I dont make important decisions, mainly I help with my skills, spells, and battle abilities, and if they're really screwing up (like not opening a door leading to a huge dungion I created or preparing to kill a VERY important npc) then I'll fix that mistake, but that mistake has to be HUGE.
IronFistedGiant
05-29-06, 11:36 AM I'd do it if there was a goal behind it. One would be my character betraying the party to the BBEG in the middle of combat. Interesting twist of fate tho it isn't unheard of.
celtredleg
05-29-06, 11:37 AM I should add, that if you actually roleplay the PC, then you wind up haveing conversations with yourself, with the rest of the party just watching the show. This is also a good way to lose players. And if you cant solve things and cant roleplay much, what do you do??

Best to just leave it alone.
Leilond
05-29-06, 11:37 AM Let them play without any arcane caster
I DM a group without one and it go perfectly well.
Less work for the DM usually means a better DM
Witch
05-29-06, 11:37 AM I do the same thing. I dont make important decisions, mainly I help with my skills, spells, and battle abilities, and if they're really screwing up (like not opening a door leading to a huge dungion I created or preparing to kill a VERY important npc) then I'll fix that mistake, but that mistake has to be HUGE.
This smells like railroading.

Rather, it looks and sounds like it as well.
pres_man
05-29-06, 12:15 PM If you don't want to read the entire thread that Darckchild listed, I'll just quickly lay out what I, myself, came down to in it.

All DMs are "players", they run characters, in fact they run a plethora* of characters, the characters they run are called NPCs. There are further descriptions of different types of NPCs, one of these sub-groups is what are called allies. Here is the relevant part of the description of allies:
... The latter function as party members and earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other character does. Essentially, these latter allies are adventurers who just happen not to be controlled by players...
I believe this is what you are talking about. It is best so that nobody reacts irrationally (from some of the previous comments you can see some hints as to how some players might react) to make it clear that this is an ally, not your "character" (obviously it is a character you run, so in that sense it is "your character", but making a special distinction, at least explicitly generally gets people nervous.)

Generally when people start calling these allies "DMPCs" in a negative fashion, they are talking about DMs that have fallen into the mistakes discussed on pp.45-46 in the DMG. I would read over these and consider if you are making any of these mistakes with the ally you are running in the party.

Good luck, the DMG clearly implies that having an ally function along side of the PCs is entirely acceptable and is expected that a DM should be able to do this and still function impartially. If you find that you are having difficulty being impartial (or at the worst not leaning in favor of the PCs), it is a sign that you should remove this particular type of NPC.
Jefe: We have many beautiful pinatas for your birthday celebration, each one filled with little surprises!
El Guapo: How many pinatas?
Jefe: Many pinatas, many!
El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?
Jefe: A what?
El Guapo: A *plethora*.
Jefe: Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora.
El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora?
Jefe: Why, El Guapo?
El Guapo: Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has *no idea* what it means to have a plethora.
Jefe: El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
jaspercrey
05-29-06, 12:36 PM hey Bruenor CrimsonHammer . . .

don't let all the chicken-littles scare you . . .

You can DM and play a character at the same time! It's easy and fun.
My players wouldn't have it any other way.
celtredleg
05-29-06, 01:22 PM The biggest thing is to find out how your own players feel about it. I have never found a player who liked it. Not even on the boards, just a bunch of DM who claim they like them.

I have found people that loathed their DMs PC, but never told them for fear of repercusions. I definately advise people like that to bail on the game, but sometimes the OOG reasons not to.

If it works for you great. But just like takeing a mouth of gasoline and blowing it out through a torch, it is not for everybody.
Dragon Snack
05-29-06, 03:11 PM If it works for you great. But just like takeing a mouth of gasoline and blowing it out through a torch, it is not for everybody.
Great line. And the reason I no longer run a DMPC. I don't even like to run "allies" of the players in combat (I usually hand over a cheat sheet to a player with the NPCs combat stats on it).

My players did like my DMPC, but the day he pulled their bacon out of the fire and stopped what was shaping up to be a TPK was the day I retired him (well, he went on one more adventure run by a guest DM, but that's a whole other rant). It wasn't Deus Ex Machina - I made all the rolls for what he did, but it sure smelled like it to me. They may not have cared either way, but to me if it walks and talks like a duck - it's a duck.

No DMPC means no chance to take away from your players enjoyment.
kelvinaw273
05-29-06, 03:37 PM Never. DMPC. Ever.

There are three reasons for running a DMPC:

1) The party is small and/or they do not have all of the skills and abilities to complete the adventure (no cleric is a common one). Resolution: let them multi-class, have higher stats, gestalt characters or place an NPC with the right skills and available as a hireling on a case-by-case basis. Or just change the adventure.

2) The DM has a really cool character concept he is itching to try out. Resolution: if it is a PC concept, wait until you can play. If it isn't, it can be a temp NPC as above.

3) The DM is desperate to play inthe game. Resolution: iot is never that satisfying, and anyway if you are this desperate to play it is time for somebody else to DM for a while and give you a break.

Reasons for not running a DMPC:

1) The DM is already the opposition, the allies, the bystanders and the referee, he can't be a player on the star team as well. It is too much work.

2) It isn't as much fun for the DM as it would be if he was playing. After all, he already knows what is going to happen.

3) No matter what you do, the DMPC has to be either inneffective or else runs the risk of overshadowing the other players. Yes, it happens anyway, but as DM you stand the risk of being accused of fudging things to help yourself, of knowing things in advance (well, you do), and so on. It doesn't matter if you made all the right decisions and never favoured yourself: the players may not see it that way.

There is only one circumstance under which I would play a DMPC, and that is if I wanted to gain the shock-factor of having a BBEG kill a aprty member. Then I would insert said member well in advance before killing them off :D . Permenantly.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bruenor CrimsonHammer 05-29-06, 10:54 AM	In my campaing, I am the DM and I am one of the player, but I don't give important decision nor I give hint of what to do, but i'm the group mage. It is correct to you as fellow DMs and Players?
Witch 05-29-06, 10:57 AM	It's generally a bad idea.
Bruenor CrimsonHammer 05-29-06, 11:24 AM	thanks for the honesty, can I ask you why? It is only to be a better DM that I ask
Witch 05-29-06, 11:30 AM	There's lengthy discussions about this issue. A few of the problems are that he usually either ends up to lead the group, or fades back into inexistance out of combat. He's usually a lot better than the PCs as well.
BrokenClock 05-29-06, 11:32 AM	Part of being a player is engaging in roleplaying and problem solving. If you already know what the plot is, then you can't problem solve. Even roleplaying would be difficult, given that you have to roleplay a huge list of NPCs. In adition to that, it's not fair to your players to roleplay a character while dming. Why, you ask? Because, the time you spend roleplaying a character and putting thought in to his lines, could be spent making your NPCs richer and more interesting or having your room descriptions become more alive. You could be an amazing story teller and a great rper, but there is no denying that both your rp and storytelling will take a hit when you have to do both. You basicly become a henchmen that casts spells and does little else to help the party. I'm not sure I see the fun in that. Although I do understand the desire to play while dming. Everyone loves to play.
Darckchild 05-29-06, 11:32 AM	see this thread for the entire pros and cons http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=635185
celtredleg 05-29-06, 11:34 AM	Because even if you are completely open about everything, a player can decide that you are being unfair in favor of your charecter. It is just like playing an athletic game and being the referee at the same time. And you cant really play anyway. If you have a trap or puzzle to figure out, no matter what you do, you already have the answer. Many people have had such bad experiences of this that they will not play as soon as they realize that there is a DMPC in the group. The boards are filled with players mad about DMPCs.
Voldar_Mecorthio 05-29-06, 11:34 AM	I do the same thing. I dont make important decisions, mainly I help with my skills, spells, and battle abilities, and if they're really screwing up (like not opening a door leading to a huge dungion I created or preparing to kill a VERY important npc) then I'll fix that mistake, but that mistake has to be HUGE.
IronFistedGiant 05-29-06, 11:36 AM	I'd do it if there was a goal behind it. One would be my character betraying the party to the BBEG in the middle of combat. Interesting twist of fate tho it isn't unheard of.
celtredleg 05-29-06, 11:37 AM	I should add, that if you actually roleplay the PC, then you wind up haveing conversations with yourself, with the rest of the party just watching the show. This is also a good way to lose players. And if you cant solve things and cant roleplay much, what do you do?? Best to just leave it alone.
Leilond 05-29-06, 11:37 AM	Let them play without any arcane caster I DM a group without one and it go perfectly well. Less work for the DM usually means a better DM
Witch 05-29-06, 11:37 AM	I do the same thing. I dont make important decisions, mainly I help with my skills, spells, and battle abilities, and if they're really screwing up (like not opening a door leading to a huge dungion I created or preparing to kill a VERY important npc) then I'll fix that mistake, but that mistake has to be HUGE. This smells like railroading. Rather, it looks and sounds like it as well.
pres_man 05-29-06, 12:15 PM	If you don't want to read the entire thread that Darckchild listed, I'll just quickly lay out what I, myself, came down to in it. All DMs are "players", they run characters, in fact they run a plethora* of characters, the characters they run are called NPCs. There are further descriptions of different types of NPCs, one of these sub-groups is what are called allies. Here is the relevant part of the description of allies: ... The latter function as party members and earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other character does. Essentially, these latter allies are adventurers who just happen not to be controlled by players... I believe this is what you are talking about. It is best so that nobody reacts irrationally (from some of the previous comments you can see some hints as to how some players might react) to make it clear that this is an ally, not your "character" (obviously it is a character you run, so in that sense it is "your character", but making a special distinction, at least explicitly generally gets people nervous.) Generally when people start calling these allies "DMPCs" in a negative fashion, they are talking about DMs that have fallen into the mistakes discussed on pp.45-46 in the DMG. I would read over these and consider if you are making any of these mistakes with the ally you are running in the party. Good luck, the DMG clearly implies that having an ally function along side of the PCs is entirely acceptable and is expected that a DM should be able to do this and still function impartially. If you find that you are having difficulty being impartial (or at the worst not leaning in favor of the PCs), it is a sign that you should remove this particular type of NPC. Jefe: We have many beautiful pinatas for your birthday celebration, each one filled with little surprises! El Guapo: How many pinatas? Jefe: Many pinatas, many! El Guapo: Jefe, would you say I have a plethora of pinatas? Jefe: A what? El Guapo: A plethora. Jefe: Oh yes, El Guapo. You have a plethora. El Guapo: Jefe, what is a plethora? Jefe: Why, El Guapo? El Guapo: Well, you just told me that I had a plethora, and I would just like to know if you know what it means to have a plethora. I would not like to think that someone would tell someone else he has a plethora, and then find out that that person has no idea what it means to have a plethora. Jefe: El Guapo, I know that I, Jefe, do not have your superior intellect and education, but could it be that once again, you are angry at something else, and are looking to take it out on me?
jaspercrey 05-29-06, 12:36 PM	hey Bruenor CrimsonHammer . . . don't let all the chicken-littles scare you . . . You can DM and play a character at the same time! It's easy and fun. My players wouldn't have it any other way.
celtredleg 05-29-06, 01:22 PM	The biggest thing is to find out how your own players feel about it. I have never found a player who liked it. Not even on the boards, just a bunch of DM who claim they like them. I have found people that loathed their DMs PC, but never told them for fear of repercusions. I definately advise people like that to bail on the game, but sometimes the OOG reasons not to. If it works for you great. But just like takeing a mouth of gasoline and blowing it out through a torch, it is not for everybody.
Dragon Snack 05-29-06, 03:11 PM	If it works for you great. But just like takeing a mouth of gasoline and blowing it out through a torch, it is not for everybody. Great line. And the reason I no longer run a DMPC. I don't even like to run "allies" of the players in combat (I usually hand over a cheat sheet to a player with the NPCs combat stats on it). My players did like my DMPC, but the day he pulled their bacon out of the fire and stopped what was shaping up to be a TPK was the day I retired him (well, he went on one more adventure run by a guest DM, but that's a whole other rant). It wasn't Deus Ex Machina - I made all the rolls for what he did, but it sure smelled like it to me. They may not have cared either way, but to me if it walks and talks like a duck - it's a duck. No DMPC means no chance to take away from your players enjoyment.
kelvinaw273 05-29-06, 03:37 PM	Never. DMPC. Ever. There are three reasons for running a DMPC: 1) The party is small and/or they do not have all of the skills and abilities to complete the adventure (no cleric is a common one). Resolution: let them multi-class, have higher stats, gestalt characters or place an NPC with the right skills and available as a hireling on a case-by-case basis. Or just change the adventure. 2) The DM has a really cool character concept he is itching to try out. Resolution: if it is a PC concept, wait until you can play. If it isn't, it can be a temp NPC as above. 3) The DM is desperate to play inthe game. Resolution: iot is never that satisfying, and anyway if you are this desperate to play it is time for somebody else to DM for a while and give you a break. Reasons for not running a DMPC: 1) The DM is already the opposition, the allies, the bystanders and the referee, he can't be a player on the star team as well. It is too much work. 2) It isn't as much fun for the DM as it would be if he was playing. After all, he already knows what is going to happen. 3) No matter what you do, the DMPC has to be either inneffective or else runs the risk of overshadowing the other players. Yes, it happens anyway, but as DM you stand the risk of being accused of fudging things to help yourself, of knowing things in advance (well, you do), and so on. It doesn't matter if you made all the right decisions and never favoured yourself: the players may not see it that way. There is only one circumstance under which I would play a DMPC, and that is if I wanted to gain the shock-factor of having a BBEG kill a aprty member. Then I would insert said member well in advance before killing them off :D . Permenantly.