I am sure this question had been asked countless times before. When you create and run a role play, do you do it purely as a Game Master or do you also take on a character? Obviously, both options have their own upsides and downsides.

For example, as a GM, you can more easily control the plot and environment and not fear being accused of god-modding (and yes, it actually happens). On the other hand, as a player, you may be able to direct the events more "softly", nudging the others into some direction rather than placing them on a metaphorical one-way road. The other advantage is actually getting to play your own game rather than just directing it like a movie (even though that is a lot of fun, too), but that can result in plot derailment and/or player conflict.

In this case, I am not talking about RPs which you create but give up power over, as in participate equally with all other players, but only RPs which you maintain a moderate to high degree of control over.

So, which option would you choose and why?

It is perfectly plausible, and acceptable, to both GM a roleplay and take on the role of a character; the two are certainly not exclusive.

You can assume both roles in a number of different ways, but I suppose that two make the most sense. Firstly, you can separate the two roles: write your character's posts as you would when a participant in someone else's RP, and then make separate posts (or sections of posts) where you write solely from a GM's perspective. This gives clear boundaries between the two roles and will make it easier for others in the RP to identify which you are performing and when.

The second approach is a little 'softer' in that you take on the role of a character but also use that character as a GMing tool. Examples include creating that character to be a group leader, or someone else with a position of influence over the actions your main cast makes. More passively, given the nature of RPers generally knowing that the creator of a roleplay will have a plot in mind, you could simply make a 'normal' character and have it notice things that lead the rest of the writers to respond: RPers will be receptive to these things. This approach is advantageous because it allows not only a natural merging of GM and player, but it also results in a much more naturally-flowing story - one that is not peppered with interludes that are disjointed (which can happen when using a 'pure' GM approach).

However, roleplay is all about collaboratively telling a story. As the creator of a roleplay, it is inevitable that you will have some pre-established idea of a plot, but you can also use the others in your roleplay to offer valuable insight on how to achieve the plot's outline. After all, without sub-plots, intrigue and meaningful character interaction, your story will be left bland with a quick finish. So, rather than taking a strict GM role, it might well be worth you considering the input that your players can have, incorporating their ideas and working together as a group to construct a story that is not only interesting to read, but also fun to write.

This doesn't mean an RP shouldn't have structure, as I fully believe it should and the lack of it is what often leads to RPs dying out, but a roleplay should certainly being the result of everyone's creativity - not only in terms of characters but plot as well.

So, to answer your question more directly: I wouldn't choose either of the two options you presented. Instead, I would look at a hybrid of the two while considering the input of my players to ensure a fun experience be had for all.

Hope that helps.

The only two roleplays I've been in that have made it to the end used the idea that Lord Saladin suggested. The first roleplay, the GM let us create our characters do what they wanted, but created important archs with her characters in order to keep us on track until the end. In the second game, I became a Co-GM and because I knew where the plot was leading to, I could do the same thing with my characters. By about the half way point of the second RP, all the characters knew what the end goal was. It gave the GM and I a little break since all the players could push the story along as much as the GM and I could.
Now we're on the third part of the story and the character we've created are now strong enough to hold up on their own even without a ending in that can be foreseen. They've collaborated and created their own subplots that can keep them busy. Eventually, things just seem to come into place. The GM still needs to push some things along, but it is barely needed.

There is one problem that arises from the GM and player being one and the same though: characters. I, as a Co-GM have over 20 characters at my disposal (some of them NPCs). The GM is on the same boat as I am. To drive the plot along in such an open world where characters aren't always in the same room as each other you need a lot of characters. They usually start out as NPCs, but then become too important to get rid of. I mean, some of the NPCs I have could be considered full fledged characters. The only difference is that they don't have an official character sheet.

Lord Saladin wrote:
The second approach is a little 'softer' in that you take on the role of a character but also use that character as a GMing tool. Examples include creating that character to be a group leader, or someone else with a position of influence over the actions your main cast makes. More passively, given the nature of RPers generally knowing that the creator of a roleplay will have a plot in mind, you could simply make a 'normal' character and have it notice things that lead the rest of the writers to respond: RPers will be receptive to these things. This approach is advantageous because it allows not only a natural merging of GM and player, but it also results in a much more naturally-flowing story - one that is not peppered with interludes that are disjointed (which can happen when using a 'pure' GM approach).

I normally do this option.

I'll create characters that are a member of the 'party' or main cast, and then generate a number of high tier NPCs [that I control independently. These NPCs that I double up as act as checkpoints, guides, and overall waypoints for the players. I sprinkle them around in a way that the path doesn't get intrusive to the open flow of the roleplay. Of course, this only works if you take the time to plan out where you want the story to go before hand. Even then, roleplays are open form writing, so you have to take account for what the players do within and be flexible.

I just don't understand how having a character in your own RP can be exciting since you know how the GM will respond to your actions considering that the GM is you. It's a little like playing chess with yourself. If you want to play a character join someone else's RP so you can experience the excitement of not knowing what will happen. On the other hand, NPCs are important but NPCs don't exist to fulfill the GM's escapist desires. They are there to add detail to the world and aid the progression of the plot. Also, with the exception of villains, NPCs usually need to be less central to the story in order to accentuate the role of the PCs. Having the GM personally invested in an NPC interferes with this role because he/she then naturally desires that NPC to be more important.

If you need to have a character in your games I'd recommend running a round robin type game similar to the one mentioned by Criminalminds above where there is no sole GM and everyone participates in creating the plot and writing NPCs.