I'm writing and DMing a campaign based around members of a nonprofit organization in a province of a decaying empire undergoing a civil war.

The premise

The player characters are new members of the NGO, who are being given an orientation by their Program Coordinator (basically their boss) when the city they're in comes under attack by the government's troops. The entire NGO's presence in the region is destroyed and the PCs and the program coordinator have to decide what to do next.

The program coordinator is the "Gandalf"-like figure in that she potentially directs the quest and accompanies the PCs on their adventure to find and return 12 children still missing after the raid. This may or may not spiral out of control into joining the insurrection to topple the evil emperor depending on the choices of the players in the campaign.

One member of my prospective group actually works at a nonprofit organization and it just occurred to me that her perspective might bring something interesting to the table that I couldn't. I was thinking of asking that member if she might be interested in taking on the role, with the sole precondition being that finding those children is the character's main motivation, and everything else around that is up to her.

Point of clarification: I've previously discussed the campaign with said player and she expressed an interest in the idea she'd be part of a team making the kinds of decisions NGOs regularly have to make when they're working in a conflict zone, but in the context of a fantasy world. So it's not an ask out of nowhere.

Three linked questions:

1. Is it feasible or advisable for me to delegate so much storytelling authority to a single player?




2. Is it feasible or advisable for me to do so given that this player is new to tabletop gaming?




3. If the answers to both #1 and #2 are "yes", what are some things I should consider when helping to come up with the character?

It sounds like you are trying delegate a large chunk of story telling to this player...

...and in doing so, you are removing their agency. You want this character to play in a certain way that you will feed them. They must fulfill a specific role within your narrative. You said, "I'd be tempted to let her come up with exposition for stuff and assign quests...". What if her exposition goes against the world you built? Or she goes "off script"? You are now in the position of back-tracking, updating your story to her ideas, or feeding her more information to keep things on track.

This also forces the spotlight on to this player, as they will always be responsible for making the choices the rest of the party must take. This means all the other players become bystanders. While some players are fine with being second fiddle, or letting the high-Charisma character do all the talking, you are forcing one player to rule them all.

Regardless of how much or little experience this person has, you are stacking the deck against this player.

Let them shine on their own.

You say that the starting premise is that the characters are being shown around by the Program Coordinator when the town comes under attack. Instead of making this player the Program Coordinator, just have them be one of the new recruits. In every given group of new hires, there will always be those that rise to the top and those that just follow. You, as the DM, should play the boss that they all refer to when seeking guidance.

As a note: I have not personally had this issue, but something tangential.

Our DM was trying to designate one of the players as the quest giver. No one wanted to fill the role, so we asked why we needed one. The points above, and others, were brought up. In the end we discovered the DM just really wanted an assistant to off-load some work so they could do more world-building. Based on the "...her perspective might bring something interesting to the table that I couldn't." statement, I felt the "why" is different, but the discussion points were still valid. I just wanted to format it in a way that didn't feel like an opinion piece.

This is too much for a new player, and there are other issues.

First I'll address your questions about this, when I will add some of the concern I have about this situation.

One, is it feasible or advisable for me to delegate so much storytelling authority to a single player?

Feasible? Yes. A strong player can effectively 'co-DM' your story. I have played this role in games before. Done well it can be enjoyable.

Advisable? Maybe not. Though I have done it an enjoyed it I wouldn't be looking to do it as a DM. I only did it to support a new-ish DM. Once they gained more experience I stepped back from that role toward a normal player.

Two, is it feasible or advisable for me to do so given that this player is new to tabletop gaming

You don't have to be an experienced player to do this, but it certainly helps. Some people take to RPGs very quickly and could pick up this role in their first session or two with ease. Others may never be able to perform this role. As a new player it is impossible for them to know if they are up for it or not. I wouldn't advise putting them in this position.

Three, if the answers to both one and two are 'yes', what are some things I should consider when helping to come up with the character?

My answers to the first two are no. So this may not matter; however, if you do go ahead with this some things you should keep in mind.

Let them play the character. When you hand an NPC over to a player, you have to let them play it as they see fit. Provide guidance for where you saw the character going but don't try to control it. This advice also applies to PCs who become NPCs; they belong to the DM now.

Give them lots of worldbuilding information. For a character to be that involved in the world, they need to know it well. Open up your worldbuilding notes and share more with this player than you normally would. Potentially even collaborate on parts of the world.

Don't let them overshadow the other characters. From the sounds of your story, this character is more experienced and somewhat of a leader. You will need to take care to ensure the character doesn't overshadow the other members of the party.

Now that I have answered your questions, here are some concerns I have about this situation.

Power imbalance between players

Having a player that is both more knowledgeable in the topic and playing a character that is a leader may lead to a power imbalance at the table. Other players will naturally defer to the new player because they know more. This is an issue DMs often encounter when using DMPCs, but it can also happen between players.

In my game one of the players is older and more experienced than the rest of the party. They are somewhat of a role-model to the players (not characters) and the group automatically defer to her. I had to introduce a new player that didn't know them to adjust this balance.

Too close to home

You mention that this player has real world knowledge that would make them perfect for the role. You have clarified that this player has already expressed interest in the game so this may not apply. However in my experience players often like to escape from their real lives while roleplaying.

My scientific-minded player likes to play a dumb barbarian to exercise parts of them that don't get explored in real life. I like to play cunning and manipulative characters that lie or cheat their way through life. In the real world, I prefer to be honest to a fault.

Playing a character close to themselves may sound exciting, but may become confronting or stressful as the campaign progresses. Make sure you stay open to feedback and let them change character at any time if they ask.