Characters per player

[Ron Edwards]

Vincent,

You asked,
"Do you have any NPCs in your game who are main characters? A lot of times a GM will say something like 'I have all my NPCs, but I also play this character as a PC in the group...'"

I used to do this all the time in my Champions game, and it had its advantages and disadvantages. If the character never did anything significant, then he or she was useless; if the character did too much significant, then he or she tended to overshadow the PCs. But most of the time, especially in my last game ('89-'92), it worked all right.

Since getting back into role-playing ('96-present), I have avoided this tactic pretty thoroughly, in that I decided that the NPC-protagonist (GMPC?) was offering too much of a safety-net for players not to have their PCs be protagonists.

With one exception - a character in the Hero Wars game, Aething by name, who is now the clan chief and authority-figure for the NPCs. And let me tell you, it is one stone bitch to keep her from being "the main character." In several instances, I've even "faded" her from the scene in ways that threw the decisions into the player-characters' laps, instead of hers. (It was easier in Orkworld, in which the dowmga character, or matriarch-mom NPC, had a more defined role in the overall system and setting.)

It all comes down to whether the players feel as if the PCs are being marginalized by (a) being obligated to the NPC's concerns, up to and including taking orders from her; or (b) having game events being influenced or even resolved by the NPC's actions.

Best,
Ron

[lumpley]

Ron,
So now but that's interesting.  Even with relationship maps and open-ended games and following the word of god?  It seems like it'd be easy to play a GMPC at the same level of hooked-in and authority as the other PCs.

Know what?  I think it's because that's what I would want to do.  That's why we're co-GMing, really.  None of us wanted to do without playing a PC or two.

Hm.

-lumpley Vincent

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Vincent,

You wrote, in reference to some of the game techniques I've been describing,
"It seems like it'd be easy to play a GMPC at the same level of hooked-in and authority as the other PCs."

Easi-ER, I would say. I haven't found it to be outright, you know, easy.

I think we should distinguish among these situations:

1) The GM who runs an NPC-PC as a control device, both for immediate scene outcomes and overall story outcomes, and perhaps even as an auto-feedback loop, being a one-person GM and player "within" but separated from the group.

This phenomenon tends to generate resentment from the players, and it was the constant danger during my old Champions days. A fellow I used to play with a lot back then was notorious for it in his fantasy games, as his NPCs were vastly more interesting and relevant to him than the PCs could be, and - and given his philosophy of play - than the PCs could POSSIBLY be.

2) The GM who runs an NPC-PC as a means of providing "good setting," ie that which helps in reinforcing/enjoying Premise for the players to act upon. That's what I'm hoping to accomplish a lot these days. My goal is for the players to be the primary authors, and I as GM am literally "lesser" in terms of story power (or, rather, my role is as facilitative as possible). This NPC is a very important part of the landscape, so to speak.

The problem is of course that the story itself sometimes "makes more sense" (is "better," has "more integrity," etc) when that NPC really is in center stage and making the key decision of the scene.

I referred to the issue as a stone bitch before, and I meant it, but it's a "problem" in the sense of a cool and challenging artistic issue, rather than in the sense of a continuing, disruptive, dysfunctional snag.

It's only a problem in the negative sense if the players (a) are marginalized and (b) don't care about the NPC. That hasn't cropped up in the Hero Wars game.

3) The GM who is a player at the same time, and the other players are also GMs, at the same time. I'm not sure I said that right ... OK, a bunch of players, each with a PC or two. Now GM-role tasks kind of shift around the group, either by scene or by session or whatever. If I'm not mistaken, this is the method of play that you're carrying out.

By definition, you've solved any potential "problem" faced by the other options. I can imagine one or two limitations of this method in terms of various goals of play, but the GM-PC problem of #1 would appear to have simply disappeared.

How's that breakdown? Make sense? I am concerned that your emphasis on shared GMing might lead someone to confound #1 and #2.

Best,
Ron

[lumpley]

Nice post, Ron.  I'm there.

I have a little more time just now, so I'll explain myself better.  I hope.  So in the first half of my post I was suggesting a third non-coGMed situation.  Let's take your Art Deco Melodrama game (which thank you for such an amazing resource).  What if during the character creation process, you had created a character too?  As openly as the other players did, going to them about kickers and backstory and demons and so on, just like they did, just another character?  (Oh, um, and Sorcerer were the kind of game where the PCs got together in a group so you wouldn't always be having conversations with yourself.)  Your character wouldn't have the answers since there aren't any 'the answers,' she wouldn't drive events because everybody drives their own events (including her, but not exclusively is the point), plus you'd get to have the fun of having a PC out there in the story.

The second half of my post was me saying -- hold on, that may be fine, but that's what I want out of a game.  You may want something completely different.  It might be just fine with you that you're not playing a PC, it might even be a relief or a delight.  I was assuming that you weren't seeing the opportunity, but actually maybe you weren't and maybe you were, and either way maybe you wouldn't take it anyway.  So no biggie.

(Incidentally, we shift GM duties basically around whose PC is doing things.  When Emily Care's and Meguey's PCs are doing something together, I'm the GM.  When my guy's the guy, Emily Care and Meguey co-GM, discussing what they think should happen.  And every other combination, many times and back in a session.)

More generally, I'm kind of thinking in terms of NPC privilege vs. PC privilege.  NPCs are privileged to do things offscreen.  They're privileged to change their natures more fluidly, and to more overtly serve their players' whims.

Oh and seriously, I haven't mentioned it before but thanks for the Art Deco Melodrama threads, and to you Tor, and you Jesse, and you Paul.  Just awesome.

-lumpley Vincent


[ This Message was edited by: lumpley on 2001-12-12 19:39 ]

[Mike Holmes]

What is the difference between a GM PC and an NPC? Aren't all the characters other than the players the GM's PCs? From a Narrativist view, the only thing that I can get is that a PC is a Focus of the story. But the Narrativist rule is that the GM should not make the game about NPCs. Well, calling an NPC a PC seems to be just an end-around of this rule, making an exception for one character.

The idea behind having a GM is to have somebody impartial and unencumbered by a PC to orchestrate everything else. Why mess with that balance? If you really want everybody to have characters, I suggest splitting up the GMing amongst all players as well. And then you have Universalis (obligatory apollogy for blatant plug).

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Mike,

You're flailing a little here. Vincent is part of the group that includes Emily Care and Meguey, and among the three of them, their posts on the Forge BEGAN with the description of "GM-full" role-playing, as opposed to "GM-less." So Vincent's perfectly aware of your option - it's what he's doing already.

And yes, Universalis offers another excellent example.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, I see what you're saying. What I'm getting at, though, is that there is a paricular advantage to having a dedicated GM. If you do decide to "go over" then I'd think that spreading the power across all equally is the next best option (or possibly best overall). But I do see the advantages to their system as well. In the end I think that any well considered distribution is probably just fine, and preference will dictate.

Mike

[lumpley]

Mike,
IF, ready, IF NPCs are just the GM's PCs, then why:
-Are there different rules for creating them?
-Are GMs expected to use Author Stance so much more extensively than players?
-Aren't players usually allowed to play as many as they want?
-Do they get to change their natures so completely so late in the game?
-Do they get to do trememdously important things off-screen, without rolling for it?

I think that NPC vs. PC is a. an accident of history and b. a dodge.  I think the real issue is Main Character vs. Supporting Cast.  Look at Ron's example #1 from his post at the top of the page.  The problem isn't that an NPC is driving the story, the problem is that the GM is using her power to make all of the other players' characters into Supporting Cast.

Right?

My position is that sharing narrative power works both ways.  If the players have more narrative power, then we can let go of the (in my opinion) improbable dumb old 'impartial GM' thing.  When players get to do more GM things, like say where the story goes and what the story means and what the story should focus on and who's important and hell, whether the crate of bat guano falls on ugly pig Bob -- then the GM should be more free to do player things too.  Because: why not?  The old reason -- the GM has too much power and will dominate the story and it'll suck for everybody else -- doesn't apply.

Anyway, whatever else, why mess with the balance is the worst possible reason to design games, if you ask me.  I'm about messing with the balance.

How do supporting cast and everybody else in the world work in Universalis?

-lumpley Vincent