Are some NPCs communal property in Sorcerer?

[NickHollingsworth]

A little while back I read a post that seemed to suggest that the GM plays the PC's and NPC's  demons as major NPCs but that non demonic NPCs are sort of jointly played by all the participants.

(I have tried to find the thread in order to quote it correctly and link to it but it's eluded me).

It suprised me since I hadn't noticed such a thing in the rules.

To be precise, this is what I assumed the statement implied:

All demons are the sole property of the GM who gets to know everything about them and plays them agressively as they pursue their own interests.

Some key NPCs, presumably the main Sorcerers, are played the same way.

All the other NPCs are played by the GM but their actions can also be specified by the players in some way. Whether this is a formal degree of control resulting from a success at some conflict roll or completely informal with players just suggesting things to the GM I dont know.
[/list:u]

Is this a standard take on playing the NPCs; a valid but unusual option supported by the rules; an interesting idea that would need the rules and or social contract altered to enable it to work; an unworkable idea; - or what?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nick,

Gotta say, that's a new one for me. Sorcerer is typically played with fairly traditional roles for decision-making and actions for characters: one per non-GM participant, and everyone else is played by the GM-participant.

I'm not sure where you're getting any other impression. The only places I can think of might be ...

1. Yes, the players make up their characters' initial demons.

2. Yes, the Kickers may introduce an extensive array of NPCs (and places, events, and things) into the prep for the game.

But as far as playing goes, it's just normal.

Best,
Ron

[NickHollingsworth]

Well I thought I hadn't seen this in the rules.

I will try harder to locate the thread again and see what they were actually saying.

[Doyce]

I think you might be thinking of Trollbabe's rules on NPCs -- that certainly sounds a bit like the Trollbabe rules for the ways in which players can decree the actions of their 'relationship' NPCs... perhaps it's a bit of Adept Press cross-polination in your brain?