Knights & Knaves Alehouse

AxeMental wrote: They don't play the NPC as a PC, but rather an independent person with his own interests and assumptions. They can make the NPC role play, can make him steal, run up and help a PC thats unconscious and bleeding out (or run away) but thats usually done with dice and morale checks.

See, I am fine with that. Those are NPC "associates" in the nomenclature of the DMG and I allow players to take up with NPC adventurers in that capacity to whatever degree they like. It is when the game master feels ownership of a character separately from its existence as an NPC that I find it worrying [i.e. as a way for the game master to both run and play the game at the same time].

AxeMental wrote: Now I do routinely DM with my own PCs if we are short on players (or we are switching DM frequently). But thats a different topic. In those cases, I tend to make it rougher on my PC and also tend to let the other players take the lead (often times I don't read ahead to be surprised along with everyone else, but still I find it difficult).

I can imagine that happening a situation with rotating game masters, though I would probably not be cool with it overall.

I always regret allowing players to have 2 characters active at the table at the same time. Having multiple characters in the campaign is fine, as long as only one is in play during any one game session. Having henchmen is great for rounding out capabilities, and I'll let players run the henchmen, but I can always step in and say "no, he won't stick his head in the bloody, head-shaped hole."

When I've let Players run 2 or more PC's on the table at the same time, I've found it decreases role-playing significantly, and decreases tension considerably. I've just found that it tips the game just a little too far into wargaming territory. I like a balance of role-play and wargaming vibes going on and the identification with 1 particular character at a time is crucial for the role-playing half of the equation to work for most of my players.

DrSkull wrote:I always regret allowing players to have 2 characters active at the table at the same time. Having multiple characters in the campaign is fine, as long as only one is in play during any one game session. Having henchmen is great for rounding out capabilities, and I'll let players run the henchmen, but I can always step in and say "no, he won't stick his head in the bloody, head-shaped hole."

When I've let Players run 2 or more PC's on the table at the same time, I've found it decreases role-playing significantly, and decreases tension considerably. I've just found that it tips the game just a little too far into wargaming territory. I like a balance of role-play and wargaming vibes going on and the identification with 1 particular character at a time is crucial for the role-playing half of the equation to work for most of my players.

(bold mine)

I just played a new PC last night (a MU thief half elf). Kind of in the back of my mind retired my other PCs. Have to admit I agree with everything above. Its called an RPG not a war game. Its not a good idea to mix the two, which is kind of what playing multiple PCs (or having the option with backups) does. Anyhow, good post Dr. Skull. You truly earned your advanced degree today with that great post.

This will make many here (who attend lots of Cons, played with the Master) squirm. Oh well... they are playing wrong. Really how Gygax and the Lake Geneva boys played is something to discuss in another forum (unless there's some evidence in the DMG that its relevant). I don't think what Matt posted really meets that requirement (as its an option, at best, rather then a commonly used rule, in contrast to say the initiative rules/magic casting time etc.).

We don't mind a gamier feel. Luckily the game can easily accommodate both styles.

Chainsaw wrote:We don't mind a gamier feel. Luckily the game can easily accommodate both styles.

I don't mean to say it can't (and it obviously does). Just saying that I don't think it was the intention or the desired effect (or BtB) more a common house rule.

I would say it is pretty clear that AD&D was always intended to have "war game" elements to it. After all, that is what the section in the DMG describing siege warfare is about, and not to forget the comments about henchmen being useful to protect a character against his fellows. Overall, I think "RPG" is insufficient to describe AD&D and runs the hazard of lumping it in with games that are otherwise nothing like it.

From the players perspective, the bulk the rules found in the DMG don't exist (or that's the intent) and they cover a huge amount of ground (whats it cost to hire a carpenter, what are the forms of government, what types of mental illnesses exist in NPCs etc.) much of that stuff just doesn't come up. The castle building thing is, of course, optional (though mentioned in the PH for each class) and every player who gets high enough wants to try it out first thing. We discovered, after trial and error, it tended to get in the way of the adventuring/exploration part of the game, which to us, was far far more fun (though I admit some guys did dig the war gaming stuff, but even they would admit it followed a new path). After messing with name level castle/keep/stronghold etc. building stuff for a summer we moved on (those that want to pay for it, we just hand wave it and say they do everything necessary after x months with the help of his adventuring buddies) and get back to exploring dungeons (usually with some choice henchman in tow, though it was always risky...you didn't want to get your ultra-loyal henchmen killed, as they were irreplaceable). Mostly, it was just sort of neat to know in the back of your mind you have a castle or tower waiting for you one day. Of course, that day never comes to pass, other then occasionally checking in (unless we retire the PC permanently).

As for henchmen we never let players take them over if there PC died. The DM would use the henchman to recover the body (if the players didn't bother) and attempt to get him resurrected as soon as possible. Players (that didn't want to go home or simply watch) rolled up a new PC to add to the group (much lower level) or pulled out another from his notebook of active PCs (we tended to have a bunch as we do now).

Matthew wrote:

AxeMental wrote: They don't play the NPC as a PC, but rather an independent person with his own interests and assumptions. They can make the NPC role play, can make him steal, run up and help a PC thats unconscious and bleeding out (or run away) but thats usually done with dice and morale checks.

See, I am fine with that. Those are NPC "associates" in the nomenclature of the DMG and I allow players to take up with NPC adventurers in that capacity to whatever degree they like. It is when the game master feels ownership of a character separately from its existence as an NPC that I find it worrying [i.e. as a way for the game master to both run and play the game at the same time].

About half the PCs in my game have acquired at least one loyal henchmen. The players almost always have the privilege of determining their NPC followers' actions. However, there are times I feel it appropriate to step in as DM to counter players' directives of their henchmen's actions. Usually, the intervention is a reaction/morale check to determine if a henchman will follow a course of action that is detrimental to the henchman's future existence. How well the henchman has been treated, and the alignment differential between the henchman and his superior, are the main determining factors. If the die roll fails horribly, the henchman not only fails to follow orders, but I may feel the situation warrants an act actually contrary to the PCs desire.

I run all NPCs in my games, including familiars and henchmen, and one PC per player is the limit. More than one character per player would just be too confusing for me. That being said, if a PC dies I do prefer to promote an NPC henchman or even hireling to an "instant PC" if one is available. It gives me one less character to worry about, and it usually does less violence to the smooth flow of the adventure than having a new PC just "magically" appear. If the player doesn't want to keep playing the erstwhile NPC, he can create a new PC for the next session. One NPC man-at-arms went back and forth from NPC to PC twice in my current campaign before becoming a permanent PC ("permanent" until his likely horrible death, that is).

As far as having pet NPCs - not me! There's nothing I love more than having any and all NPCs melt into green slime, choke on yellow mold spores and turn a ghastly jaundiced color, get eaten by gnolls while still alive and screaming, get riddled with pixie darts, turn purple and swell monstrously after suffering a fatal poisonous bite, get turned into something awful and (usually) embarrassing, be slowly crushed to death under a mill stone, or (on more than one occasion) spontaneously combust. It lets the players know what's probably in store for them.

Noticed the other day that S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks suggests that players each take on the role of 1-3 characters.

Tomb of Horrors also has suggestions for giving each player two or three of pre-gens, depending on the number of players.

Perhaps some deadly modules were designed (optionally) to run multiple PCs per player. Pre-gens are placed in many of the modules as well. But those are modules (one shot deals), not rules. Plus, both of those are challenging higher level modules for the advanced experienced player (who's been playing properly for years already) who, perhaps, doesn't want to risk a high level PC he spent a lot of time building on a suicide dungeon. After running such a module using multiple PCs, I bet most "in the day" went back to 1 PC at a time. In other words its not intended to be the norm (but rather an option) because it undercuts the point of the game "role play" (ie. your "there" at some level doing stuff, when your PC is about to die it has to feel like your personally about to die, your supposed to care).

Sure, but the point was that message was there for players and game masters alike, which is that it is "okay" to run multiple characters at once. Lots of people used the modules as models for how they were supposed to play the game. Now I am not suggesting it was really very common, but rather that the precedent was well established from some of the earliest days and not just some crazy minor remark in the DMG.

Matthew wrote:Sure, but the point was that message was there for players and game masters alike, which is that it is "okay" to run multiple characters at once. Lots of people used the modules as models for how they were supposed to play the game. Now I am not suggesting it was really very common, but rather that the precedent was well established from some of the earliest days and not just some crazy minor remark in the DMG.

Well, I see your point. But to my mind, the module was supposed to be used as a guide on how to design cool dungeons, not how to play the game. And modules were not for the eyes of the player. A good DM would slam a ruler on the hand of an offending player pawing at a TSR module before game. Anyhow, I seriously doubt a DM was supposed to take away "start offering optional characters for your players to control, like those found in the back of modules" or "suggest to players to routinely control multiple PCs". Though I will agree that when a DM wants to make a death dungeon with a really low chance of survival, he might suggest cleaning out character folders (we did this a few months ago myself, and had a ball). But we all understand its a one shot.

Hell, TSR had Dragon and even UA to advance these idea of players controlling multiple PCs or assuming control of NPCs but never did. My impression is that the game trended toward players going deeply into a single character (which turned out to be a really bad thing, PCs became too valuable to die, this was all codified with customizations (there's a direct link starting with WS in the UA to 2Es many forms, to eventually 3.5 monk/ranger/wizard/half Halfling half school of fish tattooed nipple pierced PCs). Anyhow, Over-indulgence in one PC mind set missed the point of the game (its not about development of a character but exploration and adventure). So, in that sense, I think I'd have liked to have seen the multiple PC option suggested in the UA (rather then the worse-crappy ideas presented).

Right, but players who played in the module would be well aware that they could play multiple characters.

Anyway, the point was never what TSR encouraged in the long term, just that there is a strong precedent for players controlling more than one character at once in AD&D that derives from its earliest days. The same is true, of course, with regard to experienced players starting higher than first level in a new campaign [i.e. the DMG indicates this is expected], but it is not very common practice as far as I can tell. In my campaigns I am very unlikely to allow players to operate more than one character at once, but neither am I adverse to them directing the actions of hirelings, henchmen and associates. It takes the burden off me, allows them the pleasure of doing so (assuming they want to do it) and there is clear precedent for it. Possibly it may detract from their immersion in their own characters, but I have not observed that in practice, nor am I really very strongly into the "immersion" aspect of adventure games, role-playing for me is a fun adjunct to, rather than the purpose of the game itself (which I deem to be adventure).