Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8147092" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don’t think this is remotely true. I don’t see how it even can be true, regardless of play style or GMing approach or what game you’re playing. The PCs are significantly different from NPCs just by virtue of the fact that the game is about them. They’re the focus of each and every session. Most NPCs will appear once. Some will appear occasionally. Maybe a handful will appear with regularity. The PCs are the ones appearing in every single session. The game doesn’t exist without them. If that’s not the case, I’d be really interested in hearing why not. To me that’s a clear and fundamental difference that I’d expect would absolutely relate to the level of agency present in a game. If you can’t acknowledge that the characters played by the players are the stars of the show, then yeah, I can see how concerns in agency may arise. And also, is you actually view a GM playing a NPC as the equivalent of a player playing a PC....then how is your entire GMing approach not in violation of how you expect your players to play? How can you reconcile an approach that considers PCs and NPCs equally important, but expects the participant running the characters to do so with radically different expectations? Like, player knowledge should be limited to what the character knows as much as possible so that the player doesn't give themselves some kind of unfair advantage.....but the GM is expected to easily and perfectly separate character and GM knowledge to always render sound judgment. I can’t even see how any of this holds together. Well, no, that’s not the only way to handle it. Far from it. There are many ways to do so, plenty of examples have been given. Plus, if you simply accept that PCs and NPCs are fundamentally different, then none of this needs to follow.</blockquote>

Verification