Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brimshack" data-source="post: 3190296" data-attributes="member: 34694">Just taking stock of teh semantic angle for a moment. What are the variety of things we can use the distinction DMPC versus NPC to signal:A) An over-powered and/or ideal character versus one that is par for the party.B) A favored character versus one that receives treatement comparable to the rest of the party.C) A character considered part of the party versus one who is subordinate and/or really treated as background for the party.D) A character that is considered as belonging to the DM and to which he has attached goals comparable to those of the players versus one which he runs without such investment.Are there others?For my own part, I am thinking of this largely in terms of definition D. I'm doing this because I am fairly certain that when I roll up a character and introduce it into a party as my character, I am fairly certain all the usual concerns will immediately come to mind. Those who define a DMPC by definitions A, B, or C are unlikely to give me a pass simply because I haven't yet triggered the technical distinctions which they highlight.And herein lies the problem I think with a lot of the semantic arguments being tossed around here. Unless you are prepared to say that a situation such as described in definition D is NOT a DMPC, then concerns such as those attached to A and B, are not really semantic questions; they are practical concerns about whether or not D actually leads to conduct such as described in A and B. Those are perfectly reasonable concerns, but they are concerns which play out in the actual details of a campaign. A DM may field a character in keeping with definition D and fail to produce the problems associated with A and B. Likewise, a DM may produce the problems associated with A and B without ever making a conscious choice (much less an openly aknoldged one) to play a DMPC. If avoiding the situation described in A and B the primary concern of a player, then I think it's reasonable to raise it in cases where a DM fields a character. I also think refusal to play under the circumstances described in D would be reasonable. What is not reasonable is the assertion that D is by definition equivalent to A and B or that it leads categorically to them.</blockquote>

Verification