i see two parts. people and tactics.
on the topic of adding another person, i'm definitely leaning toward the dmpc. I agree that they are problematic in many ways. i think though that they are problems we are all already accustomed to dealing with for the most part, and i'm certain that if any of us are capable of running a dmpc to the best degree possible, it's dichotomy. my reservations about adding another from the masses of enworld are pretty simple. I don't want a flake. dichotomy isn't a flake, and i think the loss of "realism" with a dmpc is more than accounted for by removing the possibility of having a flake. I also second mn's comments that should we get to 5th or 6th level and decide we want to try a 4 person party, getting rid of the dmpc should be easier than a real person. More importantly, should we try a 4 person party and decide it's not working, it will then be way easier to re-integrate the dmpc. My thoughts at least. HOWEVER, dichotomy gets to make the call in my mind. If he's not comfortable running a dmpc, or is seriously in favor of looking for a new pc, that's what we should do. He's dm, and i think having our input, he should make the call himself.
then.... tactics.
This has always kind of been a bitter part of our roleplaying. i think that both ti and mn make excellent points. the sticking point for me is the amount of knowledge a pc should have, and what amount of that they should be able to recall in the stress of combat. Obviously the pc's have a level of understanding about 'their' world that exceeds our own understanding as mn pointed out. Forgive me for sounding like a... well... hmm. I think the element that's missing is emotion. Yes, dichotomy or mn, in a battle with three flesh eating wolves might be able to maintain a level of control that allows them to play out completely ideal tactics in the given rule-set provided to them. But the characters we play, or at least the ones i play, aren't me, and i don't want them to be. It's ok with me if my character forgets that if they do A someone else won't be able to do B. In fact I WANT that to happen.
We are a group of people who just met and have what amount to no experience fighting in this group or perhaps at all. It should be EXPECTED that we will suck at tactics. We don't know eachother. The part that has sucked about this situation was the two encounters where we could have been learning about how we fight and how we will fit together as a group, we instead were trying not to die.
my two cents.... more later maybe...
on the topic of adding another person, i'm definitely leaning toward the dmpc. I agree that they are problematic in many ways. i think though that they are problems we are all already accustomed to dealing with for the most part, and i'm certain that if any of us are capable of running a dmpc to the best degree possible, it's dichotomy. my reservations about adding another from the masses of enworld are pretty simple. I don't want a flake. dichotomy isn't a flake, and i think the loss of "realism" with a dmpc is more than accounted for by removing the possibility of having a flake. I also second mn's comments that should we get to 5th or 6th level and decide we want to try a 4 person party, getting rid of the dmpc should be easier than a real person. More importantly, should we try a 4 person party and decide it's not working, it will then be way easier to re-integrate the dmpc. My thoughts at least. HOWEVER, dichotomy gets to make the call in my mind. If he's not comfortable running a dmpc, or is seriously in favor of looking for a new pc, that's what we should do. He's dm, and i think having our input, he should make the call himself.
then.... tactics.
This has always kind of been a bitter part of our roleplaying. i think that both ti and mn make excellent points. the sticking point for me is the amount of knowledge a pc should have, and what amount of that they should be able to recall in the stress of combat. Obviously the pc's have a level of understanding about 'their' world that exceeds our own understanding as mn pointed out. Forgive me for sounding like a... well... hmm. I think the element that's missing is emotion. Yes, dichotomy or mn, in a battle with three flesh eating wolves might be able to maintain a level of control that allows them to play out completely ideal tactics in the given rule-set provided to them. But the characters we play, or at least the ones i play, aren't me, and i don't want them to be. It's ok with me if my character forgets that if they do A someone else won't be able to do B. In fact I WANT that to happen.
We are a group of people who just met and have what amount to no experience fighting in this group or perhaps at all. It should be EXPECTED that we will suck at tactics. We don't know eachother. The part that has sucked about this situation was the two encounters where we could have been learning about how we fight and how we will fit together as a group, we instead were trying not to die.
my two cents.... more later maybe...
