Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6206789" data-attributes="member: 3192">I run old school D&amp;D, so a DM playing along with their own PC is more of a sign of a misguided DM than a faux pas. In the narrative theory camp where &quot;games are exclusively stories&quot; not allowing one player to tell a story from the single character point of view and rather always being every other character is a game defined role for a player. It doesn't matter at all if any player sticks with one character, plays many, or &quot;narrates&quot; anything else in the game. In old school D&amp;D role playing is performing the pattern of a social role, your class. Players are engaged in a reality puzzle game where their class focuses on a particular game system from which they get XP when they demonstrate mastery of it. High level / high XP denotes high mastery within the class just as someone can improve their play at Chess or Agricola through pattern recognition.As a DM I'm running the game behind the screen and relaying what happens as time is expended and the players direct the PCs in their actions. Each Player is playing the game separately, but within the same campaign or game instance. (Like a single play of Chess is a game instance). Now imagine me, the DM, attempting to solve the Rubik's Cube puzzle along with the players. I have to know all the parts. Where they currently stand. Carry out the repercussions of all the actions behind the screen. And know the results none of the players are privy to yet. That they may never be privy to.Do you understand why D&amp;D players only play one character now throughout the whole course of a game? Why a DM attempting to run a PC alongside the Players' PCs is misunderstanding of the game's design? Why NPCs can be hired, befriended, talked to, fought with or against, and still not be PCs?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 6206789, member: 3192"] I run old school D&D, so a DM playing along with their own PC is more of a sign of a misguided DM than a faux pas. In the narrative theory camp where "games are exclusively stories" not allowing one player to tell a story from the single character point of view and rather always being every other character is a game defined role for a player. It doesn't matter at all if any player sticks with one character, plays many, or "narrates" anything else in the game. In old school D&D role playing is performing the pattern of a social role, your class. Players are engaged in a reality puzzle game where their class focuses on a particular game system from which they get XP when they demonstrate mastery of it. High level / high XP denotes high mastery within the class just as someone can improve their play at Chess or Agricola through pattern recognition. As a DM I'm running the game behind the screen and relaying what happens as time is expended and the players direct the PCs in their actions. Each Player is playing the game separately, but within the same campaign or game instance. (Like a single play of Chess is a game instance). Now imagine me, the DM, attempting to solve the Rubik's Cube puzzle along with the players. I have to know all the parts. Where they currently stand. Carry out the repercussions of all the actions behind the screen. And know the results none of the players are privy to yet. That they may never be privy to. Do you understand why D&D players only play one character now throughout the whole course of a game? Why a DM attempting to run a PC alongside the Players' PCs is misunderstanding of the game's design? Why NPCs can be hired, befriended, talked to, fought with or against, and still not be PCs? [/QUOTE]

Verification