Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5922867" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't agree with this at all.As I play (and GM) the game, the PCs are protagonists. The NPCs are elements of situations that the PCs engage.Look at a module like Against the Giants. Nosra, the Jarl and so on are not &quot;PCs played by the GM&quot;. They're antagonists. They have been statted up and put into a fictional situation preciesly to be opposed by the PCs.Now look at a d20 module like Three Days to Kill. The same thing is true of the bandit leaders in that scenario. They are antagonists. Their purpose for being part of the game revolves entirely around the PCs.The PCs are created to be protagonists. They generate a list of player resources for protagonism. NPCs and monsters, being created for a different purpose, can be created differently. And the GM needs a different set of resources. Apart from anything else, in the typical scenario the GM's resources are distributed across a wider range of fictional personae.If you go into the game with an attitude of indifference to whether the players' characters, or random orc (or even random supervillain) #3 is going to be the protagonist in your game, you are playing a radically different game from my own.What do the players do in a game where it is up for grabs whether their PCs, or the NPCs and monsters, will be the focus of play?Are you talking about character creation rules, or action resolution rules?But anyway, if an NPC becomes a PC, you rebuild. If a PC becomes and NPC, you probably rebuild too (in 4e, you might use the companion character rules from DMG2).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5922867, member: 42582"] I don't agree with this at all. As I play (and GM) the game, the PCs are protagonists. The NPCs are elements of situations that the PCs engage. Look at a module like Against the Giants. Nosra, the Jarl and so on are not "PCs played by the GM". They're antagonists. They have been statted up and put into a fictional situation [I]preciesly to be opposed by the PCs[/I]. Now look at a d20 module like Three Days to Kill. The same thing is true of the bandit leaders in that scenario. They are antagonists. Their purpose for being part of the game revolves entirely around the PCs. The PCs are created to be protagonists. They generate a list of player resources for protagonism. NPCs and monsters, being created for a different purpose, can be created differently. And the GM needs a different set of resources. Apart from anything else, in the typical scenario the GM's resources are distributed across a wider range of fictional personae. If you go into the game with an attitude of [I]indifference[/I] to whether the players' characters, or random orc (or even random supervillain) #3 is going to be the protagonist in your game, you are playing a radically different game from my own. What do the players do in a game where it is up for grabs whether their PCs, or the NPCs and monsters, will be the focus of play? Are you talking about character creation rules, or action resolution rules? But anyway, if an NPC becomes a PC, you rebuild. If a PC becomes and NPC, you probably rebuild too (in 4e, you might use the companion character rules from DMG2). [/QUOTE]

Verification