The Special Child

[Arravis]

I must admit to the TOMOTS syndrome (and the WOBL syndrome for you Samurai Cat fans)... I don't see that as ego-wish fulfilment though

 

[Mercule]

I had pretty similar experiences in high school -- one DM who liked potent little kids. Still annoys me to this day.

The only time I've used a "special" child was a baby of one of the PCs. In that circumstance, the baby couldn't do anything yet and had no prophesies told about him, he just happenned to have incredible psionic potential. The campaign revovled around another powerful (and evil) psion trying (and eventually succeeding) to steal the baby to swap bodies with him as a way of extending his life and stealing the boy's potential. Considering the whole thing took place before the kid's 1st birthday, he had no more chance of overshadowing the PCs than a magic lump of lead.

 

[Henry]

this always reminds me of Cutter from CM3 Sabre River.

I always hated that little punk - and I was the DM!

the module creator never gave nearly enough info on playing him correctly - *spoiler*

Spoiler

he was basically a "mobile plot device" if truth be known, and both his name and the fact that NOTHING ever tried to harm him was too big of a tip-off.

*spoiler*

 

[el-remmen]

I think the mistake your DM made was whinin about how important the kid was to "the plot" - a good GM should be able to anticipate what will occur if the PCs don't take "the bait" and follow through with the consequences of such and haethe campaign be just as fun based on what didn't happen as much as with what did happen. . .

It is a truism of gaming, is that players will often do any and everything but what you want them to do - and you have to get used to it and not give anything away so that the surprise consequences are still fun to uncover.

 

[Desdichado]

A couple of comments:

• It doesn't sound like this is ego-gratification in this later case. I'd puke all over those HS games you describe, but not just because there's a "special child" with "mysterious powers". That's a viable ingredient in a D&D game, in my opinion. If it's just an extension of the DM's wish fulfillment, though, that's just kinda stupid.
• I'm real anal about not leading PCs around unless they're absolutely lost in the campaign. If the PCs aren't interested in Blondie, then (IMO) the DM needs to come up with some other hooks, or even some other potential scenarios.
• I tend to like little blond, perfect girls who show up and make the PCs all go "Awww..." And then she kills you.

 

[The Cardinal]

my players would kill the little kid on sight - unless, of course, it would be somewhat less than perfect (and maybe smiling): in that case they would run away screaming...

 

[Mark]

my players would kill the little kid on sight - unless, of course, it would be somewhat less than perfect (and maybe smiling): in that case they would run away screaming...

For those of you scoring at home, the correct answer was...

...run away screaming...

That's...

...run away screaming...

As we now take a look at the big board, we see the DM has pulled well out in front of the players and...

 

[Ruined]

Glad that some others have piped up and said that a supernaturally powerful child/young adult in a pivotal role in a campaign isn't childish or cliche. Why? Because I have just that in my campaign. The kid in question has just turned 15, and is currently under the protection of our PCs. He's not so much 'powerful', as he is touched by a god. He's destined to become the leader of his people and lead them in battles against an overwhelming foe (and to aid him in this, he has divinely inspired strategies and tactics). Of course, supernatural wisdom won't save him from a thug with a sword, so he's not that bad.

Some of the examples of the above remind me of Marvel Comics. First there was Franklin Richards, a la the Fantastic Four. The kid had enough mojo to scare off Galactus, who liked to munch on worlds. And then there was Nathan, the progeny of the founding X-Men couple, who was just as bad.

 

[Mark]

Glad that some others have piped up and said that a supernaturally powerful child/young adult in a pivotal role in a campaign isn't childish or cliche.

It's not the use that is cliche, it's the overuse...

 

[Tonguez]

In my offline campaigns of old, my friends and I noticed that we always seemed to place a similar NPC, whom we began calling TOMOTS; The Old Man of the Scenario. Sometimes he was an ultra-powerful archmage, at other times he was an odiferous and supremely annoying (albeit powerless) beggar.

Lol! I too have the recurring NPC -btw named Old TOM - a 'ubiquitous beggar' who just happens to always know the secrets of the city and is always in the right place at the right time 'observing' but only getting involved if the PCs track him down and ask nicely.

I've also used the special child scenario in the past - but with a twist -

The PCs are hired to escort a young Neophyte priestess with amazing healing powers (Special Child 1) to the Temple of the Holy Mother - it is reported that members of the Cult of the Wolf want this child. With them are her chaperone, another Priest (Western style Friar) and his own ward - a young boy of 15.

As the game progresses the group is attacked at various stages along the way by the Cult of the Wolf, werewolves and then undead and the PCs of course repel them and defend the Neophyte priestess.

The Twist is that the actual target of attacks isn't the girl but the young boy who (unknown to even himself) is a reincarnation of two distinct entities (the First Paladin Micha and his arch-rival the Blackguard Liche-Lord Roth)...