Difference between playing an NPC and a PC

[JaydeMoon]

Just before Demson closing the thread regarding certain possible rules changes, Ayergo posed a query:

Well whats the difference between playing an NPC as a DM and playing a PC?

This query was in relation to the concept of 'Being able to play where you DM'

He further went on to ask and say:

If you decide to use the player client to do the former and quest along with other players is it somehow less fun than if you are declared a player by some rules in forum? NPCs will oft have reason to quest with PCs.

Since then I have been speaking with him about what I feel are the differences between 'Playing an NPC as a DM' and 'playing a PC'.

I feel that there are some very fundamental differences and that the two are Apples and Oranges.

Ayergo feels I am merely putting limitations on myself and that they are close enough to the same thing as to warrant being a compromise to the 'Play where you DM' rule change suggestion.

This is not a thread about whether we should change the rule on allowing members to play a PC where you DM! This is a thread to discuss whether you think there is a difference between playing an NPC as a DM and playing a PC.

Further is there a difference between playing an NPC with the player interface, from here on I'll label it an (N)PC (NPC being NPC's using DM interface and PC's meaning simply a player character), versus playing an actual PC.

Old discussion on whether of not DMing using the player interface should be kosher:

http://www.alandfaraway.org/forums/view ... +interface

Ayergo says this thread is a "Lost thread on lost ruling that was hearsay to begin with on something DMs still do."

*shrug* I say the thread isn't lost, it's right there, linked! But the rest of this statement may certainly be received as valid.

So, what are your thoughts?

[Brokenbone]

Playing entails BEING SURPRISED... hopefully getting some enjoyable problem solving, roleplay, whatever out of it.

Utilizing the player client, in order to facilitate DMing, does not mean you're playing, you're still the referee.

It is also kind of stupid to deprive yourself of the twenty different things using a DM Avatar and all DM Tools permit. Move a mob, possess an NPC on the fly, jump 20 areas away, pause the game, assist other players in any technical fashion, etc. Maybe in the days of TVS, the last I heard this technique was popular, the Avatar, tools, or other interface was primitive or something - I cannot say, I can only guess why one'd use inferior tools. Maybe to trick players in days of higher density? I.e., someone you don't realize is the DM due to a diff't GSID, hanging out with you?

The sole non-sneaky benefit I see is that the "DM'd PC" is about 10 hitpoints more sturdy than a "DM'd NPC", due to the negative ten bleedout buffer. Unfortunately if a DM'd PC does die, they'd leave an unreasonably looty corpse, compared to the usually underequipped NPCs you'll find throughout the pallette (although DMs properly using the Creator could start stuffing a DM'd NPC backpack full of required things). Again, I guess if for some reason you needed to help PCs through combats that either spawns / pre-decorated areas handled, or a "real" avatar using DM was handling, and you wanted to make sure the NPC could survive (PCs have a chance to bandage a bleeder), this could be handy. I guess DM'd PCs also trigger all scripts as if a PC, which is handy for testing purposes, but which is also why people have "Test Dummy" PCs sometimes, with silly names whose sole purpose is to run around bugtesting... this is far enough from "playing" to be not worth discussion, no one will complain to the PA if you have ten PCs each with names like "Test Fighter", "Test Rogue", "Test Monk", etc.

Anyhow, just a couple of thoughts. Using the player client in order to DM makes sense for bughunting, but is crippling if you really wanted to organize / referee in play. Maybe we used to do that at some point in the game's past, people claim it's so, I have to assume our tools used to suck. I've not seen this "technique" used ever before, but have only been around a couple of years, and may not have been alert to how the game was run at the outset *shrugs*

[JaydeMoon]

Some of my own thoughts:

I firmly FIRMYL believe that NPCs and PCs are Apples and Oranges. PCs are the actual (usually) singular playings pieces that players use to represent their contribution to the game world. As it is their Character, they have a right' as it were to develop an attachment to the goals of that character, the character itself, and to the development of that character.

NPCs are among the tools used by the DM to bring life to their stories. DMs have a 'responsibility' to adjudicate the game in an unbiased manner. They should not develop an attachment to any particular NPC with concern to the goals, NPC itself, or to the development of the character.

While NPCs can certainly be as deep as PCs, the story developed should focus on the PCs as the main characters and not the NPCs. NPCs SHOULD have goals and they should develop over time. The level of importance here is secondary to PCs.

When you start attaching yourself to your NPCs, and blurring the line between NPCs and PCs, you run a very good risk of damaging your story and your relation with your players.

When examining the nature of using an (N)PC and running it alonside your PCs and saying this is a compromise towards 'playing where you DM', I expect it really creates that blurry line about what you're doing.

Taken to an extreme, 4 DMs on a server decide to have a 'session' on Thursday night. From 6pm EST to 10 pm EST, 3 DMs are logged on with the player interface. One DM is logged on with the DM interface. There are no actual players logged in.

The DM interface using DM runs a sessions for the 3 (N)PCs.

What are they doing? Is this kosher?

Would it be alright for one of these (N)PCs to then join your campaign roup and adventure alongside you in a plot that relates to these (N)PCs?


Now, I am not against using the Player Interface as a tool for DMing, but I believe it should be controlled and not confused with 'playing'. You are DMing.

Zelk brought up some really good points about controls in the thread Demson posted.

In any case, these are some of my thoughts on why 'DMing using the player interface' and simply 'playing' are very very different things. Perhaps I am just imposing limitations on myself and really thinking 'inside the box' on this. Or perhaps I have very valid points about the nature of the DM/Player relationship and the differences between what makes one a DM and makes someone else a player.

[Brokenbone]

I hadn't mentioned "taste" above, but often people hate when NPCs are the stars.

Oh good, we get to follow DM Bob's favourite knight errant NPC, Sir Scenestealer... I guess everyone hide behind him, at the points when we don't have to listen to his clue-filled monologues. Walk on and walk off for pity's sake, unless the plot demands otherwise, hopefully in the short term (i.e., your job is to escort Sir Thinskin to his rendezvous on the other side of the Forest of Terror, good luck!)

I assume (N)PCs being the stars (to borrow JM's term) would suck as well. NPCs you can at least limbo and say "assume this guy is with your party, I haven't got time to drive him", but an (N)PC is doing all the boring walking right alongside you, or in front of you for that matter, waste of time that the DM could be better using to control the game world in many situations.

[Rusty]

I shouldn't think any DM has used the Player Client to aid their DMing since the DM Client was capable of doing the job properly; equating such use to playing a PC clearly isn't the most coherent of arguments.

[JaydeMoon]

I didn't mean to address, in this thread, the viability of the player interface as a tool for DMing.

What I'm mostly looking for here, are thoughts to the questions Ayergo presented:

"Well whats the difference between playing an NPC as a DM and playing a PC?"

Especially as it relates the the question of whether we should allow DMs to maintain PCs on a server they DM on.

Point Ayergo is trying to bring up here is that for all intents and purposes, DMs CAN maintain PCs on a server they DM on by virtue of being able to use the player interface as a tool for DMing.

My point as that this is not any sort of compromise on the issue, nor does it come close to addressing it for those who would like to see the rule changed because NPCs (or (N)PCs) are NOT PCs.

If NPCs are not PCs, Ayergo wonders, "Why not? What is the difference?"

So, IS there a difference? Why is there a difference? How can we measure that difference?

[FanaticusIncendi]

Customer: *walks into a bakery and goes to the counter*

"Hi, I'd like a slice of apple pie please"

Baker: *serves a slice of pear pie*

Customer: "Um, no I wanted apple pie"

Baker: "This is just like it"

Customer: *looks at pear pie*

"Nooo... this is pear. I wanted apple"

Baker: "Pears are just like apples. They have a skin you peel off and are crisp and sweet"

Customer: *eats a bite*

"No, these taste like pears. I want apple."

Baker: *sighs* "Well you can't have apple. So be content with pears and tell yourself it's the same thing"

Customer: "Can I have my monies back?"

[Nalo Jade]

What I'm mostly looking for here, are thoughts to the questions Ayergo presented:

"Well whats the difference between playing an NPC as a DM and playing a PC?"
Especially as it relates the the question of whether we should allow DMs to maintain PCs on a server they DM on.

Expectations. The rules would expect that you are playing the (N)PC for a DM function.
1.How would CvC be handled in both situations is different. An NPC who doesn't need to announce his/her intents, nor would a DM need to be present to supervise.
2. If it is found out that you are playing the (N)PC for recreation, then you could be labeled as someone that is circumventing a rule and therefore you could receive negative consequences for breaking the rules.

If NPCs are not PCs, Ayergo wonders, "Why not? What is the difference?"

Because the rule currently says its not the same thing. Many distinctions in the thread you posted show that their should be plenty of supervision and control involved in the limited use of this (N)PC type of character.

So, IS there a difference? Why is there a difference? How can we measure that difference?

Yes there is a diff.

Because the rules say so.

By seeing that playing a (N)PC for recreation is against the current rules. The expectation is that you are to use the (N)PC for some DM function whether its spy on players or further a plot...

[Zelknolf]

I'm with BB and Jayde, with a couple of points to add.

1) NPCs exist only insofar as players are capable of percieving them. Any DM who has developed skill with managing time and resources while DMing has gotten accustomed to hiding and dismissing things that the players are not focused on. Failure to do this results in imperfect information about the circumstances and actions of the PCs, simply due to not being around when the information is made available. There is a degree to which this can be mitigated with the use of party chat, I grant, but there is better information in being able to be present more often, and better information equips the DM to do his/her job better.

2) NPCs have a purpose relative to PCs. No NPC is ever created without some intention of having it interact with a PC. I would even go so far as to say that the most useful and successfully applied NPCs have specific PCs, or groups of PCs, that they are supposed to interact with. Clearly, some have more general purposes (barkeepers, for instance, are supposed to interact with anyone), but how many people remember barkeepers? How many people remember the quirky alchemist who works for their faction and can be chatted up/haggled with to acquire those oh-so-valuable potions of invisibility?

3) The fate and development of NPCs are, thus, completely dependent upon other people. While it is possible to attempt to construct an NPC with another purpose, such is going to direct that NPC toward some variety of failure, either due to a lack of utility to the PCs, a lack of interest from the PCs, or a lack of place in a story.

4) NPCs are habitually less-developed than PCs. This is a good thing; I would provide delightful citations on all things, but I don't much need to. I have degrees in this one -- minor characters are never successful if an author attempts to make them rounded, just as main characters are never successful if an author attempts to make them flat. The fact is that an NPC used for its purpose does not get enough attention or focus in the narrative (+ see 'sidelining' below) to facilitate roundness while making the character seem believable. Showing depth in too small a timeframe just makes a character seem strange and unbelievable.


Further, I would go on to say that attempting to present an NPC as a PC comes with a series of problems.
1) Sidelining is probably the most obvious problem. An NPC presented as a PC -- that is to say that the NPC makes repeated appearances in adventure and accompanies the party, including having tangible influence on the story and the party's problem solving methods -- devalues the things that we are supposed to grant PCs unconditionally: efficacy and focus. In the absence of powerful mind-affecting magic (I would point out, of course, that the DMG grants PCs immunity to the choice-stealing parts of charm spells from NPCs through its clause that NPCs may never influence PC actions through use of a charisma-based skill or a charisma check, the latter being the primary method charm spells make things happen.) the choices and methods of PCs are their own, and the joy of the challenges presented by the DM is in their ownership of the results. Good choices bring victory, and the story focuses on the victory and that ownership when it happens; bad choices bring defeat, and the story focuses on the defeat and that ownership when it happens. If a DM is making the choices, all of that enjoyment is siphoned out and stuffed into an NPC; the remaining value of the presented conflict is through the storytelling element, and even that is damaged by the DM's imposition in the shape of damaged verisimilitude. (part of the accepted "reality" of the game world being the presence of PC choice.)

2) Railroading is connected to the sidelining issue, but one of the methods that railroading comes about is through the misuse of a favorite NPC. If I were to take Brokenbone's example from the previous thread, which I believe follows the spirit, of a DM setting up a village of humanoids that are, let's say, going on raids and making trouble for townsfolk. The DM then logs out as a DM, logs in as an (N)PC, rallies other PCs to the cause of ridding the town of the scourge of those blased nomadic and hastily-breeding goblins, and destroys them all. Here, the leader is the DM, and the only option to see this adventure completed is to follow the DM and listen to his orders. Once again, the strategy robs the players of efficacy and the joy that comes from it, but in this instance there is little to no sense that the plot could go differently if the party simply ditched a sidelining NPC.

3) Investment in the NPC as brought up in the previous posts. I would reiterate that the development of a good PC requires a degree of emotional attachment. Without that attachment, the motivation to make the character deep enough to serve as the central character in any variety of story simply won't be there. We seem to do a good job of appealing to people who make good main characters in ALFA, while I would say that most other persistent worlds I've been to sport a much larger population of background-quality PCs, but the price of that comes when an NPC is made to serve as a PC. The DM will be invested in that NPC and grant it special favors. That NPC might be on the front lines of a horribly bloody battle where half of the unit died; what is the chance that the NPC is dead? 0%. That NPC might be targeted by death magic due to the AI on a hostile spellcaster, and might even fail its save; what is the chance that the DM will rule the NPC dead? 0%. That NPC might earn the ire of PCs, who then plot against it and attempt to kill it. What is the chance that the NPC will escape, and then be completely unable to be tracked by those PCs? 100%.

4) Pressure from Interaction as a Player is something that I believe deserves its own position here. If a PC knows that a DM is attempting to buy his/her character a drink, how many will say no? If a PC knows that another PC is attempting the same, how many will say no? I would say that there is a significant difference in those two numbers, and that the appearance of that differnce has to do with the pressure exerted by the fact that the request comes from a DM who is presumably invested in his/her presented-as-PC NPC. Indeed, I would even say that the leverage of a DM wand would make that particular interaction very likely to qualify as sexual harrassment (the only real trigger being whether or not it is welcome to the PC, who is certainly going to have difficulty expressing the [un]welcome nature of the move, again because of the power leverage.) But, clearly, that doesn't have to be the only kind of pressure. I would just say that one presents the longest-term hostile environment. What happens when a DM's PCesque NPC asks a PC to join a faction? What happens when that NPC threatens violence? What happens when that NPC spreads rumors about someone?


Very different things, and I think we as a community shoot ourselves in the foot if we encourage people to blur the distinction.

[Rotku]

So, IS there a difference? Why is there a difference? How can we measure that difference?

Im simply going to agree with what everyone has said above. To try and claim otherwise is... well, silly. The difference, as anyone who has tried it should be able to agree with, is huge. I'm not going to repeat the above points, as they've been put so well.

The only bit I will add, is to address the last point in Jayde's above question - "How can we measure that difference". Is there a way at all to measure a difference? How can you quantify a difference between an apple and a pear pie? Sure, you can list all the differences, but then Difference A is bound to be of a different severity than Difference B. Then it comes down to placing arbitrary values to each difference, for which there is no right or wrong answer. So trying to measure the difference? Not a great use of time, as far as I'm concerened. A difference is a difference, end of story.

[FanaticusIncendi]

I'm with BB and Jayde, with a couple of points to add.

1) NPCs exist only insofar as players are capable of percieving them. Any DM who has developed skill with managing time and resources while DMing has gotten accustomed to hiding and dismissing things that the players are not focused on. Failure to do this results in imperfect information about the circumstances and actions of the PCs, simply due to not being around when the information is made available. There is a degree to which this can be mitigated with the use of party chat, I grant, but there is better information in being able to be present more often, and better information equips the DM to do his/her job better.

2) NPCs have a purpose relative to PCs. No NPC is ever created without some intention of having it interact with a PC. I would even go so far as to say that the most useful and successfully applied NPCs have specific PCs, or groups of PCs, that they are supposed to interact with. Clearly, some have more general purposes (barkeepers, for instance, are supposed to interact with anyone), but how many people remember barkeepers? How many people remember the quirky alchemist who works for their faction and can be chatted up/haggled with to acquire those oh-so-valuable potions of invisibility?

3) The fate and development of NPCs are, thus, completely dependent upon other people. While it is possible to attempt to construct an NPC with another purpose, such is going to direct that NPC toward some variety of failure, either due to a lack of utility to the PCs, a lack of interest from the PCs, or a lack of place in a story.

4) NPCs are habitually less-developed than PCs. This is a good thing; I would provide delightful citations on all things, but I don't much need to. I have degrees in this one -- minor characters are never successful if an author attempts to make them rounded, just as main characters are never successful if an author attempts to make them flat. The fact is that an NPC used for its purpose does not get enough attention or focus in the narrative (+ see 'sidelining' below) to facilitate roundness while making the character seem believable. Showing depth in too small a timeframe just makes a character seem strange and unbelievable.


Further, I would go on to say that attempting to present an NPC as a PC comes with a series of problems.
1) Sidelining is probably the most obvious problem. An NPC presented as a PC -- that is to say that the NPC makes repeated appearances in adventure and accompanies the party, including having tangible influence on the story and the party's problem solving methods -- devalues the things that we are supposed to grant PCs unconditionally: efficacy and focus. In the absence of powerful mind-affecting magic (I would point out, of course, that the DMG grants PCs immunity to the choice-stealing parts of charm spells from NPCs through its clause that NPCs may never influence PC actions through use of a charisma-based skill or a charisma check, the latter being the primary method charm spells make things happen.) the choices and methods of PCs are their own, and the joy of the challenges presented by the DM is in their ownership of the results. Good choices bring victory, and the story focuses on the victory and that ownership when it happens; bad choices bring defeat, and the story focuses on the defeat and that ownership when it happens. If a DM is making the choices, all of that enjoyment is siphoned out and stuffed into an NPC; the remaining value of the presented conflict is through the storytelling element, and even that is damaged by the DM's imposition in the shape of damaged verisimilitude. (part of the accepted "reality" of the game world being the presence of PC choice.)

2) Railroading is connected to the sidelining issue, but one of the methods that railroading comes about is through the misuse of a favorite NPC. If I were to take Brokenbone's example from the previous thread, which I believe follows the spirit, of a DM setting up a village of humanoids that are, let's say, going on raids and making trouble for townsfolk. The DM then logs out as a DM, logs in as an (N)PC, rallies other PCs to the cause of ridding the town of the scourge of those blased nomadic and hastily-breeding goblins, and destroys them all. Here, the leader is the DM, and the only option to see this adventure completed is to follow the DM and listen to his orders. Once again, the strategy robs the players of efficacy and the joy that comes from it, but in this instance there is little to no sense that the plot could go differently if the party simply ditched a sidelining NPC.

3) Investment in the NPC as brought up in the previous posts. I would reiterate that the development of a good PC requires a degree of emotional attachment. Without that attachment, the motivation to make the character deep enough to serve as the central character in any variety of story simply won't be there. We seem to do a good job of appealing to people who make good main characters in ALFA, while I would say that most other persistent worlds I've been to sport a much larger population of background-quality PCs, but the price of that comes when an NPC is made to serve as a PC. The DM will be invested in that NPC and grant it special favors. That NPC might be on the front lines of a horribly bloody battle where half of the unit died; what is the chance that the NPC is dead? 0%. That NPC might be targeted by death magic due to the AI on a hostile spellcaster, and might even fail its save; what is the chance that the DM will rule the NPC dead? 0%. That NPC might earn the ire of PCs, who then plot against it and attempt to kill it. What is the chance that the NPC will escape, and then be completely unable to be tracked by those PCs? 100%.

4) Pressure from Interaction as a Player is something that I believe deserves its own position here. If a PC knows that a DM is attempting to buy his/her character a drink, how many will say no? If a PC knows that another PC is attempting the same, how many will say no? I would say that there is a significant difference in those two numbers, and that the appearance of that differnce has to do with the pressure exerted by the fact that the request comes from a DM who is presumably invested in his/her presented-as-PC NPC. Indeed, I would even say that the leverage of a DM wand would make that particular interaction very likely to qualify as sexual harrassment (the only real trigger being whether or not it is welcome to the PC, who is certainly going to have difficulty expressing the [un]welcome nature of the move, again because of the power leverage.) But, clearly, that doesn't have to be the only kind of pressure. I would just say that one presents the longest-term hostile environment. What happens when a DM's PCesque NPC asks a PC to join a faction? What happens when that NPC threatens violence? What happens when that NPC spreads rumors about someone?


Very different things, and I think we as a community shoot ourselves in the foot if we encourage people to blur the distinction.

Right. Like I said. Pears. Apples.

[Zelknolf]

Right. Like I said. Pears. Apples.

Right, but I'm guessin' that the question exists because someone is genuinely unsure of what the difference is. Your metaphor is more fun for people who already see a difference.

[FanaticusIncendi]

Bah! You and your logic!

[oldgrayrogue]

+1 to Zelk -- very well explained

+1 to FI -- Why can't we have pears and apples?

Its simple really. NPCs help further the story. PCs are the story.

[Nalo Jade]

I had good point to.

Without actual approval, one "could" be gotten into trouble by "skirting" the rule/pillar. Sure maybe the current DMA is okay with it...but what if that DMA is not permanent...what if my arch enemy on the boards decides to make a stink about it and get me in trouble?

I'm not planning on playing, so this doesn't really "matter" to me...but I can see how it would to someone that wants to play & DM... we trust them to DM, why can't we trust them to play?