Gamer Girl
2012-03-18, 01:24 PM
So the rules are vague and don't say anything much about summoning monsters. ''You just do it''. This came up in a game the other day, so I wonder how everyone does it.
I only see three ways to do it(and I do #1 myself):
1.The DM is in full control of the summoned creature. The character must tell the creature what to do or otherwise direct it. The creature is free to do things the way they want, unless specifically ordered. Game wise the player has no idea what the creature can or can't do. If there will be a lot of combat, the DM might give the player a short note card about the creatures abilities...but never give the 'whole monster manual page'.
2.The player has full control of the summoned creature. It's in effect another character for the player. Game wise the player just opens the monster manual and knows everything about the creature.
3.Somewhere in the middle. The player almost controls the creature as another character, but the DM has veto and ultimate control power.
Reasoning:
1.Pros-I like number one as it adds mystery and drama and role-playing. The creature summoned is a creature not just a bunch of game statistics. The player can interact with the creature and role-play. And it has the fun aspect that the player has to 'be careful' as the creature might do something the character might not want. For example if the character said ''Stop the halflings'', she meant to say ''Stop the halflings with out hurting or killing them'', but all the Djinni was told was to 'stop' them and he does so by smashing them to pulp. And if an unwise player wants the creature to cast 'charm person' on a centaur, the creature can just say that won't work. It also keeps all the game information away from the player.
Cons-The DM has to take the time to control the summoned creature. The player can't do summoning combat builds easily. It can slow down combat if the player tries to do fancy stuff every round.
2.Pros-The creature is just some game statistics. The player is free to form and do any sort of tactics they want to do with all their characters. This works out great for 'all combat' games as the player can crunch all the numbers and see all the effects.
Cons-No drama or role-playing, the game statistic creature is all roll playing. As a player's character the summoned creature does exactly what the player wants. The creature is limited by the players skill and knowledge, so they will waste a round casting 'charm person' on a centaur and then wonder why it did not work.
3.Pros-Like most middle ground sort of things it tries to make everyone happy, and fails:
Cons-The half and half control will not always work out. Should the player make a tactical mistake, they will complain to the DM ''well my creature(you) should have told me!''. If the DM 'occasionally' takes control of the creature the player will know 'something is up' at the very least. And a great many players won't like to share the control, as the player and DM won't always agree about the creature.
So how does everyone else do it?
I only see three ways to do it(and I do #1 myself):
1.The DM is in full control of the summoned creature. The character must tell the creature what to do or otherwise direct it. The creature is free to do things the way they want, unless specifically ordered. Game wise the player has no idea what the creature can or can't do. If there will be a lot of combat, the DM might give the player a short note card about the creatures abilities...but never give the 'whole monster manual page'.
2.The player has full control of the summoned creature. It's in effect another character for the player. Game wise the player just opens the monster manual and knows everything about the creature.
3.Somewhere in the middle. The player almost controls the creature as another character, but the DM has veto and ultimate control power.
Reasoning:
1.Pros-I like number one as it adds mystery and drama and role-playing. The creature summoned is a creature not just a bunch of game statistics. The player can interact with the creature and role-play. And it has the fun aspect that the player has to 'be careful' as the creature might do something the character might not want. For example if the character said ''Stop the halflings'', she meant to say ''Stop the halflings with out hurting or killing them'', but all the Djinni was told was to 'stop' them and he does so by smashing them to pulp. And if an unwise player wants the creature to cast 'charm person' on a centaur, the creature can just say that won't work. It also keeps all the game information away from the player.
Cons-The DM has to take the time to control the summoned creature. The player can't do summoning combat builds easily. It can slow down combat if the player tries to do fancy stuff every round.
2.Pros-The creature is just some game statistics. The player is free to form and do any sort of tactics they want to do with all their characters. This works out great for 'all combat' games as the player can crunch all the numbers and see all the effects.
Cons-No drama or role-playing, the game statistic creature is all roll playing. As a player's character the summoned creature does exactly what the player wants. The creature is limited by the players skill and knowledge, so they will waste a round casting 'charm person' on a centaur and then wonder why it did not work.
3.Pros-Like most middle ground sort of things it tries to make everyone happy, and fails:
Cons-The half and half control will not always work out. Should the player make a tactical mistake, they will complain to the DM ''well my creature(you) should have told me!''. If the DM 'occasionally' takes control of the creature the player will know 'something is up' at the very least. And a great many players won't like to share the control, as the player and DM won't always agree about the creature.
So how does everyone else do it?