Is this metagaming, or a legit method to make PCs shine?

[meto30]

Hello playground, I've a dilemma in which I'd like your help. I'm the DM in a long running FR 3.5e campaign currently in its third year, and I need to answer an accusation of metagaming made by one of my players.

The party in question consists of three PCs and a bunch of NPCs providing support of various kinds. One of the players, hereafter referred to as KBK, is irregularly missing from the table about once in five sessions, and we have a longstanding agreement that if a player is missing his PCs are controlled by the DM as quasi-NPCs, using past behavior and player comments as RP guidelines.

The PC in question, Karmor Kyle (hereafter referred to as the Captain), is the most contributing PC in the party due to reasons I'll explain below, and recently my policy whenever KBK is away was to keep the Captain as offstage as possible to give the other PCs room to shine. This is not to say the other PCs don't shine when the Captain is present - it's just that the Captain performs so admirably as the party's leader, and I did not think it proper for any NPC to steal the spotlight from the PCs.

Then recently a player has complained that sessions are a lot harder when the Captain is not around, and has suggested that my reason for sending him offstage is metagaming. Both players want the Captain present in NPC form when KBK is not around, and this is where my problems lie.

Now, the primary strength of the Captain has little to do with his combat effectiveness - he's a straight fighter of all things - but primarily lies in his leadership and extensive knowledge of strategy and tactics gained through a lifetime spent in various wars. When making decisions, he listens to all available advice and then quickly chooses the next course of action alone, much as he has done in battlefields. When KBK is present the Captain often takes initiative and drives the party forward; if I'm to run him as an NPC he'd have to do the same thing. And that's what I'm worried about - I'd rather not have an NPC calling all the shots, for reasons I expect the playground would understand.

Let's hear it then: do you think I should keep the Captain away whenever KBK is unavailable, as I do now? Or should I acknowledge the fact that this is metagaming and keep the Captain onstage, potentially railroading the party?

Possibly relevant information follow.


All players other than KBK are unequivocally behind keeping the Captain onstage.
Party consists of three PCs and 7 NPCs, most of whom are former soldiers under the Captain's command who took up adventuring when their leader did.
PC#1 Karmor Kyle "the Captain" (player: KBK) is a human male fighter and former commanding officer of Team C, most of whom now follow Kyle around as adventuring companions.
PC#2 Totouria Helmoult "the Alchemist" (player: FMT) is a human female alchemist (imported from PF) who is rather naive but is very knowledgeable about alchemy.
PC#3 Lanian "the Gish" (player: OPG) is a half-dragon human male sorcerer/eldritchknight who has lived as an outcast due to his draconic heritage. Adventuring is the sole way of life in which he has excelled.
NPCs from the Captain's unit are the Lieutenant (who follows the Captain around at all times), the Bard, the Wizard, the Blaster, and the Master Sergeant.
NPCs from the Alchemist's party are the Halberdier and the Shieldsman. The Gish PC belonged to the Alchemist's party before the two parties joined.

[Darius Kane]

I don't see the problem here. Give them what they want. :smallconfused: If they'll start complaining that he outshines them or you're railroading them, just point out that it was their idea to keep him around and you didn't do it exactly for this reasons. Then ask, one last time, if they want his help or not, and stick to their decision.
Or you could always, you know, tell them why you're not using the Captain and let them make an informed decision how they want to go about it.
BTW. When Captain isn't adventuring together with the other PCs, do his followers also not accompany them? Because maybe that's why they think it is harder without him, they're loosing most of their firepower after all. I'm sure you're compensating by using easier encounters if that's the case, but they can't know that, so it's understandable if they fell that their group becomes weaker.

[Yora]

This doesn't have much to do with metagaming.

But you are right that it's always a terrible idea to have the GM play with himself and have the players follow him around. If you think it's not going to work, then tell them that.
If they absolutely don't want to play without that character around, then it would probably the best thing to not play when the player can not make it and instead wait for the next time to continue the adventure.

Or let one of the other players play him. That shouldn't make a difference to the player to whom the character belongs, and you already have enough stuff to do as GM.

[meto30]

Or you could always, you know, tell them why you're not using the Captain and let them make an informed decision how they want to go about it.

I did explain my reasons, and that's when a player said the reasons might be considered metagaming 'from certain viewpoints'. Do note however that the discussion was friendly and constructive - none of the players are upset or anything as far as I can see. This is more of a moral question than a game management one.

I'd rather avoid any railroading at all because in the past I had two players step out of the game because they thought I railroaded them. Once.


But you are right that it's always a terrible idea to have the GM play with himself and have the players follow him around. If you think it's not going to work, then tell them that.
If they absolutely don't want to play without that character around, then it would probably the best thing to not play when the player can not make it and instead wait for the next time to continue the adventure.

Or let one of the other players play him. That shouldn't make a difference to the player to whom the character belongs, and you already have enough stuff to do as GM.

Well we could play some other party while KBK is gone, but we'd rather not for multiple reasons which I believe would take too long to explain here.

The players are also behemontly against playing each other's PCs. They are the ones who chose to let the DM play the PCs whenever players are missing. I belive this is because they'd rather not be responsible for any failures they might make when playing someone else's PC.


As I see it, my situation boils down to choosing one from two options - decide to carry on as before, or accept their request and have the Captain lead the party even without KBK's presence.

[Zerter]

When players insist on something that is bad for them, just give it to them. If they complain, ask them to direct the complaint to themselves.

[meto30]

BTW. When Captain isn't adventuring together with the other PCs, do his followers also not accompany them? Because maybe that's why they think it is harder without him, they're loosing most of their firepower after all. I'm sure you're compensating by using easier encounters if that's the case, but they can't know that, so it's understandable if they fell that their group becomes weaker.


Here is some additional information that might be relevant; thank you, Darius Kane, for pointing this out.

The LT always accompanies the Captain, and thus, whenever the Captain is not around, the LT is missing as well. Most of the time the explanation for the CAPT and the LT being offstage is that they are roaming the streets doing some investigation or another, and boy they do it a lot (even when KBK is present). All other members will stay with the rest of the party, that is, the other PCs.

The LT, Reyn Bryling (monk2/cleric9), is the party's diplomat / healbot / tactical awareness officer / primary adviser to the Captain. She is utterly devoted to the Captain and has followed him from even before the two became mercenaries. She provides the party with divine magic support, and in many cases acts as the party's primary scout through her access to the arcane eye spell via Magic Domain and Spells Domain (Player's Guide to Faerun, access to the anyspell spell which duplicates any arcane spell). The Wizard NPC is unreliable when it comes to scouting because of, well, item-creation centered build. The party lacks a skill monkey other than the Bard, and the Bard is centered around singing songs and buffing the party.

So, yes, whatever the players are complaining about may have to do with having both the Captain and the LT missing.


EDIT: Looks like I got mixed up between the Magic and Spell domains. She has both.

[Ashtagon]

I'd avoid having that character show any real initiative while you are playing him.

If he shows initiative and wins, he essentially becomes a DMPC, and the other players sit back while you tell a story to yourself.

If he shows initiative and loses, everyone will hate you, because he made a bad decision while under your control, and all the more so because you had full knowledge that it would be a bad decision.

If you simply roll dice to determine all his decisions, then you get accused of not playing him with any intelligence.

Personally, I'd enforce, as much as is practical within the constraints of the setting, that player reason for not being present is a strange parallel to the character's reason for not being active. OR, they can start agreeing to playing each others' characters when they aren't present.

[Gotterdammerung]

Ask KBK if it is alright if either FMT or OPG (whichever seems more suited) run the captain when he can't make games.

This will take you out of the uncomfortable position of running the party leader and the enemies.

[meto30]

Ask KBK if it is alright if either FMT or OPG (whichever seems more suited) run the captain when he can't make games.

This will take you out of the uncomfortable position of running the party leader and the enemies.

Both FMT and OPG refuses to play Karmor. KBK (as far as I can see) doesn't care as long as Karmor survives the session he's not participating in. To quote FMT, "I'm rather certain I'll get Karmor killed if I play him".

[Spuddles]

1) show your players your post here

2) if they don't like the way you're playing him, they are welcome to play him. Oterwise they can stfu.

[Gotterdammerung]

Both FMT and OPG refuses to play Karmor. KBK (as far as I can see) doesn't care as long as Karmor survives the session he's not participating in. To quote FMT, "I'm rather certain I'll get Karmor killed if I play him".

In that case, you simply need to explain to your party that it is too difficult for you to run the Captain in the same manner that KBK would play him. The knowledge you have as a DM makes it very difficult to run an active party leader. Either, you keep running him as a back-burner NPC or someone else steps up and takes him off of your hands or KBK stops missing games. There isn't any other fair way to play it.

[mcv]

This isn't metagaming, it's solving the problem of having an absentee player, which is one of the many responsibilities of the GM. Letting him take a backseat is a perfectly good solution. His absence might not be if that has too dramatic an impact on the power balance. Having him take initiative and having the GM solve the problems for the PCs is a really bad idea.

Personally I'd say let one of the other players play him. If they refuse, they have no right to complain about how you run him. You've got too much stuff on your hands already. Protagonists need to be in the hands of the players. If they want The Captain to remain a leading protagonist during KBK's absence, one of the other players will have to play him.

Although as a GM you get to veto anything inappropriate they might want to do with The Captain (like give away all his stuff, take reckless risks that he wouldn't otherwise take, etc).

[meto30]

The reason I termed the problem as 'metagaming' is because FMT said he felt it was very un-Karmor-like, that is, very out of character for the Captain to leave the party without him for extended periods of time. KBK has already given his word on the matter that the Captain (as a character, from a strictly RP perspective) would never allow the party sans himself free rein in his sane mind (he has zero faith in the Alchemist's ability as a leader, and Lanian the Gish doesn't talk much). I do agree that it would be un-Karmor-like for Karmor the Captain to take a back seat in anything - he's the guy who naturally gets in charge. The sole justification I have for Karmor not being present is the one I gave in the OP: it steals the spotlight from the PCs while at the same time forcing me to play the story by myself.

This is more or less related to a minor problem I'm having with a majority of my players - they never get in charge. There was this one party where TOM, FMT, and DRM formed a party - everyone outright refused to lead, and they voted Gorim the NPC fighter to make decisions. Only two players ever took the helm, and of those two only KBK remains. Every single party save one is led by a KBK PC. KBK has once grumbled he alone has to suffer all the responsibilities of leadership - FMT's reply was, "on the plus side we survive".

OPG is a new player and he has stated he doesn't feel confident enough in himself to lead, at least not yet. I have high hopes for him though - he has performed admirably in both RPing and making tactical decisions. Leadership is a wholy different thing, yes, but I have high hopes.



EDIT: I directed my players to this thread and asked them the question again. The result of the vote is:

the Captain stays offstage; 0 votes
the Captain leads in NPC form: 3 votes (KBK, FMT, OPG)
abstain: 1 vote (one player not in said party)

[Ashtagon]

Would the players be okay with you controlling the captain and, in-character, occasionally making a decision that turns out to have been a bad idea, possibly bad enough in extreme cases that a character dies?

Because frankly, if they aren't okay with that, what they are asking for is a party leader who has GM-given absolutely perfect knowledge of the coming dangers. And that really is metagaming.

[meto30]

Would the players be okay with you controlling the captain and, in-character, occasionally making a decision that turns out to have been a bad idea, possibly bad enough in extreme cases that a character dies?

Because frankly, if they aren't okay with that, what they are asking for is a party leader who has GM-given absolutely perfect knowledge of the coming dangers. And that really is metagaming.

In the above mentioned example where Gorim the NPC fighter led a party consisting of himself and three PCs, the party eventually suffered a TPK because of a misjudgement on Gorim's part compounded with mistakes made by one of the PCs. The players were heartbroken over the brutal deaths of their PCs but did not fault me, so I guess they are OK with bad decisions made by NPC leaders. This is not the only time an NPC led a party.

The primary person who has a problem with NPC leaders is, well, me. The primary fun of DMing for me is seeing players defeat the challenges I set up before them in ingenious ways (or through fortuitous dice rolls). When an NPC is at the helm, I do not get this. Suddenly D&D stops being a game and becomes more of an interactive play, with me being the entire cast.


EDIT: Railroading, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. Gorim was a good listener who always asked his companions their take on any issue at hand. The Captain's leading style is more of "I think A is the best choice, everyone follow me!". He listens to information and analysis given by his companions, but he does not listen to their opinions - Reyn suggests some courses of action from time to time but Karmor (under KBK control) has ignored nearly all of them (unless he already thought the same thing). To stay in character the NPC Karmor would also ignore PC input - and thus, as long as PCs keep following him, I have total control over the party's path.

And that's railroading.

[hymer]

I just want to throw this out there: KBK not being there is a metagame or out-of-game issue, and however you deal with it will inevitably be meta- or out-of-gaming.
Metagaming isn't inherently bad, by the way. Giving PCs encounters they can handle is metagaming with PC power level in mind. Making adventures of a certain length, or at least in chapters, is metagaming with real life time constraints. And so on.

[Phelix-Mu]

Karmor needs to develop a character flaw, something besides "research/investigating" that explains his repeated absence. I could go into examples (drug addiction leaps disturbingly quickly to mind), but you probably have a good feel fro what would be appropriate.

So, if you used this solution, a few things:

-Obviously, discuss this with the player for the Captain. Karmor sounds awesome, but maybe the player would be okay with some kind of plot-related, no-mechanical drawback personality flaw that would explain Karmor's absence. As has been mentioned by the players, apparently, Karmor isn't acting like Karmor if he's not around. But maybe the Karmor that they know isn't the Karmor that really is; even proud, capable leaders can have a dark secret.

-The other pcs might eventually take an interest in Karmor's weird behavior (which is something that they honestly should have been doing in-game anyway), and this could lead to some interesting role play (best done once the Captain's player has returned).

-What this all can teach all of the players (and all of the characters), is that, just because it's convenient and efficient to have a good leader, the best leaders teach others the confidence needed to be capable on their own. Allowing the party to be hobbled just because a single character is gone is kind of sad (if perhaps realistic), but eventually the characters would move on and cope, picking up the slack while Karmor isn't around (whatever his reason may be). Obviously, picking up the slack from the divine caster/healbot can be very difficult, and as DM, you might want to give them some kind of workaround on this point.

Anyway, good luck. Not a simple problem to deal with.

[Deophaun]

If you do wind up playing the Captain, then you will be metagaming. It's inevitable. You know where the traps are. You know the abilities of the monsters. You now have to start pulling punches against yourself either way, in order to put on the pretense of not metagaming. But it's still metagaming of a different flavor.

So, they don't want the Captain metagaming? Great. One of them can play him. If none of the other players are willing to step up, then their only alternative is to keep KBK at the table. If they can't do that, too bad. You have enough to do as is.

[dysprosium]

If we use the idea of the Captain having a flaw to take him offstage, how about have the NPC LT not be with the Captain when KBK is not there.

This way you can control the LT as you would anyway and the PCs get their tactical healbot that they want. The Captain is off dealing with something that the LT cannot (or will not) deal with.

[meto30]

Karmor needs to develop a character flaw, something besides "research/investigating" that explains his repeated absence. I could go into examples (drug addiction leaps disturbingly quickly to mind), but you probably have a good feel fro what would be appropriate.

KBK seems to dislike giving Karmor any notable flaws that would incapacitate him at times. It's his character, so his call; I guess the flaw idea is out.

We just had a long discussion on the issue, and I've been able to learn more details on FMT and OPG's complaint : they are not complaining about the lack of a healbot, nor the lack of a good melee damage dealer, nor the lack of a good meat shield. They are complaining about lack of leadership, and the direction-less-ness that brings. Apparently, they like being led by Karmor, even in NPC form, where I will be metagaming no matter what I do, as Deophaun has pointed out. I pointed this out, and FMT's answer was basically that he's fine with it.

*sigh* It looks like the players actually do want me to walk the thin moral line of a DMPC leader. :smallsigh: I hope KBK doesn't miss next session. At least I expect the current quest arc to be over in like 9 sessions.

KBK reports he has like 80% chance of being present on tommorrow's session; if he is absent, I guess tommorrow will be the test run of NPC Karmor as a leader. So I guess... this thread's closed. Thank you for your input, kind sirs.

[hymer]

Best of luck, 20% or not!

[Darius Kane]

It seems you won the lottery ticket. It's not often that players actually want a DMPC of the bad sort.

[Kornaki]

Just because the players always listen to what an npc is telling them to do doesn't make it railroading, as long as that's what the players choose. In fact you really have been railroading their attempts to ask the captain what to do if anything by not allowing him to give advice. There are other reasons why having a DMPC in charge is bad, but I'm this case railroading is not one of those concerns

[Mnemnosyne]

The primary person who has a problem with NPC leaders is, well, me. The primary fun of DMing for me is seeing players defeat the challenges I set up before them in ingenious ways (or through fortuitous dice rolls). When an NPC is at the helm, I do not get this. Suddenly D&D stops being a game and becomes more of an interactive play, with me being the entire cast.
It seems to me this is what you should focus on. Not metagaming, not whether it's in-character for the character to do that or not, but simply the fact that this is taking away fun from you. It is not fair for the players to demand that you DM and play at the same time if you don't find it fun. Explain that to them.

"Guys, I don't want to be both DM and play party leader, since it means I'm playing against myself, and I don't find that fun. One of you is going to have to step up and become party leader when KBK isn't around, because I can't do it and still enjoy DMing and playing at the same time. It takes the fun out of both sides of the game for me."

Either one of them can take control of the Captain themselves, or they step up to lead the party in-character, or perhaps on days when KBK isn't available, someone else should run a second campaign, so they can DM and you can play purely as a player. But don't let them pressure you into playing an NPC as party leader when you've already admitted you don't find that fun, and a significant part of your enjoyment of the game is contingent on not playing against yourself.

[Laserlight]

Either one of them can take control of the Captain themselves, or they step up to lead the party in-character

Putting people in a position of leadership when they don't want it is about as effective as pushing a length of rope.

[meto30]

It seems to me this is what you should focus on. Not metagaming, not whether it's in-character for the character to do that or not, but simply the fact that this is taking away fun from you. It is not fair for the players to demand that you DM and play at the same time if you don't find it fun. Explain that to them.

I've learned over the course of three years of our campaign that being DM means making a lot of sacrifices, at least in the context of the Korean culture. The DM, being a literal god of the game from the players' perspective (and thus entitled to the most 'previlige' in the game world), will be expected to tend to the needs of the players, who are customers (in a way) of the DM's service, and being customers, they have every authority to demand whatever they want from the DM whenever they wish. Not that my players always make radical demands, no they are very reasonable, but still, it is taken for granted that they are the ones who make requests, not the DM. The DM gives. The DM serves. They either enjoy the service they requested, or they leave. I've already lost four players for trying to have things my way when my players think otherwise. I'd rather not lose my last three.


Putting people in a position of leadership when they don't want it is about as effective as pushing a length of rope.

That I learned to my horror when either DRM or FMT took the helm and netted five TPKs between them. I still think a TPK-causing leader is better than an NPC leader, but FMT disagrees. DRM rage-quit about a year ago, and we don't talk anymore, so I don't know about him.

[Crake]

Honestly, if you only have 3 players, I'd personally not run when even 1 of them is missing. In the games I've played in, 3 players is cutting it awfully close, and missing a session can result in some bad gaps in plot info for the character that missed out.

[Phelix-Mu]

Well, if Karmor's player wants Karmor to stay pure, and the other players want to follow Karmor, but you don't want to be doing said leading role play, then it sounds like Karmor has an accident and can't lead. If the other players won't step forward to fill in when Karmor's player can't make it, and won't play Karmor, then Karmor can't lead. Make up an in-game reason why he can't, and make them deal with the consequences.

I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy with your players. The Captain's player pretty much gives up the right for his character to control game flow by routinely not attending. The others are forcing you to take action to handicap Karmor into a position where he doesn't run the plot that you've written because the other players want to follow, not lead. Really, they've brought this on themselves. If I were DM, badness would follow.

But I understand that your players seem to have less tolerance for DM cruelty than, say, my group, so your available countermeasures are limited. Still, I'd put on the kid gloves and make them sing sweet songs of sorrow. Life is bad, sometimes, but unhappy stories can still be fun to play in (sometimes more fun than the kiddy ride at Disney Land that they seem to be looking for).

[meto30]

Well, if Karmor's player wants Karmor to stay pure, and the other players want to follow Karmor, but you don't want to be doing said leading role play, then it sounds like Karmor has an accident and can't lead. If the other players won't step forward to fill in when Karmor's player can't make it, and won't play Karmor, then Karmor can't lead. Make up an in-game reason why he can't, and make them deal with the consequences.

I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy with your players. The Captain's player pretty much gives up the right for his character to control game flow by routinely not attending. The others are forcing you to take action to handicap Karmor into a position where he doesn't run the plot that you've written because the other players want to follow, not lead. Really, they've brought this on themselves. If I were DM, badness would follow.

But I understand that your players seem to have less tolerance for DM cruelty than, say, my group, so your available countermeasures are limited. Still, I'd put on the kid gloves and make them sing sweet songs of sorrow. Life is bad, sometimes, but unhappy stories can still be fun to play in (sometimes more fun than the kiddy ride at Disney Land that they seem to be looking for).

Well, that is more or less what I've been doing lately abd that's what my players are complaining about, so I guess I'll give in for at least one session and see how they think about it. To be fair though I'd have to not fail on purpose because that would be just be intentional sabotage, and that can only lead to fail.

Our campaign is rather cutthroat in its difficulty, though, so I don't know if they have high or low tolerance. They stayed with me for the entire three years, though, so I'd very much like to keep my players happy and satisfied.

[prufock]

One of the players, hereafter referred to as KBK, is irregularly missing from the table about once in five sessions
Best solution: one in five games you or one of the other group members runs a different campaign/game.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Best solution: one in five games you or one of the other group members runs a different campaign/game.

Yeah, I'd suggest this. Every possible course of action has been suggested, and they all have their downsides.

[Chineselegolas]

You said that the captain listens to others ideas when making up plans, why not give three or four different options to the remaining players as his plans, and have them weigh in on them and decide which to follow. Means any decision made is ultimately made by the players rather than by you.

[meto30]

You said that the captain listens to others ideas when making up plans, why not give three or four different options to the remaining players as his plans, and have them weigh in on them and decide which to follow. Means any decision made is ultimately made by the players rather than by you.

He listens to information, not suggestions. He will ask the LT what sort of enemies she's detecting, listen to the Master Sergeant talk about weak points in the opposition defenses, discuss available infiltration methods with the LT and the Wizard, etc. He makes decisions alone.


Session begins in 30 minutes, so I guess I'll find out soon enough if the NPC leader works out well or not.

[Balldanor]

What I've done when running my games and missing a player is that I'll run the guy as a quasi-NPC (assuming that the player requested such), but I told the players straight out that I was only going to give input to situations if directly asked a question by the party. That way, they at least need to analyze the situation and determine possibilities; if they decide on a course that's fouled up, then so be it. If they decide on that bad course and ask the NPC about it, I'll say something along the lines of "That may work, but I think it might be a better idea to ...." At least this way, they have the chance to figure out some of the challenges on their own, but don't lose the leadership or firepower of the rest of their party.

[rexreg]

the primary group i play in has played together since the mid-90's...
each player knows essentially how any character/player will respond to a given situation...
if a single player knows he will be absent, his character sheet is left w/ the group and group consensus runs the character (DM excluded)...
one person is left w/ die-rolling duty for that absentee player...

[Dr.Gunsforhands]

Huh... The situation here almost looks like your group isn't missing the character as much as they're missing the absent player's input. That is to say, you can polymorph The Captain into a scrap of cardboard, but KBK will still give the party a tactical advantage just by being around. Does that sound about right?

As DM, you're in a unique position to simulate the phenomenon. Still, it's interesting to see how the party gets by without the leader sometimes, if you can come up with a good in-character reason for it. You can even conspire with the player to figure out what might drive the character to disappear on occasion despite the problems this causes for everyone else.

...or just have him get kidnapped or something. The enemy probably knows well enough the advantage they can get by singling him out first.

[Phelix-Mu]

As DM, you're in a unique position to simulate the phenomenon. Still, it's interesting to see how the party gets by without the leader sometimes, if you can come up with a good in-character reason for it. You can even conspire with the player to figure out what might drive the character to disappear on occasion despite the problems this causes for everyone else.


That's what I was on about before. I mean, hellooo....lycanthropy anyone? Too bad it's such a terrible mechanic, because it's solid-gold plot (if mildly cliched).

There are soo many options down this road, beyond just curses and drug addiction, though. Maybe Karmor has been moonlighting at the local soup kitchen after having been given a big quest as part of some atonement spell for some secret misdeed (or the misdeed of someone he cares about, for which he has assumed responsibility). Saying that Karmor is just out gathering intelligence when KBK is away is kind of....lame. He might say that's what he's doing. You'd have to work it out with KBK, but since the options are just about infinite in number, I'm sure you can come up with a good excuse that will create intrigue and role play within the group in the future.

[meto30]

We had our Saturday session, and KBK reports that he only has like 10% chance of making it to the Sunday session, so I guess today's the day I try NPC Karmor in the leadership role. KBK makes it clear he's not applying anything to the Captain, no lycanthropy, no hidden secrets, no addiction, anything. He believes there is too much going on within the party for him to afford a liability such as this, and FMT has argued again and again that they'd rather have the Captain around, even if KBK is not around. The events of last session also makes it problematic for the Captain to be offstage, so today's the day where we put our initial model to the test.

Having the Captain offstage and thus leaving the party without the leader is what I've been doing for the last three times KBK was absent. I believe the other two players did OK, but FMT disagrees, as he has argued constantly that they need the Captain to function properly. OPG did not give me his take on the matter but still voted yes to NPC Karmor yesterday, so I take it he agrees with FMT.

Today's session picks up where yesterday left off, and I'm in a trap. Karmor party was attacked by troll hitmen hired by one of the local criminal warlords vying for dominance of the city, Bruce the Brute. They killed the trolls with ease, but they learned that the Trollop will surely come to avenge the deaths of her sons, and deciding they'd rather not test their strength against the enraged troll mother, they took refuge in the mansion of the merchant prince whose first cousin once removed they rescued a few days back. Today's session will begin with the party holed up inside, and the Captain is bound to be with them. The whole team looks up to Karmor to direct them, and it would break immersion if he just took a backseat.

As a last resort I asked the players if they'd like to play one of our other parties while KBK is missing. 2 votes against, 0 votes for. Oh well.

[TuggyNE]

They killed the trolls with ease, but they learned that the Trollop will surely come to avenge the deaths of her sons, and deciding they'd rather not test their strength against the enraged troll mother, they took refuge in the mansion of the merchant prince whose first cousin once removed they rescued a few days back.

Um … I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[meto30]

Um … I don't think that word means what you think it means.
http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Troll
See under "Society"

[TuggyNE]

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Troll
See under "Society"

OK. That's a wiki, and it's a redlink. So either a) it's some random internet slob's idea of a practical joke*, or b) the FR writers decided to make a terrible terrible pun. Or I guess c) Ed Greenwood doesn't have a dictionary.


*I would include trollface.jpg here, but it seems redundant.

[meto30]

OK. That's a wiki, and it's a redlink. So either a) it's some random internet slob's idea of a practical joke*, or b) the FR writers decided to make a terrible terrible pun. Or I guess c) Ed Greenwood doesn't have a dictionary.


*I would include trollface.jpg here, but it seems redundant.

Any of the three may be true, but I found the word funny enough that I'm using it with no changes :D I do know what the word is supposed to mean, though.

Of course, it stops being funny once said Trollop starts ripping people apart with her unique greataxe "/kickban", but well, one of the past villains was a gnome named Comprehensive Tactical Directory Bluescrin, and I called him CTD Bluescrin for short, my players won't mind. I think. :smallbiggrin:

[killem2]

If he shows initiative and wins, he essentially becomes a DMPC, and the other players sit back while you tell a story to yourself.


Faulty Logic.

A DMPC does not mean you control all aspects of the game at hand, or even close.

[mcv]

EDIT: I directed my players to this thread and asked them the question again. The result of the vote is:

the Captain stays offstage; 0 votes
the Captain leads in NPC form: 3 votes (KBK, FMT, OPG)
abstain: 1 vote (one player not in said party)

Man, that is a sad vote. I disagree entirely.



The primary fun of DMing for me is seeing players defeat the challenges I set up before them in ingenious ways (or through fortuitous dice rolls). When an NPC is at the helm, I do not get this. Suddenly D&D stops being a game and becomes more of an interactive play, with me being the entire cast.


EDIT: Railroading, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. Gorim was a good listener who always asked his companions their take on any issue at hand. The Captain's leading style is more of "I think A is the best choice, everyone follow me!". He listens to information and analysis given by his companions, but he does not listen to their opinions - Reyn suggests some courses of action from time to time but Karmor (under KBK control) has ignored nearly all of them (unless he already thought the same thing). To stay in character the NPC Karmor would also ignore PC input - and thus, as long as PCs keep following him, I have total control over the party's path.
And that's exactly why it's such a bad idea. You'd basically be playing with yourself.

I think your only option is to not play when KBK is not present. He's usually there, isn't he? You can miss the few sessions when he's absent. Play some boardgames instead. Or maybe play Hollowpoint, so the others get an opportunity to learn how to make decisions.

[Chambers]

All players other than KBK are unequivocally behind keeping the Captain onstage.


There's your answer there. If the player of the character wants his character to take a backseat when he's not there, the rest of the party has to learn to deal with it. It's his character and his decision.

[mcv]

The options are simple:

* Only play when KBK is present
* Another player plays The Captain when KBK is absent
* The Captain takes a backseat when KBK is absent

Let them choose between those options.

[meto30]

Thank you all for your kind replies. Fortunately, we've been able to work out a solution that satisfies everyone at the last minute.

Or, more precisely, my players have agreed to give in to my request this time. Whenever KBK is missing, we've decided to play another party. (We have multiple parties in the campaign, and normally we'd alternate between them every month or so) I was unprepared for the session, but I was able to ad lib fast enough to provide a fun and interesting evening, at least I think so.

I guess this means I'll always have to prepare two kinds of sessions every time, but it beats the hell out of playing the leader PC myself.

[mcv]

Playing something else definitely sounds like the best solution. It'd be preferable if it was something that didn't take as much prep, though.

[meto30]

Playing something else definitely sounds like the best solution. It'd be preferable if it was something that didn't take as much prep, though.

We are a party consisting of four people who just love complicated plots and intrigue (although FMT is a bit plagued by indecision). Therefore, all quests involve at least five or more plots, and the entire campaign is woven into one big web of plots and counterplots. Everything naturally takes a lot of prep time XD