DM, Monster Controller, and Players?

[AKA_Bait]

This got mentioned over on the Rule -1 thread and I thought it was interesting enough to discuss on a new thread.

I suspect that, if rules interpretation and scenarios were handled by the referee, while the actual adversaries were handled by the adversary player, then fewer disputes would occur.

I'm picturing it as splitting up the normal 2 roles system into three roles.

Players: Your typical PC characters.
Monster/NPC Controller: Plays NPC's.
DM/Arbitrator: Runs combat, traps etc., resolves rules issues, describes landscape and location.

This seems really interesting. With this model you can have one person setting up a detailed a vivid world, another populating it, and the PCs living in it. I'm not sure how it would function practically though.

Has anyone actually tried something like this?

[-Cor-]

The DMG actually suggests doing this at some point.

That said, it can be difficult. The monsters are generally there to serve a DMs purpose or story. What happens when the monster or NPC controller has a disagreement with the DM? Do they share the burden of creating the world and the story? If you're running a module does the Controller get full access to what's in the module? If the DM and the Controller are this much in collaboration, might it not detract from the idea of having a completely seperate rules adjudicator in the DM?

Not saying it doesn't work, but there are things to think about.

[Kagan]

I like the idea in the sense that it divides the responsibilities of the DM - instead of one guy running the whole deal, he can partition his duties to another. In this case, it's just combat.

I'd tie this to the potential advantages of having what essentially amounts to two DMs. You can split the party up without there being too much of a disaster in terms of time management. You can roleplay discussions with more than one NPC without it becoming confusing or looking ridiculous. Or, as something that would be horrifyingly useful at my table, one to resolve actions in combat, and the other to field questions about game mechanics to speed up player decision-making during an encounter (newer players at my table).

The 'monster adjudicator' seems interesting, but it looks like an artificially demoted "co-DM", which might be more useful - but, of course, I have no idea being as I've tried neither. Needless to say, I'm equally interested to hear from someone who's tried out concepts like these.

[valadil]

I'd divide it a little differently. I'd do story/plot and rules/mechanics GMs separately. They'd both get to control the same NPCs, but one would speak for them and the other would handle the dice.

I've heard of some success between two GMs with laptops. They could run the game in real time but AIM messages back and forth without the players noticing. GMs need to confer with each other when decisions are improvised, but you also don't want to stop the game so the GMs can discuss things. This seems like a reasonable solution if the laptops are available.

[Duke of URL]

I haven't done this, but I've seen the idea raised on the PbP boards from time to time. That is, a DM suggesting that might use a "live" player to run their NPCs/monsters so that enemies/adversaries are more intelligent.

The most important thing would be to keep information about the PCs as secret from the NPC player as vice-versa -- that way, the "opponent" is playing the adversaries as independent intelligent creatures, instead of something specifically designed to target party weaknesses. Of course, the NPC player gets to use whatever tricks are available to find out information about the PCs (divinations, gather info, the party's reputation (if any), etc.), so that he's not going in "blind". That's part of being intelligent, after all.

Personally, I'd use this concept for significant encounters only (bosses/BBEGs/major NPCs) and use as many different NPC "controllers" as possible, to both avoid metagaming problems and to offer a variety of devious tactics to my players.

[Tallis]

I'd divide it a little differently. I'd do story/plot and rules/mechanics GMs separately. They'd both get to control the same NPCs, but one would speak for them and the other would handle the dice.

I've heard of some success between two GMs with laptops. They could run the game in real time but AIM messages back and forth without the players noticing. GMs need to confer with each other when decisions are improvised, but you also don't want to stop the game so the GMs can discuss things. This seems like a reasonable solution if the laptops are available.

...and both DMs are reasonably good typists. Wouldn't work so great for me.

Sounds like a good idea for running a smooth game, but I wouldn't want to do it. I would get bored acting purely as a referee in a game as DM. As the monster controller I would regret not being able to use my plot and world building ideas. I prefer being a player. If I have to be the one running the game (which is usually the case unfortunately) I want to have as much fun with it as possible.

[Tormsskull]

I've done something like this before. A few years back when we were sitting down to play, another friend of our showed up unexpectantly. He wasn't going to be able to make the committment of showing up each week, and as such we didn't want to go through the process of rolling him up and PC and such.

So I let him control the monsters. Honestly, it didn't work out as well as I had hoped, as his player-instincts kicked in and he was trying to defeat the encounters rather than trying to properly play the role of the monster. Each monster ended up using effective tactical strategies in order to defeat the PCs. IIRC he killed 2 of the PCs.

[Sleet]

The closest I've come before is serving as GM's Assistant. I looked up obscure rules for him, adjudicated spell effects (kept track of shape and duration of the stinking cloud the evil sorcerer cast, for instance), wiped down the battle mat after fights, etc. so that he could concentrate on interacting with the players and leave game mechanical details to someone else.

Not somethign I'd want to do long-term, but the game ran very smoothly.

[Jack Zander]

I've done something like this before. A few years back when we were sitting down to play, another friend of our showed up unexpectantly. He wasn't going to be able to make the committment of showing up each week, and as such we didn't want to go through the process of rolling him up and PC and such.

So I let him control the monsters. Honestly, it didn't work out as well as I had hoped, as his player-instincts kicked in and he was trying to defeat the encounters rather than trying to properly play the role of the monster. Each monster ended up using effective tactical strategies in order to defeat the PCs. IIRC he killed 2 of the PCs.

I've done the exact same thing and it worked out well. You just have to realize that CR doesn't become a guideline anymore but a rule. Every encounter has to have the monsters as the underdogs (even bosses but the players should be weakened by then). If the players die, it's because they have really poor tactics compared to the other player(s).

I guess it just depends on your players.