|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As the DM you are game moderator,
judge, jury, and supreme deity. You
are also actively engaged
in actual role playing throughout the course of
the campaign, from game
to game, as you must take the persona of each
and every henchman and/or
hireling involved. (See also
Monsters, hereafter.)
To play such roles to the
hilt, it is certainly helpful to the DM if he or
she has player characters
of his or her own in some other campaign.
Henchmen:
Regardless of their loyalty, henchmen are individuals. Play
them for their liege just
as if they were your player characters, modified by
whatever circumstances and
special characteristics are applicable. Begin
creating the persona of
such a non-player character as soon as he or she
appears on the scene, without
recourse to the book characteristics. It will
thereafter become easier
and more natural for you to re-assume the
persona as needed. The most
important rule to remember is that the
henchman is an individual,
with likes, dislikes, feelings, and so on. The
henchman is likely to aspire
to greater things too, and he or she will tend
to look out for personal
interests. Bullying, duping, cheating, and similar
maltreatment will certainly
be resented. The henchman will talk about it
with others of his class
and fellow henchmen and hirelings. Henchmen
will never loan out money
or valuables without security - particularly if
one instance of failure
to repay or loss has occurred previously. Loyalty
will certainly drop in this
case, and if such action is repeated, loyalty will
be lost in most cases. If
their liege is so bold as to suggest that the henchmen
should make loans to other
characters, there will be flat refusal in all
likelihood. The key here
is playing the henchman as if he or she were an
actual person - better still
if the character is somewhat greedy and
avaricious. Interest should
be paid on loans. Use of a henchman’s
valuables, such as a magic
item, should be based on the holding of some
equal or better object of
similar nature, certainly one usable by the henchman,
and the promise of some
payment in addition - such as a minor
item of magic! (See also
ACQUISITION
OF MAGIC-USER SPELLS.)
Some few players will actually
play their henchmen as individual
characters, not merely as
convenient extensions of their main player
character. In these rare
cases, your involvement with these henchmen will
be minimal. It is far more
probable that the players will attempt to manipulate
their henchmen, and you
will counter all such attempts by active
assumption of the role or
roles. You will keep low-intelligence characters
behaving accordingly, clever
ones possibly tricking their master, and so on.
Hirelings:
As these characters serve strictly as employees, they should be
played as such - mercenaries
interested in doing their job and collecting
their pay. Unusual indeed
will be circumstances which see a hireling volunteering
for extra work/service.
Rather, a hireling seeks to do only as
much as is absolutely minimal
to fulfill terms of employment. If more is
desired, more must be offered.
Playing such roles is relatively easy, and if
groups are involved, concentrate
on the personae of the leaders. Otherwise,
hirelings can be treated
as henchmen as far as involvement is concerned.
Monsters:
Taking the role of some of the monsters- those who happen to
be human or humanoid - is
not a difficult task for the DM, but sometimes
it is hard to get into the
personae of particularly nauseating creatures or
minions of purity or whatever.
Such creatures might well be beyond the
realm of experience of the
referee, and understandably so. Nonetheless,
such monsters must be carefully
played by the DM.
Each and every monster must
be played as closely to its stated characteristics
as is possible. Clever ones
should be played with cleverness,
stupid ones with stupidity,
ferocious ones with ferocity, cowardly ones with
cowardice, and so on. In
all cases, the DM is absolutely obligated to play
the monster in question
to the best of his or her ability according to the
characteristics of the monster
and the circumstances of the encounter. A
magic-using creature will
intelligently select the best (or what the creature
believes will be the best)
spell or magic device for attack/defense. Intelligent
monsters will make use of
magic items in their treasure hoard!
Thinking monsters will tend
to flee from encounters which are going badly in
order to live and fight
another day. There is no reason why monsters can
not learn from encounters,
employ flaming oil, set up ambushes, and so
forth according to their
capabilities and resources.
The host of merchants, shopkeepers,
guardsmen, soldiers, clerics,
magic-users, fighters, thieves, assassins, etc.
are likewise all yours to
play. Again, this is simply a matter of assuming
the station and vocation
of the NPC and creating characteristics - formally
or informally according
to the importance of the non-player character.
These NPCs will have some
alignment, but even that won’t be likely to
prevent a bit of greed or
avariciousness. Dealing with all such NPCs should
be expensive and irritating.
Consider the two following examples:
The fighter,
Celowin Silvershield, enters a strange town seeking aid from a
high
level magic-user in order to turn an associate back to flesh (after a
most
unfortunate encounter with a cockatrice). His inquiries at a tavern
meet
with vague answers until several rounds of drinks have been
purchased,
and the proprietor generously tipped. Wending his way from
tavern
to wizard’s tower, Celowin is accosted by a beggar, and he is
pestered
unendingly until he either pays off or calls for the watch. Paying
off will
attract a swarm of other beggars. Calling for the watch can be
nearly
as dangerous, as they could resent a foreigner’s refusal to deem a
native
beggar worthy of a copper or two. Despite such possible misadventures,
the fighter
finally comes to the tower of Llewellyn ap-Owen, a
wizard
of high repute. However, Celowin‘s knocking is answered by a
lesser
person, the warlock Tregillish Mul, the wizard’s henchman. Mul
informs
the eager fighter that: ”Lofty Llewellyn is far too busy to see anyone
at this
time. Good day!” Unless Celowin is quick in offering some
inducement,
the warlock will slam the tower door and forget about the
intrusion.
Now let
us assume that Celowin’s bribe was sufficient to convince
Tregillish
mul to arrange an appointment with his master, and furthermore
that
such appointment is actually timely. Now old ap-Owen is rather testy,
for he
was in the middle of an experiment which is now absolutely ruined,
and must
be begun all over again, just because this stupid sword-swinger
managed
to convince Mul-the-lackwit that something was more important
than
a wizard’s spell research! Well, this fellow Celowin had better have a
good
reason for interruption, and further, the pay had better be
good
. . . . Celowin will have to pay through the nose, in cash and in
magic
items, to get the magic-user to turn stone to flesh once again. But
suppose
Celowin has no item which Llewellyn could use? The wizard will
take
something he cannot use personally, for he undoubtedly has all sorts
of henchmen
and hirelings who can employ these things, not to mention
the possibility
of trading or selling. In no event will money ever serve to
replace
magic items! Furthermore, if no magic is available, then a geas
can be
laid to get some!
These examples show how varying
roles are played without great
difficulty simply by calling
upon observotion of basic human nature and
combining it with the particular
game circumstances applicable. Once established,
it is quite easy to recall
the personae of frequently consulted or
encountered NPCs. If such
intercourse becomes very frequent, considerable
additional development of
the character or characters concerned,
and their surroundings,
will certainly be in order. Thus, in many
ways, the campaign builds
and grows of its own volition and within its own
parameters.
FORUM
I?d like to reply to Michael
Repka's letter in
issue #165 on the
subject of DMs running a
character in an adventuring
party in an adventure
that he is DMing.
Basically, my conclusion after
reading over
Michael?s letter was that
his problem doesn?t lie
with this practice, but with
the DM in question.
To elaborate, I have been
playing and DMing for
over seven years. In all
my campaigns?no
matter the gaming system
being used?the DM
always has a character in
the party. There are
several reasons for this.
First, we normally alternate
DMs within the
same campaign. I?ll be a
DM for a time, then
another DM takes over and
runs an adventure,
taking up from the point
where I ended. This
gives myself and our other
DM a chance to play
a character fully. As our
adventuring parties
tend to travel extensively
(one campaign motto
was: ?Are we wanted here??
with the straightfaced
reply: ?Not yet!?), this
precludes the option
of the DM?s character from
staying behind at a
campaign base while the other
characters go
adventuring.
Second, I have always felt
that, by having a
character in the party, I
can feed information
and hints about puzzles and
problems to the
players, especially when
their line of reasoning
meanders down the wrong track
or they ap
preach a problem from the
wrong angle, without
having to resort to the sudden
appearance
of the ubiquitous crazy-old-man-type
NPC. I
have a ready-made character
for inveigling
characters into adventures,
and I have a backup
to aid the party if needed,
all rolled into one
character. The character
will be far more trusted
by the party than an NPC,
making it possible
for me to get the characters
into adventures
more easily and logically
than have the NPC
meet the party at an inn
and hire them
The third reason for a DM
having a character
in a party isn?t one that
I personally have had to
face. This is the case where
the DM only has
two or three players in his
group. In this situation,
a DM-run character can cover
areas where
the party is weak or lacking
in useful skills.
The final reason that I can
see for using a DMrun
character is actually the
reason that I started
doing so in the first place.
When you are the
only DM in a group, with
no other gamers
around, this is the only
way you get to actually
play a character, rather
than a cast of NPCs who
appear and disappear regularly.
To use a DM-run character
fairly, the DM
must remember that although
this could be a
favored character, the character
is still actually
only an NPC and must be treated
as such-no
pampering, unbelievable immunities,
grandstanding
during adventures, or overpowered
magical items. The DM must
use character
knowledge in his dealings
with other characters,
though I feel it is acceptable
for a DM?s PC to act
as a conduit of useful information
that the
character could logically
know.
For example, a low-level party
is exploring
some ruined tombs when it
disturbs an old
casket containing a wight.
The party hasn?t
found the enchanted sword
the DM had placed
in the area so they could
fight this creature.
They have never encountered
a wight before
and are ready to leap to
their doom. The DM,
not wanting to slaughter
characters and deprive
them of hard-won levels unfairly,
can have his
own character remember a
bit of information
he heard in a tavern tale,
about how creatures
that looked like this one
are only supposed to be
vulnerable to enchanted or
holy weapons, or
some such thing like that.
In other words, warn
them using DM knowledge,
but in such a way
that it sounds as though
it?s character knowledge.
Certainly, the DM often should
fudge rolls
for his character, but only
where it is of benefit
to the flow of the adventure,
not to the benefit
of his or any other character.
A DM?s character
can be very useful for finding
secret doors,
spotting the vital clue that
has been missed, etc.
But the DM mustn?t abuse
this; he must do this
only when the characters
have tried and failed,
or have neglected to search
the area.
The DM must always keep in
mind that the
players are the integral
factor with which his
adventure either succeeds
or fails, not an awestruck
audience for the grandstanding
heroics
of his own character. Yes,
you can have your PC
perform (or attempt) an act
of heroism to save
the party, but not until
the PCs have had a
chance to do this for themselves.
What Michael
said about the character
being invulnerable to
dragon breaths that injured
the rest of the
party?that was an abuse of
the character by
that DM, and was grossly
unfair to the other
players. Under no circumstances
can the DM?s
character be invulnerable
or have powers that
the other PCs cannot have.
In fact, as far as I?m
concerned, my character is
often more likely to
be the victim of an attack,
rather than a
character?especially when
the next blow could
kill a PC who doesn?t deserve
to die. For example,
we have just completed the
AD&D Avatar
series of modules (FRE1-3).
These were particularly
lethal due to the disruption
of magic and
the lack of higher-level
healing magic?we had
14 fatalities (including
one execution and two
ex-PCs belonging to players
who dropped out)
during the three adventures.
My own character
was killed twice, a record
shared jointly by two
other characters. There were
a reasonable
amount of means to raise
slain characters about.
However, characters were
raised only if the
party (i.e., the players)
were happy to have that
character back, and if the
player indicated that
he wanted to continue with
that character. Both
times, my character was raised
without any
intervention or pleading
on my part, as the
players felt that Morag was
an essential part of
the group and deserved to
be raised.
As far as treasure and experience
are concerned,
my own character receives
no more
favoritism than any other
character. Yes, I will
put magical items especially
for her, but then
I will also do the same for
the other characters.
Regarding experience points,
I feel that my
character deserves more than
the usual 50% XP
award given to normal NPCs,
but not as much
as the actual characters
played, and I don?t
consider my character eligible
for idea points,
role-playing points, or the
constant goals points.
The first two categories
normally make up at
least 25% of the award I
give out. The character
I ran in the Avatar series,
Morag Rowanmantle,
did end up the highest level
(9th) of the PCs,
but this was because of the
characters who
started back in Arabel at
the start of FRE1, only
Morag and two others lasted
through to the
end. The other two were both
multiclassed; a
fighter/cleric and druid/mage.
They obviously
didn?t progress as quickly
as Morag did, and the
druid/mage was slain during
FRE2.
In general, I
have found that my own character
ends up the
lowest level of the party,
as he effectively gets
less experience than the
other PCs.
I will admit that the potential
is there to abuse
the system when using a DM-run
PC. If you feel
that you can?t be fair to
the players and other
PCs if you run your own character,
then don?t
use the PC when you are DMing.
If, on the
other hand, you do feel that
you can run the
character and be fair to
the others, then go on
ahead and do so. However,
you should also
listen to the feedback from
the players. They
will give a very good guide
as to whether you
are abusing the system.
In conclusion, if I was to
try even half of the
things attempted by the DM
described in
Michael Repka's letter, then
I would have a
graveyard full of dead characters
(mine) and no
players. The DM he writes
about should be
spoken to by the players
and told to reform (or
else). Everything he describes
is a result of bad
DMing, not the policy of
a DM running his own
character in an adventure.
Des Garrett
Ballincollig, Ireland
(Dragon
#172)
richardstincer wrote:
Gary Gygax, thanks for
your previous answer. It seems to me, then, that the DM is in control of:
PC race, the six basic natural ability scores, adventurer-class profession,
and alignment. There are two final questions that I want to ask you about.
Can a DM of ADandD 1st edit. also act as a player? When I asked you if
my half-orc and half-human PC can have rounded ears, I forgot to mention
the ears of a full orc. You told me that a full orc has lop-looking ears,
but are those lop-looking ears rounded or wedge-pointed?
Hi Richard,
As a practical matter the DM has control over everything, including the rules that govern play of the game.
It is generally not a good idea for a GM to play a character in the game. i have done that, but it is difficult, as it removes the disinterest from the role and requires a great deal of expertese to cary off successfully--that is neither aiding or hinderig the players to any meaningful extent.
