Thread 96568681

While conversing with a fellow gentleman about how we could theoretically set up a living world play-by-post game (ignore how gay this is for a moment), I suggested the idea of having trusted, vetted, veteran game masters run the NPCs in order to drive the action. The other fellow says that if we give NPCs to individuals, they become PCs, not NPCs. While I say "yeah so what?", he insists this just isn't done. While I'm sure you'll all say we're both gay and retarded, what do the fa/tg/uys think?

>>96568681 (OP)
This is already retarded, still not sure about gay - did you guys kiss? Did the balls touch?

>>96568681 (OP)
A real-world play-by-post? So... a chain story? No one in a PbP "controls" an NPC. I don't...

What the fuck are you talking about?

To me the key difference is that when NPC dies another one can take its place right away, when PC dies they are out of the game until next civilized settlement.

>>96568693
I understand that such high-level intellectual concepts are difficult for the normies here to grasp. Let me see if I can explain.

Non-Player Characters ("NPCs") are traditionally controlled by the Game Master ("GM"). In this scenario, I suggest handing their control over to trusted players who won't powergame or metagame. They would be responsible for driving some of the action behind the scenes that the other players don't see. My other half believes that when you hand control of an NPC over to a player, it becomes a Player Character. He isn't totally wrong, but I believe that both are simply "characters" in this scenario.

>>96568681 (OP)
Definitely retarded, probably gay.

>>96568738
dummy shark
dundundun...

>>96568724
I think creating junior game masters that control one character is so inherently similar to the way players and PCs inherently work as to be indistinguishable in practice.
This is just giving veteran players better PCs under the understanding they'll only play to advance the plot for "real" players.

>>96568681 (OP)
>While I'm sure you'll all say we're both gay and retarded
Well you already said it for me, so I might as well ask what the fuck you consider PC and NPC in this instance. Cause only fucking narcissists and brainrotted internet denizens call other human beings that.

>>96568681 (OP)
Why would I, as a player, want to play your GMPC instead of my own character that I made for the explicit purpose of playing the game with?

>>96568681 (OP)
>I am a complete never-game littering on a hobby board, please send (You)s

>>96571759
I'm in 5 games a week working on a 6th, your tiny gamelet weiner pales in comparison to my schedulemaxxing gamedong.

>>96571769
you aren't fooling anyone not even yourself

>>96568681 (OP)
What you've suggested is just an analog version of the play by post roleplaying forum, and these almost never work, too many people pulling in different directions to actually get a coherent game going most of the time.

Play by post in real life is perfectly doable. It used to be a thing, in fact. Play by mail. And later, play by email. You need not involve more GMs to run single (or even groups) of NPCs. You would have difficulty finding GMs willing to do that, anyhow.

>NPCs played by the GM are no longer NPCs
So NPCs don't exist?

>>96568693
>>96573526
Living world, akin to a west marches game.

>>96573589
They do and they don't. Non-Player Character is a bit of a misnomer because the GM is a player at the table and the NPCs are his characters, yet they don't get the same focus. The real distinction is that they don't (usually) get a full character sheet or become the main focus of the game.

>>96568681 (OP)
It can be done if done right. DSA barony game did it in the 90s via letters.

>>96568681 (OP)
If the GM is a player, which they are just a different kind, then all the npcs are actually pcs, just gmnpc.
You're talking about running an older style pbm patron play game. They've been a thing for ages. Even just asking a friend or whoever what a faction or group would do rather than having the gm with perfect knowledge make the decision has been a thing for ages.
Your fellow gentleman is gay and retarded.

>>96568681 (OP)
Literally the only difference between an NPC and a GMPC is whether the players can beat/kill/subvert them or not.

>>96574129
This. The distinction is there because the difference lies in each one's function.
PCs are an extension of the player's will, and are usually less in number and collective power than NPCs, since otherwise the game would be just a creative writing effort without the hurdles that turn such writing into gameplay for players.
A NPC is one of many resources that move the plot or portray the world. While the controller of NPCs may amass more power than a PC (since an entire nation of NPCs can generally shape, well, an entire nation), they aren't there to further their controller's wills as directly as a PC, and if the GM uses NPC to strongarm the game into his path disregarding PCs as hurdles then it doesn't feel like gameplay for anyone either.
GMPCs are a morsel of will devoid of as much power as a collective of NPCs, that the GM uses. If not done sparingly it usually falls in the same pitfalls as NPCs.

>>96568681 (OP)
NPC don't have the same stat blocks as PC, nor serve the same function. They are in the game to facilitate information or action and then move out the Spotlight for the players.

>>96568681 (OP)
>(ignore how gay this is for a moment)
No.
>While I'm sure you'll all say we're both gay and retarded
Yes.
>what do the fa/tg/uys think?
You are literally decades late with this idea. Shit like this was tried all the way back during 'Internet 1.0' (late 90s/early 2000s). There is a reason you don't hear about projects like these anymore.

But just in case you were curious: "GMs" did try to take on the role of many different NPCs.