PCs and NPC control
- Overlook: Alright so a lot of things especially in Hive Ward have recently revolved around NPC control and reactions, be it for ill or good, but still indirectly or directly expressed to me in couple different PMs so I figured I'd express them.
- NPC Lite: This is the kinda simple NPC, a messenger that is tasked to take message that everyone can assume to be able to use, or sending to whichever SIGIS article maker and other such minimal things.
- The Control: Assuming control of certain NPCs to go in certain path and express their opinions, reactions and actions, sometimes this has even come across controlling masses to certain path.
- The Conclusion: This certainly isn't first time that I've said that PCs = players to control, NPCs = DMs/EMs to control. HOWEVER even I see some benefit out of using NPCs in story elements, but there's always people whom don't like to see these. I find the NPC lite usage just fine, doubt anyone really minds even if the head of messenger is sent back in a bag.
Unmoderated things can easily also escalate to "My made up NPC group is bigger than your made up NPC group" or it can go down to "Okay... I'm one PC, there's an army of made up NPCs I cannot fight so I'll just give up." Or then there is the third category "I jump in and kill them all."
I've generally left a bit more freedom to the forum post NPC usage, and part of me still wants. So what I'm going to propose that you only use non-"NPC Lite" measures only if player or player group:
__________1) Actively invites people to chime in as NPCs,
__________2) Get a permission from the people whom it directly affects to.
That should be a happy medium where people that are fine with it still gets some and those whom rather stay out of such and only have PC reactions can still choose so unless DM chimes in as the NPCs.
This however still restricts canon NPCs to DM usage regardless, though EMs may be given permission to control them as well.
- Concern the secondth is Resultism, a lot of result based gaming going on to give a more expressing example: Player 1: I do <some form of action> and the result is <some form of automatic result> compared to... Player 2: I attempt to do <some form of action> and await your response to state the result. In this simplistic comparison the player one jumps straight to conclusion that their actions chooses certain path of reaction rather than attempting to instill the target to certain path or opinion through their actions and leaving room for reaction of preventation. Also remember that there's always several stages even between success and failure rather than things consisting of everything or nothing. Even if things at large doesn't go as planned a tiny portion may have still been achieved. So one doesn't always need to act to deny 'everything' either but accept that the other sides efforts still had some effect even if not quite what they had expected. [/li]