Something that I have wanted to experiment with more is getting some Players who will play the adversaries of the PC party, thus having more "life" put into what are normally NPCs controlled by the GM. Has anyone ever done this? How did it turn out? Was there any added friction between the two groups once the game was over?
Thats what helper DMs have been doing for a long long time. Possibly since OD&D? Having a helper DM who handles the NPCs, or specific NPCs can work out fine as long as the co DM understands that they cannot get attatched to the NPC/s and must resist temptation to cheat with them to keep them alive. Essentially the same rules as the DM must follow.
Quote from: Omega;931408Thats what helper DMs have been doing for a long long time. Possibly since OD&D? Having a helper DM who handles the NPCs, or specific NPCs can work out fine as long as the co DM understands that they cannot get attatched to the NPC/s and must resist temptation to cheat with them to keep them alive. Essentially the same rules as the DM must follow.
I have never gamed using a helper GM, but I will try that approach.
What I am referring to is have a Player use the NPCs as a PC whose goals are in opposition to the Player Character group. The distinction is one in which the adversarial player has more of an investment with the character than a helper GM would have with a NPC.
Quote from: jeff37923;931405Something that I have wanted to experiment with more is getting some Players who will play the adversaries of the PC party, thus having more "life" put into what are normally NPCs controlled by the GM. Has anyone ever done this? How did it turn out? Was there any added friction between the two groups once the game was over?
I did something like this when I was running for a big group with rotating presence. (We had to go to a restaurant once because the table at home wasn't big enough for us and all the pizza and cheese pastry, not when the players had passed into the double digits).
So, of course, I split them often. Yeah, I know, don't split the party and stuff, but A) it didn't make sense not to and B) it was more fun that way.
People didn't mind watching, when there was only one other group, especially since the things that happened could influence them. Some actually preferred it to playing (those were the players I called "good-meaning figs", they could have just as much fun with watching us all night). Most, however, preferred to play.
On top of it, I often had to talk with them playing two or more NPC roles. It was just that kind of campaign...like all my campaigns.
So, of course, I combined the two problems in order to resolve them both.
Namely, I started giving the players of "absentee" PCs the roles of NPCs. "You have goals X, and are willing to give them Y. If you have to roll, you have Z dice* on social skills, and Z+/-2 on mental ones. Go!"
Some players loved it. Some didn't want any part of it. But when I started giving the players in question freedom to play separate scenes, well, everyone was happy at being able to play more.
*We were playing ORE, so that was all the info they needed. That's also how I create my NPCs, and I've got friends that try to do the same for all the "likely" rolls.
A grand total of THREE NPC in that campaign ever had a full character sheet, too.
There was no tension between the two groups. Maybe there would have been if they knew that the "substitute NPCs" routinely drove harder bargains that I might have bothered to:D!
Or maybe there would have been if some players had a "constantly adversarial" role. But they had just episodic roles, so the players didn't associate them with "the opposition".
Then again, the same things happened with the same people in reversed roles. A player playing out an NPC routinely outtalked the PCs and took, say, much greater payment than I'd expect for the service they wanted (with no dice rolls involved - the whole campaign I've been telling them that dice are for when we can't reach an agreement, so they took that approach to playing NPCs as well).
The next week the same player that has been outtalked on all points, this time playing an NPC, would do the same to the previous one. This happened almost each and every time, including once when the NPCs almost got the players to kill each other.
I was almost thinking to declare all the PCs are NPCs now, and see if their diplomatic skills would correspondingly increase:p!
But at the end, I had a campaign to run, so I didn't experiment. Maybe I should have. We'll see if or when I run a game for such a big group again;). What I can tell is, the same thing happened in the next campaign, too, but again, I didn't bother to ask. This was just the one when I started using that trick really extensively.
Quote from: jeff37923;931419What I am referring to is have a Player use the NPCs as a PC whose goals are in opposition to the Player Character group. The distinction is one in which the adversarial player has more of an investment with the character than a helper GM would have with a NPC.
I've had a situation a little like this once, about 9 years ago. But it was under special circumstances and wasn't planned out far in advance.
In one campaign, the characters were participants in a seance, because they were trying to determine the source of a haunting. Things didn't going according to plan. The seance acted as a conduit for a malevolent and powerful ghost, allowing him to spiritually possess a weak-willed character. The character's personality, behavior, and mannerisms were all pushed aside as the spirit had full control over his body and mind.
I took the player aside and explained the situation in more detail, and described the background and motivations of his possessor. I asked him to roleplay out the situation using as much subtlety as possible, and to pursue the spirit's goals.
The other players grasped that something had gone terribly wrong, but had no clue how to deal with the situation. They had strong suspicions and weren't in immediate danger, but were paralyzed with indecision. The possessing spirit had little difficulty in leaving the scene, evading the other characters, and "disappearing" to a metropolitan area. It was a few sessions later when the players were able to piece together what happened, and realize what had been 'let loose'. (They'd recovered their possessed buddy after the spirit had body-hopped his way on to other subjects).
There was no friction after the experience had happened. Probably because the other players realized that they could have been in the same position had circumstances been different.
The most awesome HERO game I played in had two groups, a hero team and a villain team. The best part was we didn't know about the other team.
I was on the hero side. We knew about the villians, but we were never quite able to catch up to them. Their minions and allies were all that we could catch. The campaign was centered around this magical tome. Both sides were tracking it down, along with other side missions, bank robberies, and the like. One highlight was when we found the villain's base, and absolutely shredded it. We knew that they were ahead of us. Our strong man tore out their mainframe, the magician gated it back to our base, and our self-aware android interfaced with it. He was able to find out they obtained the tome, and where it was hidden. So, we got that two.
Then, we gave it away to a different magician PC that was playing both sides, who returned it to the villians. The climax was when the referee got both groups together for a battle royale while the other magician, the third party, did this ritual. It was awesome, but very difficult for the referee to manage.
Yes. I think it can be (and usually is) quite interesting and fun, but of course it depends on the players and situation involved. I've had some players who were apparently so fixed on the idea of being only their PC that they refused, or so inexperienced or unable to compartmentalize perspectives, or so fixed on some other way of playing (e.g. too competitive / goal oriented) that they wouldn't play appropriately.
There are sections about it in both my first/fav systems: TFT In The Labyrinth and GURPS. There are several ways it can work, such as:
* Have one or more players that run one or more hostile NPCs in combat.
This can result in much more NPC survival & success and more PC loss than usual if the GM tends not to try so hard. Can be enlightening. May want to try it out with non-beloved PCs involved first.
* Have one or more players that run one or more NPCs in social situations.
Some players like roleplaying different types, and can enjoy being the voice of particular NPCs from time to time. Can be much fun, though it's best with players who want to, are good at it, can compartmentalize perspectives and aren't so goal-oriented that they try to use it like convenient meta mind control to favor the PCs. For questionable players, the GM may want to intervene and retake control or require/disallow certain behavior if/when it's not working.
* Have one or more players that run one or more NPC party members / companions / minions / hired help.
When players aren't too attached to only playing one PC, this can work really well, especially in games where combat injuries often kill/maim or incapacitate PCs for long periods of game time, or even just when PCs often split.
* Have one or more players play serious adversary NPCs of the PCs, or world villains or just major players.
I love when this works well. It can make for some very interesting dynamic situations. It also tends to alert players who expect a conceit that there's an expectation they're the heroes who are probably going to have good safe-ish results unless they really mess up. The adversary players may not get a lot of play time during sessions though, so the logistics need to be figured out.
* Similar to above, but when one or more PCs who become adversaries during play - which PCs will prevail and be the ongoing group? Of course, it doesn't work for players who want a player contract that the PCs will cooperate and stay on the same side. Again since the hostile PCs often shouldn't be at the same table, this can present logistical problems, but sometimes that can be worked out or is worth it. It can also add meta-game urgency to resolving the conflict. Or the PCs can let the defectors go and/or they can be NPCized at some point (perhaps to be re-adversary-playered if they get re-encountered or come close later in the campaign).
* Have players whose characters aren't present for whatever reason (split party, serious injuries, sick, etc) play NPCs in any of the above categories.
When players get used to and enjoy this, this can solve other issues that may seem like problems to players who aren't open to this. I really like how it lets PCs not have to be healthy and with each other all the time, and how PC death and replacement PCs can be not so disruptive/illogical.
* Have multiple parties in the same world, running sessions for them at different times unless they meet.
Of course this can pose problems for keeping the parties in sync in world time without possibly causing paradoxes. I have sometimes done this but then split the game universe into parallel universes when there's a conflict. (i.e. the timeline and effects cross-affect each other too much, so party A has had a bunch of stuff happen and party B then needs to play through overlapping time/space but things play differently).
* Have one or more remote players guiding the decisions and strategies of various NPCs in the world between sessions.
I like this quite a bit as a means of adding randomness and interesting ideas and actual separate agency to characters other than "the" PCs. When players realize this is happening, it also can have them treat the world with different curiosity filters since there are several people other than the GM deciding what NPCs do etc.
* When the GM wants help figuring out what some NPCs will do, solicit input from friends or strangers, between sessions.
The GM can ask others for what tactics NPCs might use against the party, or to step in as certain villains/opponents. Though if the GM doesn't filter those guests, it can be nasty/annoying. "Oh sure, I can play an assassin hired to kill a PC." [suggests method the PCs will probably have almost no chance to notice or stop...]
* Have more than one GM for the same campaign.
I've done this with a very-like-minded collaborator GM, and also with "guest GMs". Tends to also wake up players and provide interesting variety and ideas, although I wouldn't do it with GMs who weren't quite close to my tastes, which severely limits the options. But I imagine with less serious games/groups, there could be more GM rotation.
As for friction between players afterwards, usually not, thanks to being cautious/careful, but sometimes yes. Outside players who get asked to be serious threats to PCs in the group have received some anger/resentment. And the GM has received some resentment too. And some players whose characters became adversaries have been suspected when they bring in new PCs, or even in later games. Though when it's normalized enough, then everyone just keeps a bit of skepticism about everyone else, which I think can be healthy amongst experienced adult players who find that interesting and don't prefer a cooperation contract. When it's just that a player is being the adversary to run combat opponents, that's usually ok, though there can be an issue where some people think their PC got unfairly ganged up on or targeted during combat. It can help avoid that to have an adversary just play one NPC opponent per combat, rather than risking that they run several and then play them as if they were all way more coordinated than they should be (e.g. suddenly the drunken bar brawlers all surround and attack the PC wizard).
Quote from: jeff37923;931405Something that I have wanted to experiment with more is getting some Players who will play the adversaries of the PC party, thus having more "life" put into what are normally NPCs controlled by the GM. Has anyone ever done this? How did it turn out? Was there any added friction between the two groups once the game was over?
The only good Exalted campaign I played was a Locust Crusade that involved several different groups. I wouldn't say it was 'adversarial', but things one group did would directly affect another- good, bad, or weird.
It went smoothly up until we found out that these groups were actual players. I thought it was kinda neat, until people started powergaming to make PK'er characters and exploit some of the multiple exploitable things in the Charms.
To make matters worse, a few of the players knew each other and were metagaming and telling the others what a group had. So it was kind of obvious when Endless Rectal Fister starts rolling up shit in an oddball Charm tree out of nowhere.
Was there friction? I don't know. I'm cordial with most of these fellows, but I'd only play an RPG with my assembly. I don't even trust the storyteller any more, because the direction the campaign was taking was heavily skewed toward the Solars coming out on top- and that was the group that was metagaming.
I'd rather have a player who gets along and respects the social nature of the game run an adversary than try to weave a douche bag's dick waving into some sort of useful symphony. So, no, I've never put a turd to use, other than to not game with them again. I have had players RP some of the light-heavies, run the monsters in battles, but that's about it. I would not be opposed to them running true adversaries, but I'd much rather them be on the same side.
Quote from: jeff37923;931405Something that I have wanted to experiment with more is getting some Players who will play the adversaries of the PC party, thus having more "life" put into what are normally NPCs controlled by the GM. Has anyone ever done this? How did it turn out? Was there any added friction between the two groups once the game was over?
Guy named Dave Arneson did this in his games set in a little medieval barony, with one group playing 'the good guys' and another group playing 'the bad guys'. It seemed to work out pretty well, all of them said, with great amounts of fun and skullduggery as the two 'teams' vied in outwitting each other. As for how it all turned out, eventually most of 'the bad guys' dropped out of the campaign and Dave had to play them himself. I never saw any added friction between the two groups, which was a feature of gaming hereabouts at that time; today's foe may be tomorrow's friend, and all that.
You are following in some very good footsteps... :)
As a follow-up, I should also mention that I've been 'hired in' for a TFT campaign by the GM as his play-as-needed generic opponent for his regular players. I recently did a stint as The Bandit Chieftain opposing the group, and gave them what they called 'the care of their lives', as they'd never really faced a 'live' opponent in the campaign. I'm continuing in that role, and taking on some others; it should be interesting, I think... :)
One of my favorite sessions at a convention was a "Double Blind" adventure which had two adventuring groups pitted against eachother with two DMs co-ordinating between. The party I was in got wiped out.
Quote from: jeff37923;931405Something that I have wanted to experiment with more is getting some Players who will play the adversaries of the PC party, thus having more "life" put into what are normally NPCs controlled by the GM. Has anyone ever done this? How did it turn out? Was there any added friction between the two groups once the game was over?
If your NPCs don't have a life of their own, you're doing it wrong.