steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (09/22/83)
I have been getting letters from various people tyring to explain
to me what the "no NPC" rules were about. Inevitably, these letters
point out that they are talking only about party leaders, and not as
a general class; since I could not really object to removing NPCs as
leaders, these letters state, I must have not read the discussion
thouroughly.
Yes, I have.
I believe that there should be no restrictions on the referee as
to what kinds of NPC's, he can play. If an NPC tries to gather a
party around his leadership, very good: It shows (at least in my
campaign) that there is no game difference between PC's and NPC's,
except just who is playing them.
I think the major point here is not that NPC's should not be
leaders, but rather that the Referee should not attempt to restrict
the scope of his PC's. If a group of adventurers wish to retire
for a year or two and become merchants, the referee should outline
the interesting things merchants do. If the party wishes to NOT go
to one "dungeon", but rather explore some ruins, townships, or
wilderness, this should be allowed. Even in the most simple case
of party leader, the players should be given the choice of who to elect.
The one thing that the referee should not do is have asinine
"Closed - Under Construction" signs all over his world. There is not a
greater blow that can be made to bolster your sense of disbelief.
Similarly, the "If you don't do this, then we won't play", is unbelievably
boring (given that choice, I don't play). There is nothing worse than
having your characters played by the referee, calling upon you only
to roll the dice.
This is the real objecton that you should have, not that a good
referee should not occasionally play a party leader...
Steven Maurer
p.s. If any of you are interested, I will post to this newsgroup, various
NPC discriptions (including NPC party leaders), I will do so. One of
the letters I got chalanged me to do something interesting for the newsgroup,
so I will if I get any support.