|
There's a thread about cohorts going on right now, and it reminded me of something I wrote a while back on a Play-by-Post website. I didn't feel that the feel of the message was completely appropriate for the discussion at hand in the aforementioned thread, so I took it upon myself to re-read, edit, post it over here for your thoughts and consideration.
Anywho, without further ado, a treatise on cohortism:
In my mind a cohort, both in real, modern day terms, and in D&D terms, is a person that works for you, they are subordinate, and act on your approval, but are still individuals with their own desires and goals (though not entirely divergent from yours); they are dependable, though not always visible.
That isn't to say that the cohorts aren't heroic, or even important in the world around them, but they only play a small part as a face in the overall story being told* both in movies, literature, and in a D&D game. The way I look at Cohorts, they are something more than an NPC, and something less than a fully-fledged party member; they are essential to the overall story arc, and are, in their own way very heroic individuals.
An excellent example of a cohort is the character Jacopo (and to some extent, the Pirate Crew he originated from), from the movie The Count of Monte Cristo; a set of characters you know exists, has a name and a reputation (Jacopo is known as a vicious knife fighter, and a sailor of some renown), plays a part in the action (he has stats), and does a lot of moving and shaking (and he has skills galore) - but a majority of his (and the Pirates') deeds are done behind the scenes; Jacopo and the Buccaneers made a lot of thing happen that are only ever alluded to, or mentioned in passing, without them the Count would be hard-pressed to have achieved the success he did, but the count was still the main character. Cohorts are the slightly seen, hardly heard, and usually unsung, they're also critical to the story, but their importance is only ever realized by the audience members with a keen sense of observation. It should be noted: Monte Cristo often paid the men for their work, loyal or not, revenge, murder, kidnapping, and deception is hungry work, and the dudes have got to eat.
*Addendum: I emphasize this because it is important to note that the "story being told" and the "overall story" are two completely different things - going back to The Count of Monte Cristo - in many cases Monte Cristo would give Jacopo directions, and though we very rarely ever see exactly how Jacopo goes about following these instructions, the end result is always clear. Jacopo is part of the overall story, and his actions, while obviously important to the outcome of the movie/story, are not necessarily important when it comes to the Count and his schemes; the end result is all the Count cares about, and since he is the main character (and his revenge is the overall arc that we follow), we as the audience care about what he cares about: the end result.
And now, for a huge piece of opinion on Cohorts and their uses: I understand that the story works differently in a D&D game, but, overall, they are still fictional works with principle characters, the main difference is that in D&D everyone gets to tell the story so long as they keep it within the set parameters... so how does this affect cohorts? Generally cohorts are DMPCs that manage a business, or run a castle in the absence of a liege lord. So, in order to maintain the suspension of disbelief, the cohorts need to behave like cohorts (employees/devotees/followers) within reason, but still maintain a sense of individuality, and keep some of their own desires/goals separate from their bosses'. It needs to be remembered: cohorts are not second Player Characters, and honestly, I don't feel that they should ever be directly controlled by the player character who gives the cohort orders; give them the orders, and let them go on their way, don't sweat the small stuff, and trust in your DM - as an aside: a cohort being controlled by a different player entirely would be an interesting experiment to say the least, it would change the PC-Cohort dynamic drastically (hopefully in a positive light) and might take a bit of stress off the DM in terms of game prep-time.
Some cohorts will be utilized in combat, and that's fine, so long as the player accepts that they're relying on an NPC that, while loyal, is not a slavering meat-puppet that bends at their very will and whim; very few cohorts would be suicidal, though there can (and should) be exceptions, think Thayan Knights. Either way, an individual identity is paramount to a complete experience, not necessarily any sort of Gygaxian anti-player "... yes I work for you, but I completely plan on screwing you over..." hirelings/henchmen kind of attitude, but one unique enough to stand out and shine. Challenging? Yes. But otherwise rewarding as a gameplay experience. At least, I think so, for whatever its worth.
as an aside: a cohort being controlled by a different player entirely would be an interesting experiment to say the least, it would change the PC-Cohort dynamic drastically (hopefully in a positive light) and might take a bit of stress off the DM in terms of game prep-time.
I like the notion, but given the amount of threads on the boards about how players can't all play nicely in the sandpit, you may simply be adding an unwanted element of allowing one player to really irritate another.
Cohorts should be good 'off screen players' who get stuff done behind the scenes, and occasionally make a cameo on the main set, not a human Animal Companion or Pet :P
The way I look at Cohorts, they are something more than an NPC, and something less than a fully-fledged party member; they are essential to the overall story arc, and are, in their own way very heroic individuals.
Hm. In my opinion, a cohort is exactly an NPC -- just one who favours one of the party members much more than the others.
Ok well up until the untimely demise of my dearly beloved Rogue (one shotted through an act of divine bad luck - and body unrecoverable) I was working on (in game) building a Thieves Guild; canvassing likely members, providing the reasons why my new guild would be advantageous, setting aside budgets etc. Simply put, doing all the roleplay mechanics, and making the occasional aside Diplomacy check etc.
This was the significant amount of backwork that was being done to justify the Feat I was due to purchase in the very near future.
The notion was to build a network of specialists and fences I could trust and rely upon, and provide additional muscle on the rare occasion we needed some numbers.
SO given tahts how seriously people like myself take Feats like leadership and the development of Cohorts, you could see how 'special' I'd be towards them being arbitrarily 'offed' as a campaign hook - especially when my other actions provide more hooks than tackle shop to the GM. I'd call it sheer laziness personally :p
I see where you are coming from Shifty. I would probably not arbitrarily off such NPC's if youput that sort of plot work into building a network. Though I do provide background systems that would allow you to have that systme pre-built to some extent...
Always good.
My 'broad view' as a player is that if I am designing a network that operates behind the scenes, and which is going to provide me a direct benefit ahead of other players, then I don't mind sinking the Feat Tax into Leadership. Of course if the GM wants to give me that same benefit for free, then I can bet my little cotton socks that it will fast have a few bumps and 'adventures' :p