|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Given the astounding success of my last question I fully understand people not wanting to join this thread. But this question is made in sincerity, so if you believe you know the answer and are uncomfortable stating it in thread please message me directly.
In combat who controls...
1) an animal companion
2) a familiar
3) a cohort
4) a slave
5) a hireling
6) a prisoner
Out of combat who controls...
1) an animal companion
2) a familiar
3) a cohort
4) a slave
5) a hireling
6) a prisoner
Assuming all of these were obtained as per RAW, or barring a RAW means of acquisition within the letter of the local/national laws.
|
For me it depends on the players involved. But here is my standard
1 and 3: both can say no to the player and neither can read the characters mind. So the character must tell the cohort / animal companion what to do and they react. Normally I am good with allowing the player to actually control them, as long as they understand that I may step in if I think that the AC/cohort might react differently (due to diplomacy, animal handling, or intimidate checks that may fail). This will mostly come into effect with cohorts since they are the most likely to have different opinions.
2: for Familiars, I am good with letting the player fully control it.
For all others, it is part of the DM's job to control NPCs. This also gives the DM a chance to make them rich/memorable characters and part of the general plot as needed.
For me it depends on the players involved. But here is my standard
1 and 3: both can say no to the player and neither can read the characters mind. So the character must tell the cohort / animal companion what to do and they react. Normally I am good with allowing the player to actually control them, as long as they understand that I may step in if I think that the AC/cohort might react differently (due to diplomacy, animal handling, or intimidate checks that may fail). This will mostly come into effect with cohorts since they are the most likely to have different opinions.
2: for Familiars, I am good with letting the player fully control it.
For all others, it is part of the DM's job to control NPCs. This also gives the DM a chance to make them rich/memorable characters and part of the general plot as needed.
+1 on this for me.
'nuff said.
Astounding success of previous post or not, I didn't want to join this thread because of the useless title.
I mean, really, can't we all just come up with thread titles that are concise, meaningful, and give some clue about what the thread is going to discuss?
Seems like a no-brainer to me...
Me, I generally offload as much of the trivial stuff as I can, giving it to the players to handle so I can stay focused on juggling the higher-priority stuff.
Consequently, I let my players run all the NPCs and critters that happen to be hanging around the party for any reason. Familiars, cohorts, pets, friends, hirelings, trivial NPCs like slaves or prisoners, etc.
Yes, even the stuff they have no direct control over like prisoners. I trust my players will handle them in a fashion consistent with the situation and the personality I've already established. If they don't, I step in with a DM-Veto and nudge the NPC in the direction I want him to go, then let the players run with that.
Most players I've gamed with enjoy it. It lets them take on additional responsibility for the story, and lets them step out of their character occasionally and do something different.
I still retain control of everything that is essential to the plot. So the NPC who is actually driving the quest, or the prisoner who is actually trying to escape, etc.
The rest I leave to the players, with only as much guidance from me as they need to get into the correct role.
|
|
In combat
1) Player & DM
2) Player
3) Player & DM
4) DM
5) DM
6) DM
Out of combat who controls...
1) Player & DM
2) Player
3) DM
4) DM
5) DM
6) DM
Unless you have some kind of actual shared connection to you character build in, then there is no way I would simply let you have what would end up being multiple characters to control. I have yet to meet a player yet (Myself included) who has been able to successfully separate the PC's knowledge/personality/interests and their assistants knowledge/personality/interests.
As for a familiar, they are pretty much part and parcel of the controller (unless you get into improved familiar territory) so they are fine, the rest all have their own minds.
For me it depends on the players involved. But here is my standard
1 and 3: both can say no to the player and neither can read the characters mind. So the character must tell the cohort / animal companion what to do and they react. Normally I am good with allowing the player to actually control them, as long as they understand that I may step in if I think that the AC/cohort might react differently (due to diplomacy, animal handling, or intimidate checks that may fail). This will mostly come into effect with cohorts since they are the most likely to have different opinions.
2: for Familiars, I am good with letting the player fully control it.
For all others, it is part of the DM's job to control NPCs. This also gives the DM a chance to make them rich/memorable characters and part of the general plot as needed.
+1 on this for me.
'nuff said.
+2 totally agree
|
|
I mean, really, can't we all just come up with thread titles that are concise, meaningful, and give some clue about what the thread is going to discuss?
My apologies, the title was as concise and asbestos-laden as I could make it. I really don't want a repeat of my last thread.
Could we get this moved to PFS rules then if it doesn't belong in the general rules section? While I didn't state the fact (I had hoped there was RAW back up in general) what sparked the question was how it was handled in PFS.
Or perhaps it needs more concise phrasing?
This is like the 10th time I have seen this thread. Pretty much, from what I can tell, most people run it like has been posted above. Some groups the DM cares less, some he takes total control. Personally, I say let the player take most of the burden. I would even let them control slaves, hirelings, ect, in combat, unless I felt they were having them do something stupid. I will hand my players allied NPC character sheets sometimes so they can run them in large combats. Makes things easier.