|
Paolomania posted:However, we do not want to totally negate the identity choices that player has made, we merely want to jab at these choices with threats of significant yet recoverable injury to these aspects. This is absolutely A Thing I am trying to incorporate into my current campaign, so I'll expand on it a little, then pose a question to you. One of my players mentioned as a minor goal that they wanted their family back, but felt that it was impossible. The truth of the matter is that the PC had a curable affliction and a lust for revenge that were the only things keeping him from being with his family, so I made a point of playing those aspects up. I went to lengths to explain the hurt it was causing to the people he cared about, and how all they wanted was for him to stop fighting and come home. You don't want to diminish the player's stated goal of revenge, but you should try and present alternatives. Another player was raised in an evil cult, but was "rescued" by a Knight who believed she could be redeemed. Unfortunately, he basically did this by torturing and brainwashing the evil out of her. The player felt this allowed the character to veer good or evil as the character progressed, but I felt it was too strongly slanted towards evil. So I made efforts to provide the character with a sympathetic ally would would act as a much better role model for "Good." It also allowed me a chance to introduce her (a new player into an existing campaign) to some of the existing Good NPCs and to show "there are right ways and wrong ways to be good"; it was a nice foil since one of the more sinister party NPCs explained the same thing about being evil, earlier in the campaign. My question would be this: What's a word for this? "Devil's Advocate" comes to mind, or even "adversary" (although "adversarial DM" is a thing all its own). Like, a person who is always trying to point out the things people are failing to consider, or choosing to ignore. Conscience? That's a bit loaded, too. Arbiter? I just can't think of the noun... An example is some of the discussions I've heard in religious circles, where satan is described more as pointing out the flaws of humans and questions god favouring them, arguing 'the other side' i.e. it's not so much that satan is "comic book evil" and is just out to destroy humans. I don't know if this is a helpful example for anyone, but there it is.
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Paolomania posted:Also good. In an extended campaign where we are not killing off player characters, having an array of NPCs for the characters to relate to and for the GM to threaten, is a vital means of giving players character choices. The fiction that the player wrote for their character was intended to allow the character to branch towards either good or evil; however, to the DM it read as though it would be highly unlikely the character would choose good, based on that fiction. So, no, I never had any intention of railroading the player in one direction. I actually was trying to "tip the scales" more into balance, but ultimately the player is the one who gets to make the choice. I also gave an in-game explanation of what I was trying to do, by having an NPC (deity) tell the character, "It is my sincerest hope, that by feeling true goodness in your life, you may at least have a choice -- a true chance to choose your own fate -- even if that means taking the choice to denounce goodness, one day." Paolomania posted:In many ways it is the GM's job to support the players' character choices by introducing antagonists, impediments and conflicts that highlight those choices. Yeah, this is totally a thing I try and do. The PCs are eventually going to achieve the things they want, it's just a matter of what do they have to overcome in order to do this (which can be material goals like getting loot or winning a fight, or emotional goals like overcoming fear or falling in love) or what they forfeit in the process (sort of the "tragic hero" route, maybe NPCs die, you win the battle but lose the war, etc.) P.d0t fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:SOCIAL SCENES: Undercover Party Discussion I've actually been doing some thought and prep for this kind of session in my campaign recently, and you touched on a lot of stuff that I've been working on. So, the new Regent has finally lifted the lockdown on the capitol city and wants to hold a large gala with dignitaries from all over the land. This may sound kinda weird, but I think this sort of scene needs to be very thoroughly staged to actually work, so I want to expand on that. Which kinds of people will be there: The Party In this specific campaign, the party is basically an elite mercenary group; soldiers of fortune, guns for hire, etc. The World's Greatest Detective Maybe working towards his/her own goals or working a case for someone else. Probably there to find out a specific piece of information rather than just schmooze and find the hot gossip. Assassin's Guild A group who is able to blend into any environment (including this one). Maybe they are there to get information, maybe to intimidate some high-up public officials, or maybe to pull off a heist or a hit. This sort of group is important because they should be as combat-capable as the party. If the party goes guns-blazing, there is a group there capable of making it very risky for them. Military/Police Officers These would serve a similar function to the Assassins, but would be more likely to escort party members out and/or arrest them. The Chief Constable may also be someone who is politically connected and has valuable information. Organized Crime While these folks might serve as an aggravating factor to any social interactions involving the other groups, you know they'll always have their finger on the pulse. Depending on how "old school" your particular Mafia/Yakuza is, they may abhor the thought of violence in this kind of setting; "no women, no kids" etc. A good mix of hired goons as well as wealthy "businessmen" and "lobbyists" Foreign Dignitaries This can include members of the military as well as politicians. Usually they have differing goals to the politicians who are holding the event. The party may operate in this region, but want to curry favour with the governing bodies from other regions, and this puts them all in contact. Rich People Money can get you into all kinds of places, so these types will inevitably be there. They may be able to offer work to the Party, usually that would further their own ends. Now, beyond this, you need to kinda assume that Friendly NPCs fit into one or more of those groups somehow and they will likely be in attendance. This can be for good or ill; if the party is really trying to go unnoticed, their allies may draw attention to them just by wanting to be polite and make conversation. They may also be putting themselves directly in the line of some sort of danger, thus complicating how the party will execute whatever goals they have in mind at this event. It's all the big clusterfuck where everyone gets to see who is interacting with who, but probably everyone will be most closely focused on one person or group. Different Areas to Explore: So in my particular campaign, I pictured their being a large ballroom with... ballroom dancing. Very stuffy and formal sort of interaction takes place, so PCs/NPCs who know how to waltz properly would be more effective - knowing how and when to smoothly "cut-in" and get close to a person of interest would be an asset. Probably later on in the evening, the musical selection would "loosen up" a bit, particularly since the high-quality alcohol will inevitably be flowing all night long. I also figured there would be a "smoking room" for the (particularly older or old-school) gentlemen to gather and shoot the poo poo. This sort of helps get around the necessity of "gender pairings" that comes with social dance, so if your party is a sausage fest, this is a place where you can mingle and get some info. That said, not everyone's gonna be a smoker so the scope of who you'll find there may be a bit more limited. Likewise, some other "common areas" you may want to explore might be the balcony surrounding the ballroom, the bar, whatever. Just think of the whole venue as a world with different regions that need to be populated, and think about which types of people would be in those places. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 02:11 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2013 01:48
|
|
|
A bit of a meandering thought here, but let me start by saying I'm stuck in 4e D&D Might it be possible to run something similar to The Trial or The Council scenes, using a loose interpretation of Skill Challenges? I.e. instead of stress, you count successes and failures against the party and/or each faction until they "stress out" You could maybe adjust the DCs up or down depending on your goals or intentions. Like, if you intimidate a faction, the DC to intimidate them further goes down, but the DC for diplomacy goes up. the party can decide which faction they want to smooth-talk and who they want to discredit or bully into walking away. You could improvise using something akin to a cross-skill action; use Religion at a higher DC to impress The Bishop, maybe with a reward of 2 successes for Taking A Risk?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
Perhaps not, but I was thinking of a simple shift, such as from an Easy to a Moderate DC, for example. Something where guidelines already exist, rather than me attempting to reinvent the wheel with my horrible math skills 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
The shortest answer/example I could find without looking real hard is that an unfriendly monster gets +5 to defenses vs. Intimidate and a hostile monster gets +10 It's rolled as Intimidate vs. Will or else vs. DC set by DM (I.e. usually Easy, Moderate or Hard DC, which all scale by level)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Maybe this is a question better suited to the DM advice thread, but what's a good way to put things at stake? I find it can often cause tension between the DM and players, if you target someone or something that is important to the PC (such as something in their background). The flip side of that is if you try to introduce NPCs of your own and get the players to care about them, you run the risk of shifting the focus too far away from the players (and even then, they might disregard the characters you introduce). It seems like the obvious answer is to work things out with players beforehand, but in my experience players hate "homework". The other problem is to share the spotlight between often disparate player focuses, or PCs with outright opposed goals (let alone morals). I pose this question not as a derail, but because the objective of making all non-narrative scenes have something at stake (as mentioned in these posts about Exploration scenes) is something I've struggled to accomplish in my current campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2013 07:22
|
|
|
I think if anything, that kinda reinforces the point that exploration doesn't quite stand on its own 2 feet. i think the question to ask is what's at stake? If the answer is mortal danger, then it's more like a combat encounter you can't win by fighting; if the answer is a damaged relationship, then it's basically a social encounter you can't win by talking. In either case, it's almost coming across as what I call the "Vance's Magical Bullshit" spell, where having the correct Exploration specialist is either the only way to win the encounter, or the best way to short-circuit it. I might be missing some nuance of the system or looking at it in the most negative light possible, but for me it presents cause to pump the brakes a little.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Actually the description of the Library Research scene sort of reminds me of that "choose the form of The Destructor" bit from the end of Ghostbusters.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
So here's a random question/derail.. Do you have plans for advice on emulating particular genres or tones? Or facilitating role playing and inter-PC banter?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2013 05:19
|
|
|
One of the DMs I've played under was all upons White Wolf (specifically Vampire, iirc) for its books doing a great job of teaching players how to act. Or "do acting" to be more accurate. He then went on to read about improv and theatre sports games on the internet and thought was kickin' rad and would help facilitate roleplaying, and decided to incorporate them into his RPGs. Me on the other hand, I actually did theatre sports games (high school drama classes) and knew all about the dumb bullshit it leads to  So I sort of balked at his assertions. My angle was to encourage people to develop the depth of their characters by posing particular questions about them, out of session (I.e. what is your character's favourite song or colour and what is the significance of that?) in hopes that it would manifest in some way during gameplay. The problem is, it turns out people hate "homework" While as a DM I found myself constantly thinking about the psychological, emotional, and other underpinnings to the NPCs actions, players just wanted to show up and play for a few hours and not think about their characters for the rest of the week; I practically had to lead them around by the nose to get them to do much.So, does Some Heartbreaker have any ideas about how best to teach players to roleplay (or, "act")? Or is the focus purely mechanical?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Nobody ever liked subtraction, anyway. Actually when I'm playing 4e these days, I do add up the damage and compare it to my bloodied level or Max HP, pretty much just as you're describing. Then when I get healing, I just subtract from the damage column; luckily there's no healing in Some Heartbreaker
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2013 19:41
|
|
|
I like the idea of healing sharing the same resource pool as [anything else]. It seems like that could lead to some tense moments. I think a healing mechanic works best when it's not an assumption of the underlying system math.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:This is a good point and one of the intentions of the system is that "effects" can buy more than just damage dice - i.e. you can use an effect to trip or use an effect to disarm, etc. I don't the that the current writeup makes this clear enough. However, I want to avoid enumerating everything as an mechanical effect ala 4E - we want players to feel free to come up with creative actions without feeling like that have to choose from a list. We also want to keep things fiction-focused - i.e. we don't want to have a big list of mechanical conditions like "prone", and we just what exactly "prone" means to fiction and GM fiat.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Paolomania posted:That is a good point, and I think we can come at it from both directions. On one hand, players need to realize that getting KOed from a scene doesn't necessarily mean death and disaster, and more often just means complication and inconvenience. On the other hand, I like your metacurrency idea and Fate Points being the natural fit. This echoes awarding XP for a failed TAR - i.e. when the player gets stung they always get a special consolation prize that provides some form of karmic balance. I'm trying really hard to parse all of this. If you get KO'd from a scene, you lose narrative agency in that scene AND get a complication or inconvenience. Have I got that correct? If so, it's a lose/lose and therefore no wonder that players are trying to avoid it (even if it's not death, per se) If you take a risk and succeed, usually this results in avoiding both bad things; if you fail, probably one/both Bad things will happen, but you get XP. 1) does XP do anything cool, or just make numbers go up? 2) it seems like you want the players to fail (or at least risk failing) because "more interesting" things happen that way. This seems counterintuitive. Like, if "success" means the players advance the linear plot and don't get inconvenienced along the way, while "failure" means the DM throwing up roadblocks to divert the players from their goals, it comes off as almost adversarial, with incentivizing failure being railroady. I dunno. Is this how it feels to the playtesters, or am I theorycrafting out of left field?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Do you usually play RPGs with the same group/always with close friends? It just sounds that way, from what you posted.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Just wanted to say, been a huge fan/following this thread since its inception (and before) If there's any way in which I can lend a hand, hit me up on PMs if you got 'em (otherwise post here) Check the July Design Contest for my credentials.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2014 22:08
|
|