Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MadMAxJr]

Evil Party Members

I've never allowed evil characters into my groups. (At least in D&D, where alignment can matter.)  Evil generally does not find constructive solutions to objectives/obstacles in my games.  If the entire group was evil, then we could probably make it work, but I just don't have the heart to run such a game, typically.  CE being the worst culprit, because it's two words on paper that a total jerk can use to attempt to justify the most game-disrupting actions.  I've actually seen LE work before without being completely disruptive.  (Holy country knight, with zealous ideals.  Protectorate of Menoth, for you IK fans.)

I prefer my games to have characters that are reasonably like-minded, at least on the surface.  The ability to work together is crucial.  This is not to say they are forced to like each other, it's that they shouldn't be ready to point daggers at each others neck at the drop of a hat.  If you want to get among a group of people to start fights, that's what internet forums and FPS games are for.

I like to think that roleplaying can help develop interpersonal skills, and finding ways to cooperate with one another for a collaborative effort is a good thing.

[Mothra]

I've had a thirtysomething labor grunt at my work ask me a few times about joining in on a GURPs game sometime soon, which I'd only really be down for if some of the other clerks were into it as well. I get the feeling tabletop RPG's are like tabletop Civ in that you're basically signing up for an incredibly long hangout session, which would mean that I would have to not find this guy amazingly tedious to talk to. I'm not usually the biggest fan of his logic, either, so negotiating with mystical imaginary skeletons would likely devolve into enormous free-for-alls pretty quick; I like how these kinds of games are really team oriented, but it does require that your team be in some way reasonable.

Misses

For as long as I've played RPGs of any kind, misses have always completely pissed me off. I get that it's realistic, but in a game where you have no control over your characters after issuing the orders, it's amazingly frustrating to see an entire turn wasted through no fault of your own. Nine times out of ten, a miss means that my orders for the turn didn't work like I'd wanted them to, because someone else had to cover for the misser - the entire strategy collapses due to a single random event for which you can't compensate until the next turn.

[Friday]

The problem isn't having evil characters, it's having players who think it's funny to disrupt the game. I really don't understand all those stories about GMs whose players have "run amok". Just get different players. You wouldn't group up with a bunch of douchebags in an online RPG, so why are you doing it in real life?

That being said, properly played evil characters do tend to make the campaign harder to run. It can work, even with a mix of good and evil, if the evil player(s) considers the rest of the party his "friends" (or at least, meat shields) and is therefore unwilling to fuck them over at the drop of a hat, since he may like them or at least need them.

[MadMAxJr]

Just get different players.

I prefer to pre-screen players, so I don't waste three weeks telling people it isn't going to work out with them.  I hate to say it but in my experience, usually posting an open-call for a game results in at least one person who will make me pull my hair out.

If you have a failproof means of harvesting new players, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Bal]

On the subject of misses, or more specifically critical failures, of any kind. I find the critical failure to be extremely offensive as a player. Nine times out of ten in these games you're supposed to be capable, experienced, and specialized, but, at least in d20, you still have a five percent chance at any given time to fuck up completely. A miss I can stand. Most of the time that's based on armor class, so you can imagine to yourself that the enemy dodged, or your blow glanced off an upraised shield, but with a critical failure it's just a kick in the junk fuck you to the player. I would sacrifice critical successes to forgo critical failures.

[Guild]

There is no official rule anywhere in 3.5ed (or 4ed) which says a 1 means anything other than miss. Critical misses and critical failures are homebrew nonsense invented by mean GMs (I used to use them back in the day).

I use the aesthetic that a miss is actually a series of blows that are absorbed by the armor or blocking skills of the defender. Rounds are six seconds long, so the round represents several combat movements, not just a single swipe.

Just get different players.

I prefer to pre-screen players, so I don't waste three weeks telling people it isn't going to work out with them.  I hate to say it but in my experience, usually posting an open-call for a game results in at least one person who will make me pull my hair out.

If you have a failproof means of harvesting new players, I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

The logistics of her advice involve boobs.

[MadMAxJr]

I use the aesthetic that a miss is actually a series of blows that are absorbed by the armor or blocking skills of the defender. Rounds are six seconds long, so the round represents several combat movements, not just a single swipe.

*WARNING* INCOMMING BOSS *WARNING*
ARGUMENTS ABOUT AC vs DR
*WARNING* INCOMMING BOSS *WARNING*

[Friday]

The logistics of her advice involve boobs.

Stop it. I mean it. You've passed the line of annoying and now you're creeping me out. When I said leave me alone, I meant it. Last chance.

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Because it wasn't really a thread about RPGs until somebody made a girl really uncomfortable.

[Guild]

I... for some reason I feel like I'm being harassed somehow. My point was simply that it's perhaps easier for you to get new players to join your group than it is for me (or most roleplayers I know). It's hard for nerds to get others excited about their hobbies for various, arbitrary and well-documented reasons, most of which would be completely negated by owning a nice rack.

Not that there's anything wrong with any of that, just sayin' maybe you have a different perspective.

I use the aesthetic that a miss is actually a series of blows that are absorbed by the armor or blocking skills of the defender. Rounds are six seconds long, so the round represents several combat movements, not just a single swipe.

lol wut's dr

[Zach]

Evil Party Members

I've never allowed evil characters into my groups. (At least in D&D, where alignment can matter.)  Evil generally does not find constructive solutions to objectives/obstacles in my games.  If the entire group was evil, then we could probably make it work, but I just don't have the heart to run such a game, typically.

In games with hard n' fast alignment rules, it's difficult. As soon as the majority learns about the presence of an evil character, they start planning for their sudden, yet inevitable betrayals.

I've had good luck with villain games, however. TSR's old Reverse Dungeon product started the itch, and Pinnacle's Necessary Evil made me realize that this was more than a one-time release valve for wannabe-heroes (despite some of the book's awkward morality). My current game, a Batman/new Changeling hybrid where everyone's a costumed villain of some sort. Then again, it could be argued that this is a game about selfish, villainous characters who aren't actually big-E Evil. Most of the time.

The two tricks that I use are same as any other game: making sure that there's space for personal and "quest" goals and reaching a common ground on tone. The goals give characters drive, shape 'em, and stop them from getting lost within the freedom of the fiction. Tone ensures that evil means the same thing to everyone, and they can function alongside each other even if the characters have squabbles.

I prefer my games to have characters that are reasonably like-minded, at least on the surface.  The ability to work together is crucial.  This is not to say they are forced to like each other, it's that they shouldn't be ready to point daggers at each others neck at the drop of a hat. 

The key part in this quote, as I see it, is on the surface. The samurai drama that I've been part of (L5R and The Mountain Witch) were all about characters who were bound by duty on the surface, but had human conflicts and mysterious pasts that tore them in all sorts of directions. Their straight-forward, typical adventurer challenges were always enough to keep them occupied and build bonds of teamwork, but the that only made the knives seem sharper when they did come out.

[Zach]

Speaking of samurai games...

Ninja Characters

They aren't always actual ninja, but are always super-stealthy characters who work best apart from the interference of other party members. I've played enough tactical stealth espionage action games to see the appeal, but it sure makes keeping everybody involved difficult. Not only does the ninja tend to miss out on all of the big character-building scenes, but everyone else is left sitting and doing nothing while the ninja goes off and does a million things.

[jsnlxndrlv]

And in a similar vein, consider the skill-focused conversationalist in a party full of bashers.  I like the idea that roleplaying games allow for differentiation between characters, and I like the implication that each person might focus on one particular type of goal that the group might need to overcome, but in practice you find yourself in a bunch of situations where most people do nothing and a one or two characters hog the spotlight.  Which is fine, really!  But I still keep trying to design homebrew rules allowing a player to choose to be a nonparticipant in a certain challenge, forgoing all actions but providing a minor bonus or penalty to a participant of that player's choice every round.

[MadMAxJr]

Hitting Players With the Clue Bat

Sometimes players aren't picking up on things.  They might even be at a standstill, when you believe you've given them everything they need, or they have a belief taking them in the wrong direction.  I found a small answer to steer them away from this is very small XP rewards every time they come across an important clue.  It's kind of a hot/cold indicator when a PC starts asking the right questions with an NPC.  The scale varies from anywhere between 5 and 100 XP for coming across information that points in the right direction.  The average is 20, and the award varies based on the degree of importance of the information they get.  These are awarded on an individual basis, and I found they encouraged players to pay attention and be creative because they might get that immediate reward that could push them a sliver closer to the next level before anybody else.  I don't know what to do in a non-XP system.  Point-based system points tend to be FAR too valuable to dish out as minor rewards.

If you have an NPC who has certain facts or other information the party needs, make a list of those items, and then determine the degree of importance.  Consider a good reward for the top one and scale your way down.  The Witchfire Trilogy had bulleted lists of NPC info, and that's where I started doing this.  I just wrote in the importance and rewards.  Now PCs were encouraged to ask careful questions.

XP doesn't have to come from combat.  They can come from the occasional puzzle, correctly figuring out a map, or a number of other things.  The trick is to use the XP as an incentive and not get your party to the point where they are going to waste hours of time trying to grind you for all the possible rewards.

[Guild]

Hitting Players With the Clue Bat

very small XP rewards

That's cool. I'm stealing that.

I try to make players the information source as often as possible, feeding information to a character who would know it and letting that player tell the other PCs. I prefer this method because it inspires interaction.

[Bongo Bill]

I'm in the middle of my (basically) first campaign ever, and even online it is as fun as I expected. Gonna see about gathering a proper, in-person group. In the meantime I am still an absolute newcomer.

[Kazz]

I think XP rewards are the wrong way to go; if followed to the logical conclusion, you'll end up with a level disparity between PCs.

If the RPG doesn't have a Karma system in place, you should invent one.  If a player does something creative or follows a clue, give him a Karma.  Let him spend the Karma to reroll a die, cause an enemy to miss, or otherwise influence the game.

[Guild]

I'd say Action Points but they're pretty broken if you have too many. My 4ed Warlord can give a player three (by spending only one AP! (+1 additional attack action for each additional AP spent)) full attack actions in a row if he hits them right before their turn, leading to some devastating shit.

Also 20 xp is not going to break anything if proper experiencing is going on. Also also, rewarding the question-askin sorcerer a couple of times with xp will undoubtedly lead other players to try similar things, so I'd give some info to the kinds of people their characters might interact with to balance it out ie the fighter's favorite bar has a barmaid who only talks to him and thinks the sorcerer is creepy.

[Guild]

http://rptools.net/doku.php?id=home

[Kazz]

Well, okay, if the XP rewards DON'T make your levelling quicker, then they're just useless instead of unbalanced.