Quote from: jhkim;843868To clarify  

Thanks for clarifying. That makes sense and I agree. Even though the setup in #1 is an RPG cliché I've never actually seen it in play nor used it. It seems like it may be a relic of some of the early D&D modules. That always seemed lame and silly. It's a bad mix of sword s & sorcery with the noir detective trope of kicking off the case by having some random (lying) stranger come into the office of Philip Marlowe or Sam Spade and ask for their help.

Why would a bunch of strangers accept employment from a mysterious (possibly drunken) stranger? Heck Bilbo (and the dwarves) in the Hobbit already knew who Gandalf was and had some reason to respect his opinion even if they may not have initially trusted him. Then he accompanied them long enough for them to have some reason to trust him.

Depends on the game.

Most of the time regarding PCs I could care less about what you say you are, I care more about what you did. So "big, known heroes" is something you earn, not inherit. Otherwise, I could care less about PCs starting out from hard scrabble and staying there. Find your own meaning in the game I run (roughly within premise and scope, please!).

Quote from: jhkim;843868To clarify about what I'm talking about.

First, about the campaigns I've disliked that I described as setting the PCs up to be fools.

1) In a common setup, the PCs begin as homeless strangers who seem to be dropped into an area where they have no connections and no knowledge of what is going on. The locals treat them by default with suspicion as armed outsiders. They come into a tavern or similar, and there an NPC contacts them - seeming to know what their situation is, and offers information and a job for them. They then go off into danger, knowing only what the stranger told them.

I don't use this one anymore, except for games where PCs are playing mercenaries.

QuoteI've had fun in games like this, but I prefer alternatives. Here are a few:

2) The PCs are strangers in the region, but they came there with a purpose - and have reliable information about secret goings-on to guide them. For example, the PCs might have knowledge of a cult operating, and they've come into the area following leads. They know key figures in the cult and what their bases are, though not details. Or in a modern-day game, they are hunters with special knowledge of the supernatural, who come into town with clues about what is going on.

This might work for CoC or similar monster-hunters, or for a spy game.

Quote3) The PCs are strangers in the region, but they have special high status. For example, they could be agents of the Inquisition (Dark Heresy), the captain and officers of a Federation starship (Star Trek), or envoys of the Aldean government (Blue Rose). Alternately, it could be a place where adventurers have high status - like a monster-plagued region that relies on informal adventurers for protection.

This might do for a cop game, or similar. Swashbuckling, Wuxia or Kungfu games are often like that, if we play with the "Xia is a status in itself" trope (which usually means "we need people that like to fight" more than anything else).
Also works for Pendragon.

Quote4) The PCs are locals who have connections and lives in the area. For example, they might be superheroes in a city dealing with threats that show up (various), wizards who have settled in the area (Ars Magica).

That's my default for pretty much anything else.

I think it depends enormously on the type of campaign you're running.

That said, I always give my players all the knowledge in any situation that their characters should know.  And in situations where there might be cultural or other types of situations where the PCs should know how to act but the players might not, I always make the details clear to the players before they make a final decision on what they say or do.

Yes, the type of game and scale and setting are critical.  

My main game is very guild and faction heavy, but very, very low power and low growth.
So there, the PCs have the advantage of their guild connections and faction associations and often use them with social and informational skills (Guild Lore, et al).  This is because the game is magic and social heavy but very lethal, with slow growth.  Also because I play very, very long games.   So a new group starting is full of novices on apprentices in their guilds, with their social backgrounds behind that.  But they spend a long time in that lower strata.  My main live group, the Igbarians is 13 years of playtime with a lot of 5-7 year old characters, and they are far more powerful and have more knowledge than most, but they are still not on a power par with the guild leaders.   And socially, they have many enemies in the mercantile guilds and older families of Igbar,


Now, my main experiment game deals with this question even more directly.      It's my online game, now onto session 57. where the PCs have taken the role of first year students in an ancient and huge school of magic (in the same setting).  So their status is first year students.  Yes, they are not among the Void-Blind (they can cast), so that does give them a little boost, but in the school and life, they are kids, human equiv of 12-14.  That was part of the experiment in this game, moving the system even further to see if it could really work in this social-heavy, mystery-heavy, semi-gothic fashion.

Quote from: jhkim;843868To clarify about what I'm talking about.

First, about the campaigns I've disliked that I described as setting the PCs up to be fools.

1) In a common setup, the PCs begin as homeless strangers who seem to be dropped into an area where they have no connections and no knowledge of what is going on. The locals treat them by default with suspicion as armed outsiders. They come into a tavern or similar, and there an NPC contacts them - seeming to know what their situation is, and offers information and a job for them. They then go off into danger, knowing only what the stranger told them.

Shit referee is shit.

Even in OD&D at first level that's bullshit.  A first level fighter in OD&D is a "veteran."

"I am accounted the best horseman in all of Crisby Dale!"

"Oh!  Well!  When one has said that, one has said everything!"

-- Black Shield of Falworth

#1 seems to be the default box inside which most computer "RPGs" are scripted.

In our D&D campaigns the PCs are typically rootless rogues, and the setting is usually a hostile, dangerous, suspicious place. Any heroism is incidental. One of the reasons we never really made the jump to playing WFRP is we were already playing WFRP with D&D.

Quote from: Skarg;844495#1 seems to be the default box inside which most computer "RPGs" are scripted.

To quote Gronan, shit referee is shit, no matter man or machine.

There are plenty of players who are fine with #1. I think it is common because it has very few assumptions, so it's easy to switch between adventures and use pre-written modules. For example, if both the GM and the players want to just move on to the dungeon / adventure, it's an easy option.

Quote from: RPGPundit;844162I think it depends enormously on the type of campaign you're running.

That said, I always give my players all the knowledge in any situation that their characters should know.  And in situations where there might be cultural or other types of situations where the PCs should know how to act but the players might not, I always make the details clear to the players before they make a final decision on what they say or do.

Well, that's fine, but I think most GMs would claim this regardless.

A common issue is if the players are informed, but they have to remember and internalize everything the GM has said. If they don't keep up with the GM, then they are penalized.

I think a useful metric to look at is - how often does an NPC make some social blunder, and offend and/or have to apologize to the PCs? For some GMs, it's almost always the other way - the PCs are the ones who make social blunders, and NPCs are offended.

That's what I'd like to avoid.

Quote from: jhkim;844633I think a useful metric to look at is - how often does an NPC make some social blunder, and offend and/or have to apologize to the PCs? For some GMs, it's almost always the other way - the PCs are the ones who make social blunders, and NPCs are offended.

That's what I'd like to avoid.

It happens, when I find it should happen. The NPCs are, generally, able to not offend the PCs involuntarily, since in most cultures I run this is considered a survival skill:).
Of course, even natives to a culture can make a mistake under the influence of drugs, high or low spirits, or just spirits;).

Quote from: jhkim;844633I think a useful metric to look at is - how often does an NPC make some social blunder, and offend and/or have to apologize to the PCs? For some GMs, it's almost always the other way - the PCs are the ones who make social blunders, and NPCs are offended.

That's what I'd like to avoid.

Yeah, me too.

The way I see it, not even the best educated and informed among us are natives of the milieus most of us run, and we don't have the level of immersion to notice what someone who isn't a 21st century Westerner gaming out of a comfy living room with a soft drink and a slice of pizza would.  There are any number of times where it's not merely the case that the PC should know a key bit of social/cultural information ("Okay, make a roll against your Savoir-Faire skill ... thankew") but would reasonably know it reflexively, and never normally botch or forget it.  None of us need Savoir-Faire/Courtesy/IQ rolls to avoid spitting into open coffins, punching pregnant women in the bellies, saluting the dark skinned archbishop with "Yo, nigga," or failing to understand what the blue-uniformed fellow with the garrison cover, pistol, silver badge and nightstick is.

So I figure it's my duty to double-check when a player commits what I think is so egregious a social blunder -- well, short of the PC being portrayed as an ignorant lout -- that any informed member of the culture would reflexively avoid it, with a phrase along the lines of "You do understand that this is the Queen's throne hall, and her Chancellor is standing right behind you.  Are you sure you want to do that?"

Quote from: Ravenswing;844698...

So I figure it's my duty to double-check when a player commits what I think is so egregious a social blunder -- well, short of the PC being portrayed as an ignorant lout -- that any informed member of the culture would reflexively avoid it, with a phrase along the lines of "You do understand that this is the Queen's throne hall, and her Chancellor is standing right behind you.  Are you sure you want to do that?"

I've long had a section of my house rules which explains that the modern player is guiding the character, but isn't in full possession. If the player says their PC in the fantasy world says "yo nigga", they're trying to project 21st century gangsta slang, which doesn't translate. At most they can give the PC the impulse to be offensive or over-familiar in a cheesy way.

But that's just my preferred GM style. Some people like modernisms in their fantasy games and fiction (e.g. Shrek).

Quote from: jhkim;844633A common issue is if the players are informed, but they have to remember and internalize everything the GM has said. If they don't keep up with the GM, then they are penalized.

I think a useful metric to look at is - how often does an NPC make some social blunder, and offend and/or have to apologize to the PCs? For some GMs, it's almost always the other way - the PCs are the ones who make social blunders, and NPCs are offended.

That's what I'd like to avoid.

To quote an extremely wise person, "shit referee is shit."  And "not gaming is better than bad gaming."

Quote from: jhkim;844633I think a useful metric to look at is - how often does an NPC make some social blunder, and offend and/or have to apologize to the PCs?

Fairly often. Some of the PCs aren't very good at accepting apologies though.

Quote from: Ravenswing;844698So I figure it's my duty to double-check when a player commits what I think is so egregious a social blunder -- well, short of the PC being portrayed as an ignorant lout -- that any informed member of the culture would reflexively avoid it, with a phrase along the lines of "You do understand that this is the Queen's throne hall, and her Chancellor is standing right behind you.  Are you sure you want to do that?"

I think sometimes that even this is too roundabout and it may be better to ask an even more direct question like, "Spitting on the floor of the Queen's throne hall is an extremely rude and insulting gesture. Is rude and insulting what you are trying to do here?"

Quote from: Skarg;844704I've long had a section of my house rules which explains that the modern player is guiding the character, but isn't in full possession. If the player says their PC in the fantasy world says "yo nigga", they're trying to project 21st century gangsta slang, which doesn't translate. At most they can give the PC the impulse to be offensive or over-familiar in a cheesy way.

But that's just my preferred GM style. Some people like modernisms in their fantasy games and fiction (e.g. Shrek).

I tend to mentally translate some of the PC dialog. In part to maintain my own sense of the setting as the GM, in part because some players just aren't good at being both the script writers and actor for their PCs.