Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;220903The Champions of Rajaat in Dark Sun, as opposed to the same personalities described as "Sorceror Kings".

I don't know how familiar you are with DS canon, but basically it started off with a bunch of Sorceror-Kings who ran all the cities, granted divine powers to templars, and were generally ancient, evil, and near-omnipotent.

Then, a whole bunch of novels came out, along with the 2nd edition boxed set, that revealed the TRUE SECRET HISTORY FOR REAL and told us that they were all part of some ancient campaign to purge Athas of humanoids, blah, blah, blah, blah.

The trick is, this did nothing in game. The PCs had no way of finding this out in play unless the DM handed it to them; learning it changed nothing about the possibilities of the setting while seeming like it should; PCs had no reason to really care even if they did find it out. It was just storywanking. Worse yet, it took a mysterious set of villains whose coolness derived in part from their vague origins and the unclear limits to their powers, and laid it all out fairly explicitly.

That's a good rule: don't come up with a plot with no PC plot hooks.
Perhaps also something along the lines of: don't write up an organization that cannot be affected by PCs.
And: let the PCs have an influence on the organization. This can be done several ways. Joining it, opposing it (shifts its focus; forces a new hierarchy if a boss gets killed, etc), revealing its secrets to other organizations, etc.

It's entirely true that when players (I'm including myself here, too) feel they don't have any influence on the RPG world they are, things can feel insignificant and frustrating. Organizations need to be fluid like that too. If the PCs kill a big bad and there's another one just like it replacing it and foiling their success, it can get frustrating if done too much (i.e. more than once).

Quote from: RPGPundit;220493Is there a formula? or set rules?

No, there isn't; every group will have their own means, methods of deriving utility from the various forces within the game, many of which would be incompatible with those of other groups.

But that doesn't make for a very interesting thread, just sharing what each other's groups like to do. Apparently.

Quote from: Engine;221123No, there isn't; every group will have their own means, methods of deriving utility from the various forces within the game, many of which would be incompatible with those of other groups.

But that doesn't make for a very interesting thread, just sharing what each other's groups like to do. Apparently.

It's also a horrible premise to start from for anyone interested in writing for an actual market, as opposed to some dudes they know personally.

Quote from: Jackalope;221127It's also a horrible premise to start from for anyone interested in writing for an actual market, as opposed to some dudes they know personally.

Actually, I think it's especially important to note when writing for the market.

Quote from: Engine;221130Actually, I think it's especially important to note when writing for the market.

Maybe I'm just totally misunderstanding you, but I can't see how it could possibly be useful.  Starting with the assumption that every group is a special little snowflake that needs to be catered to individually seems a very ass-backwards way of deconstructing the universal structures of popular forms.

I can point to role-playing games that were written to cater to very specific individual tastes.  Some of them are quite good.  Some of them are the worst games ever written.  None of them sell worth shit.

Wouldn't you give some green GM a hand and give him a set of things to help him build a working organization?

What would you say then?

Quote from: Jackalope;221134Starting with the assumption that every group is a special little snowflake that needs to be catered to individually seems a very ass-backwards way of deconstructing the universal structures of popular forms.

That's because you've started with the assumption that there is a universal structure to popular forms.

When trying to produce a popular product, there are [at least] two means of doing so: the first is to produce for the largest possible bloc; the second is to produce for everyone. Often, producing for everyone pleases no one; a choice must be made between multiple conflicting needs.

Fortunately, in developing roleplaying games, the designer has an ally with his boots on the ground, as it were: the GM, who knows his or her group vastly better than any would-be bestselling game developer ever will. The important thing in that case is to give multiple options, and aid the GM in allowing to choose those which best suit his or her [okay, his] campaign.

Your stated preferences for groups of villains - including such advice as "A good villain organization consists primarily of rank and file members who display no traits of individuality." - presumably works for your group, and for many others. But for many others - and none of us know the proportions of the two - this would be completely unacceptably pedestrian and unrealistic. If you're attempting to develop for a bestselling roleplaying game - and you'll pardon me if I didn't know until your latest post that's what this was supposed to be about! - then I personally feel it's important to give a little something for everyone, without compromising each option, allowing the GM to moderate your setting for his usage, since, again, he will know his group far better than you ever will.

Quote from: Jackalope;221134Starting with the assumption that every group is a special little snowflake that needs to be catered to individually seems a very ass-backwards way of deconstructing the universal structures of popular forms.

That's because you've started with the assumption that there is a universal structure to popular forms.

When trying to produce a popular product, there are [at least] two means of doing so: the first is to produce for the largest possible bloc; the second is to produce for everyone. Often, producing for everyone pleases no one; a choice must be made between multiple conflicting needs.

Fortunately, in developing roleplaying games, the designer has an ally with his boots on the ground, as it were: the GM, who knows his or her group vastly better than any would-be bestselling game developer ever will. The important thing in that case is to give multiple options, and aid the GM in allowing to choose those which best suit his or her [okay, his] campaign.

Your stated preferences for groups of villains - including such advice as "A good villain organization consists primarily of rank and file members who display no traits of individuality." - presumably works for your group, and for many others. But for many others - and none of us know the proportions of the two - this would be completely unacceptably pedestrian and unrealistic. If you're attempting to develop for a bestselling roleplaying game - and you'll pardon me if I didn't know until your latest post that's what this was supposed to be about! - then I personally feel it's important to give a little something for everyone, without compromising each option, allowing the GM to moderate your setting for his usage, since, again, he will know his group far better than you ever will.

Quote from: Engine;221144Your stated preferences for groups of villains - including such advice as "A good villain organization consists primarily of rank and file members who display no traits of individuality." - presumably works for your group, and for many others. But for many others - and none of us know the proportions of the two - this would be completely unacceptably pedestrian and unrealistic.

I don't know the exact proportions, but considering the market and what sells, I don't think the people you're speaking up for represent any significant factor in the market.  There would be more stuff catering to them if they existed in appreciable numbers.

You run Shadowrun, right?  Do you ever have combats?  With gang bangers, security guards and the like?  Or does every single antagonist in your game come complete with a backstory that the players learn about through extended interaction with the character?

Because either you basically have no combat in your game, or you're bullshitting me here with this.  Because if you're claiming that you have villain organizations in your campaign in which all of the rank and file displays signs of individuality, I'm going to say flat out that you're full of shit and that is impossible.  There is no possible way that you and your players could actually have fun playing that way, as it would be tedious and pointless.

Quote from: Engine;221144That's because you've started with the assumption that there is a universal structure to popular forms.

If you'd like to start arguing Jung and Campbell, I'd be glad too.  Considering the billions of dollars made in Hollywood every year by embracing that concept of universal structure, I'm willing to hazard it's a useful assumption to start with.

As soon as one starts talking about fantasy as a genre, rather than as a convention of fiction, then one is really talking about structure.  That's all genre really is, is specifically structured or formulated stories.  It's fairly easy to discern those structures and discuss them as abstract universals.

Quote from: Jackalope;221149I don't know the exact proportions, but considering the market and what sells, I don't think the people you're speaking up for represent any significant factor in the market.

People who are looking for realism and variation? People looking for something other than black villains and white heroes? Enemies who do more than "mindlessly obey" their leaders? I think those people exist in numbers great enough to be considered.

Quote from: Jackalope;221149Do you ever have combats?  With gang bangers, security guards and the like?  Or does every single antagonist in your game come complete with a backstory that the players learn about through extended interaction with the character?

I think perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not advocating that every member of every organization need be explained to the players at great length; that is not my view, but the absurd far end of the spectrum from your own view, as stated here. Now, I do not doubt that there are games in which every antagonist does have a backstory which the players learn at least part of. [Okay, my play-by-post fantasy game is like this, but play-by-post is a different sort of animal.] And I don't doubt that there are groups who enjoy absolutist, hierarchical, anonymous monolithic purely evil villains. Most people, however, lie - I suspect! - in-between.

Quote from: Jackalope;221149Because if you're claiming that you have villain organizations in your campaign in which all of the rank and file displays signs of individuality, I'm going to say flat out that you're full of shit and that is impossible.  There is no possible way that you and your players could actually have fun playing that way, as it would be tedious and pointless.

Well, other than animals, yes, all my NPCs display "signs of individuality," but that need be no more than a hint here or a brief description of something they're wearing that has more story behind it, available should the players ask, but not shoved down their throat if the characters aren't interested in it. We have fun playing this way. We actually find the sort of villains you describe as tedious and pointless, but I don't think you're "full of shit" when you say you enjoy it. As always, I say, all groups are different, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Quote from: Jackalope;221152Considering the billions of dollars made in Hollywood every year by embracing that concept of universal structure, I'm willing to hazard it's a useful assumption to start with.

I believe Hollywood makes both films with clearly-defined villains and those who are more ill-defined and complex, and both sorts are successful, so I deny this argument.

Quote from: Engine;221156I think perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not advocating that every member of every organization need be explained to the players at great length; that is not my view, but the absurd far end of the spectrum from your own view, as stated here. Now, I do not doubt that there are games in which every antagonist does have a backstory which the players learn at least part of. [Okay, my play-by-post fantasy game is like this, but play-by-post is a different sort of animal.] And I don't doubt that there are groups who enjoy absolutist, hierarchical, anonymous monolithic purely evil villains. Most people, however, lie - I suspect! - in-between.

Oh, I see, you're arguing against a straw man.  Gotcha.  I never said that the entire organization had to be mindless and lacking individuality.  Nor did I use the work "monolithic."

Also, what makes a good VILLAIN is quite different than what makes a good villain ORGANIZATION.

But yeah, whatever, just keep arguing against a straw man, keep being a fucking pretentious shitbag and pretending that the keys I laid out where the sum total of all that is required to make a good villain organization allows you to play Pretentious Elitist Gamer Fuckhole, which I recognize is your whole reason for being here on these forums.

I was laying down a structure, you fucking pissant.  A structure which needs to be fleshed out, or yes, you will get a cardboard cut-out villain organization.

QuoteWell, other than animals, yes, all my NPCs display "signs of individuality," but that need be no more than a hint here or a brief description of something they're wearing that has more story behind it, available should the players ask, but not shoved down their throat if the characters aren't interested in it. We have fun playing this way. We actually find the sort of villains you describe as tedious and pointless, but I don't think you're "full of shit" when you say you enjoy it. As always, I say, all groups are different, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So basically you NEVER play games where a bad guy going comes running around a corner and gets blown away.  Basically you never have anything remotely resembling a cinematic battle, and combats are exceptionally few and far between in your campaigns.  Yes?  Or you and your players are into exceptionally tredious descriptions of goons.

This is how I'm imagining your game:

Engine: "Another security guard comes around the corner.  You can tell by the callouses on his hands that he has done farm work in the past, or perhaps he is a gardener.  He shouts "Freeze!" as he raises his gun.  From his slight Southern accent, you gather that he's not from around these parts.  His name tag says "Homer," another clue that he hails from south of the Mason-Dixon line."
Player: "That's fascinating.  I shoot him, in the face."

Actually, that's now how I'm imagining your game.  The more you talk about your game, the more I suspect you're a lying sack of shit and have no actual game, that you and Serious Paul are the same person, and that this campaign of yours is just some bizarre masturbatory fantasy you indulge in.

QuoteI believe Hollywood makes both films with clearly-defined villains and those who are more ill-defined and complex, and both sorts are successful, so I deny this argument.

Yeah whatever, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.  You certainly aren't addressing what I'm talking about.  Get your head out of your ass and maybe you'd be able to see something other than shit.

Dude... your not supposed to swill that bucket of festering dog shit.

Someone's off her meds again.

Quote from: Serious Paul;221236Someone's off her meds again.

As I posted that, and left for my game, I thought to myself "Serious Paul will respond for him, after all, Serious Paul wears Engine's sphincter as a hat."  And sure enough, the girlfriend has rushed up to stand by her man.

Oh, who are we kidding?  You're both the same person.