Quote from: Engine;221412Yes, because I didn't do that.

Yeah, you did. Maybe not in so many words, but you did.  Your tone was unmistakable.  It's the same tone you use ALL THE TIME.  It's the precious little sound of Engine going on about how grown-up a gamer he is, and how evolved his game is, and WANK WANK WANK WANK.

QuoteI did say that my group would find the villains you described as tedious, but did not say your ideas were tedious, only that my group wouldn't enjoy them;

I didn't describe any villain, fucktardo.  I describe a basic outline for creating a villain organization.   I described the barest of skeletons, and then you -- because you aren't HALF as bright as you THINK you are -- assumed that I was presenting what?  A finished product?

QuoteI specifically stated I believed many groups would. I also didn't gloat about how rich and complex my game is; I didn't talk very much about my game; I think the most I said was, "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," which isn't exactly "rich" or "complex."

Yeah, and I think this is bullshit.  I think the clear meaning of this can't possibly be accurate, because who the fuck is so boring that they need to individualize every fucking NPC?  If you said "If my players express individual interest in a minion type, I can create a personality on the fly." I'd believe you.

But no dude, I think you're full of shit with this claim that you make every minion a distinct individual.  I know for a fact that the number of players who exist who would give a crap about that level of detail is so insignificant as to be unworthy of consideration.  And even if you are so fucking obsessive-compulsive about your game world that you detail the history of characters who are extremely unlikely to do more in the story than die on camera, thats HORRIBLE advice for other DMs, and nobody should listen to you.  Even if you do try to wrap your SHIT ADVICE in pretentious bows.

Maybe the problem here is that you're just a fucking moron, and don't know what a minion is?  Do you know what the term "rank and file" refers to?

QuoteI don't know what your guilty conscience is trying to tell you, but I wish it could speak more to you, and less to us. I think your game is fine, I just probably wouldn't enjoy it as much as those I play in.]

You don't know FUCK ALL about my game, you fucking assclown.  You're so fucking intent on proving to the world that you're Mr. Serious Gamer Elite that you piss on other people's games without even trying to grasp what's going on in them.

Hey, you know what?  Why don't you give me that one about how you think all games are equal again?  Now would be the perfect time for you to trot out that lie you love to tell.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430Why don't you give me that one about how you think all games are equal again?  Now would be the perfect time for you to trot out that lie you love to tell.

I guess this is the problem: you don't believe anything I say, except those things that reinforce your opinion of me as being pretentious and elitist. So what's the point of talking to you? I mean, except for the sad little thrill I get from watching you freak out, and that's really not cool of me. Mea culpa on that one.

When writing my chapters for Cults of Freeport, here are some design decisions that i took in writing my 2 organisations, as well as a couple of general observations.

1. Not everyone is a team player. There will be power struggles of some description within the organisation. This not only mirrors reality better, but gives PCs additional leverage and /or sources of information. It might be personality politics, different factions within the group, a schism of some sort, or a physical remove between members leading to different evolution.

2. Conflict within the organisation is important in the PCs interaction with them. Whether they are trying to join and advance within the ranks, or trying to take it down. Need sometimes makes strange bedfellows and a disaffected member is a good tool - by the same token, PCs can be manipulated via this conflict.

3. Prominent members have motivations that differ. The group might stand for a certain thing, but the methods used to gain goals, or the dogma of members, or even the basis of belief will differ. They are not of one mind and body - although they may unite against outside attack.

4. Prominent positions are not easily filled. If someone of importance is taken out, replacing them is not always easy. Trust, power groups and conflict all stall the process. PCs can use this to their advantage.

5. Likewise, joining an organisation is not easy. Chances are that you will have to prove you trustworthyness and even then will be on notice for some time. The new guys are distrusted when things go wrong.

6. The lower echelons of the group might not even believe in the tenets of the organisation. Skilled leaders can warp their ideals to match those of disaffected commoners, swelling their ranks with expendable muscle which is deniable.

7. Not everyone is a megolomaniac.

8. If your group is going to be in opposition to the players, make use of the above, but make sure that the organisation has grand plans that will engage the party.

9. Leave the door open. Have an alternative route for the players to assault the organisation if violence doesn't work or is not wanted. Diplomatic pressure, trade wars, blackmail, setting up rival groups etc can all work in different ways - sometimes hastening a confrontation, sometimes not.

Finally - 10. The organisation is there for the players to interact with (whether as opponents or possible allies). Tie it to your game and your players to get best results.

Quote from: Engine;221422That's what happens to me, too. Since so much time - years, sometimes - goes by between my GMing....

FUCK!  NOW I GET IT.  You're not actually a GM!  You're like some armchair GM with like almost no real experience, that's what's going on.  All of the pretension is just a smokescreen to cover up the fact that you're only real experience is running a few one-offs games you had months of prep time for a group of friends whose tastes you already know.  And I'll bet they only play to make you feel okay about yourself.

See dude, I run a game every week, and have run a game every week for litlle more than twenty years.

And I have tons of developed characters in my head that I just sort of imagined up one day.  But I've also been DMing long enough that I know that it's useless to waste good ideas on what are probably throw away characters (and after twenty years of doing this, I usually know which ones are the throwaway characters), and rather than waste precious time (since I don't get to spend months dilly-dallying and sorting the grains of my "sandbox") detailing every possible minion, I just have a repertoire of stock character types and backgrounds that I can use if anyone decides to find out who Faceless Minion of Evil #17 is.  Which they pretty much never do.

And that you don't write shit down...man, that just makes your whole argument fucking laughable.  You're such a fucking idiot.  Go to the forge or some other place for dipshits, Engine.  You belong with your own kind: pretentious windbags who speak pompously from a paucity of experience.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430Yeah, you did. Maybe not in so many words, but you did.  Your tone was unmistakable.

I think this is the problem; you're reading into my posts things that I don't intend.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430I didn't describe any villain, fucktardo.  I describe a basic outline for creating a villain organization.

Right; that's why I said, "the villains you described," and not "the villain you described." The villains you described would be part of the villain organization you provided the basic outline for.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430...who the fuck is so boring that they need to individualize every fucking NPC?

Ooh, ooh! Me! Seriously, I have a lot of spare time to think, and this is one of the things I do with that time. Remember, sometimes years go by between my games; imagine all the details you'd think up in that time! I'm not a regular, weekly GM like most of you; I so don't have what it takes to GM like that.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430If you said "If my players express individual interest in a minion type, I can create a personality on the fly." I'd believe you.

Can't do it. I think very slowly, if deeply. Yeah, I think of lots of details - most of which don't get used, but which are there if we need them - but I can't think on the fly well at all. I have supreme respect for people - like Paul - who do have this ability, but I'm not one of them.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430You don't know FUCK ALL about my game, you fucking assclown.

I only know what you've told me, and by that evidence, I don't think I'd enjoy it as much as the games I play in, but I could very well be incorrect. I'd welcome correction, if I'm ever in your area.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430You're so fucking intent on proving to the world that you're Mr. Serious Gamer Elite...

Wow. Yeah, so not. Seriously, man, just because I play the game in a different way than you do doesn't mean my way is better, it just means it's different. I don't even know where you're getting the "better" from, since I expressly, over and over and over, have said that my games are not better than anyone else's, just that they work for my group. It's, like, my canon.

Quote from: Jackalope;221430Why don't you give me that one about how you think all games are equal again?  Now would be the perfect time for you to trot out that lie you love to tell.

I guess this is the problem: you don't believe anything I say, except those things that reinforce your opinion of me as being pretentious and elitist. So what's the point of talking to you? I mean, except for the sad little thrill I get from watching you freak out, and that's really not cool of me. Mea culpa on that one.

Quote from: Jackalope;221436FUCK!  NOW I GET IT.  You're not actually a GM!  You're like some armchair GM with like almost no real experience, that's what's going on.

Yes, that's it precisely! Paul's our regular GM; they only trot me out for special occasions. He's the one who provides details for every NPC on a weekly basis, because he thinks fast and deep.

Jackalope, in case there was any doubt, I couldn't do what you do, and I have tremendous respect for the weekly GM; I'm just here to share my own experiences as a sometimes-GM and as a frequent player with a really enjoyable [to us] GM. What that experience might be worth is left up to the reader.

Quote from: Engine;221437I think this is the problem; you're reading into my posts things that I don't intend.

More like I'm picking up on things you're not very good at hiding.

QuoteRight; that's why I said, "the villains you described," and not "the villain you described." The villains you described would be part of the villain organization you provided the basic outline for.

But I didn't describe any villains.

QuoteOoh, ooh! Me! Seriously, I have a lot of spare time to think, and this is one of the things I do with that time. Remember, sometimes years go by between my games; imagine all the details you'd think up in that time! I'm not a regular, weekly GM like most of you; I so don't have what it takes to GM like that.

Yes, I caught that, you're not a real GM, your advice is uniformed and useless to most people, all clear now.

QuoteCan't do it. I think very slowly, if deeply. Yeah, I think of lots of details - most of which don't get used, but which are there if we need them - but I can't think on the fly well at all. I have supreme respect for people - like Paul - who do have this ability, but I'm not one of them.

So you're unimaginative to boot.  Good to know.

QuoteWow. Yeah, so not. Seriously, man, just because I play the game in a different way than you do doesn't mean my way is better, it just means it's different. I don't even know where you're getting the "better" from, since I expressly, over and over and over, have said that my games are not better than anyone else's, just that they work for my group. It's, like, my canon.

Maybe its the constant use of phrases like "grown up" and "evolved" that you use to distinguish your game from others that gives me that impression.  I mean, generally those sort of statements imply that other people's games are unevolved and childish.

You say you don't think your game is better, but then you say you game is more evolved and more grown up than other people's games, and you want us all to believe that you don't "intend" to give that impression.

WANKER!

Quote from: Jackalope;221445Maybe its the constant use of phrases like "grown up" and "evolved" that you use to distinguish your game from others that gives me that impression.

"Constant use?" A quick search shows I have never used the word "evolved" on theRPGsite forums, nor the phrase "grown up," but I confess I'm not accustomed to the search function on vBulletin; if you've an example, I would gladly accept it.

Seriously, you're reading shit that's just not there. I don't know what I can say to convince you of that.

Quote from: Engine;221451"Constant use?" A quick search shows I have never used the word "evolved" on theRPGsite forums, nor the phrase "grown up," but I confess I'm not accustomed to the search function on vBulletin; if you've an example, I would gladly accept it.

vBulletin's search function is shitty.  Unless you used in a thread title, it won't come back with anything useful.

QuoteSeriously, you're reading shit that's just not there. I don't know what I can say to convince you of that.

No, I'm not.  But why don't you just, in the future, refrain from ever discussing my game again, since you seem to be incapable of doing so without insulting me.

Quote from: Jackalope;221458vBulletin's search function is shitty.  Unless you used in a thread title, it won't come back with anything useful.

Really? I did a search for various other things I've said, and it returned results. You just have to select "Search Entire Posts" from the pulldown. Seriously, give it a shot. And then show me where I've said "evolved" or "grown up." Or you can admit that you are incorrect.

Quote from: Jackalope;221458No, I'm not.

So you're a better judge of what I mean than I am? Really?

Quote from: Jackalope;221458But why don't you just, in the future, refrain from ever discussing my game again, since you seem to be incapable of doing so without insulting me.

You going to return the favor? As I recall, you're the one who started out calling me "full of shit" and saying my game was "tedious and pointless."

I'm glad i spent 20 minutes writing that post - it really brought the thread back on topic.

Quote from: One Horse Town;221473I'm glad i spent 20 minutes writing that post - it really brought the thread back on topic.

Damn, I'm sorry. I'm very bad at not getting sucked in, being a creature of overwhelming pride and limitless desire to needle people I find absurd. I should really know better than to threadcrap with a known troll; my apologies. I was supposed to stop at, "Yes, absolutely," but I didn't.

It was a good post on your part, if that helps!

Quote from: One Horse Town;2214351. Not everyone is a team player. There will be power struggles of some description within the organisation. This not only mirrors reality better, but gives PCs additional leverage and /or sources of information. It might be personality politics, different factions within the group, a schism of some sort, or a physical remove between members leading to different evolution.

2. Conflict within the organisation is important in the PCs interaction with them. Whether they are trying to join and advance within the ranks, or trying to take it down. Need sometimes makes strange bedfellows and a disaffected member is a good tool - by the same token, PCs can be manipulated via this conflict.

3. Prominent members have motivations that differ. The group might stand for a certain thing, but the methods used to gain goals, or the dogma of members, or even the basis of belief will differ. They are not of one mind and body - although they may unite against outside attack.

All three of these points, while valid, extend from a literary convention that translates poorly to role-playing games.  Put most simply, the problem is this:  Villains frequently don't get enough screen time for these traits to play out in a meaningful way.

I'll use COBRA as an example, because it's very simple.  You have a leadership group that consists of Cobra Commander, Destro, and the Baroness.  Cobra Commander needs Destro's weapons, Destro needs Cobra Commander's finacing and manpower, but both would rather not have to deal with each other and are constantly plotting against the other.  Baroness has fickle loyalties and plays one against the other for her own ends.

We know this because the three of them get frequently screen time together, without the Joes present.  The Joes only see the occasional fall-out of this relationship, but are more or less unaware of Cobra's internal relationship problems.  These exist for the audience.

I've seen more space wasted in RPG books on the relationships between various villains than on any single other topic.  There is the rare adventure that uses this effectively -- the Freeport trilogy is one -- but far more often such elements are there only for the DM, and the space could probably be better use by including hit point trackers for those same villains, since that will almost certainly get used.

It's important to remember that players don't see the game from the same third-person perspective that the DM does, or that an audience does for a book or a movie.  Conveying a villains motives and relationship with other characters can be very difficult to do in anything but a ham-fisted manner (people don't generally announce their motives).

Pathfinder's Rise of the Runelords adventure path starts off with an adventure called "Burnt Offerings."  The rank and file bad guys are goblins who sing and cavort as the terrorize the town.  A little too comical, but memorable.  The main villains are this mopey goth kid and his girlfriend, who is poor little traumatized goth chick with a demon hand.  They're very angsty and have pages upon pages of background information explaining their complicated relationship.

The problem is when you meet the dude, you've just fought off a shit load of goblins, and he's got more goblins with him, and he tells them to attack you.  So you kill him, and never find out what his whole motivation was.  Then you meet his girlfriend, and she's in the middle of an evil ritual and she's got a demon hand and is all hellsacrazy, so she gets iced pretty quickly.

And what do you end up with?  Two dead corpses, some players who really couldn't give a fucking rat's ass why goth boy and goth girl were so dead set on burning the town down.  It's one of those things that designers put into books to make them readable as stories, but it does very little to enhance game play.

Quote from: Jackalope;221499All three of these points, while valid, extend from a literary convention that translates poorly to role-playing games.  Put most simply, the problem is this:  Villains frequently don't get enough screen time for these traits to play out in a meaningful way.

I'll use COBRA as an example, because it's very simple.  You have a leadership group that consists of Cobra Commander, Destro, and the Baroness.  Cobra Commander needs Destro's weapons, Destro needs Cobra Commander's finacing and manpower, but both would rather not have to deal with each other and are constantly plotting against the other.  Baroness has fickle loyalties and plays one against the other for her own ends.

We know this because the three of them get frequently screen time together, without the Joes present.  The Joes only see the occasional fall-out of this relationship, but are more or less unaware of Cobra's internal relationship problems.  These exist for the audience.

Agreed in the main. I should point out that Cults of Freeport was designed so that the cults could provide up to a whole campaigns worth of material - including outlines for low, mid and high leveled adventures involving them. So there should be more 'screen time' and opportunities for a little delving to get any advantages that aren't readily apparent.

QuoteI've seen more space wasted in RPG books on the relationships between various villains than on any single other topic.  There is the rare adventure that uses this effectively -- the Freeport trilogy is one -- but far more often such elements are there only for the DM, and the space could probably be better use by including hit point trackers for those same villains, since that will almost certainly get used.

This is true too, which is why these relationships and schisms are dealt with in a paragraph or two as oppoesed to long-winded backstories and the like.

QuotePathfinder's Rise of the Runelords adventure path starts off with an adventure called "Burnt Offerings."  The rank and file bad guys are goblins who sing and cavort as the terrorize the town.  A little too comical, but memorable.  The main villains are this mopey goth kid and his girlfriend, who is poor little traumatized goth chick with a demon hand.  They're very angsty and have pages upon pages of background information explaining their complicated relationship.

The problem is when you meet the dude, you've just fought off a shit load of goblins, and he's got more goblins with him, and he tells them to attack you.  So you kill him, and never find out what his whole motivation was.  Then you meet his girlfriend, and she's in the middle of an evil ritual and she's got a demon hand and is all hellsacrazy, so she gets iced pretty quickly.

And what do you end up with?  Two dead corpses, some players who really couldn't give a fucking rat's ass why goth boy and goth girl were so dead set on burning the town down.  It's one of those things that designers put into books to make them readable as stories, but it does very little to enhance game play.

This is a good example of not needing all that background info.

While it may have been wasted space in that Pathfinder adventure, there's lots of cases where that information may be useful to the PCs; if their response to an evil/enemy/unwanted organization is to try and figure out how to undermine it indirectly, having situations like that set up can provide for more answers than "Um, there's no division, you have to fight them head on."

Sure, it's not appropriate for every game, but it can add depth and interest for the players as well as giving them other options to act upon during play.