You know, one of the things that was intensely appealing to me about FR, when it first came out as a setting, was the different organizations that existed in that setting: the Zhentarim, the Red Wizards, the Harpers, etc.
What are the formula for making a good fantasy organization, vs. a bad one, as far as usability in an RPG campaign are concerned? Is there a formula? or set rules?
I would say, for starters, that any group that your PCs can't either join or fight is probably not going to be much use.
Beyond that?
RPGPundit
A good villain organization needs:
1. CONFORMITY: A good villain organization consists primarily of rank and file members who display no traits of individuality. The ultimate expression of this is in the Imperial Stormtroopers: an army of identical clones wearing sterile white uniforms that completely obscure any sign of individuality. Individualism is highly prized in modern culture, and conformity -- especially mindless conformity to an immoral cause -- is seen as one of the greatest evils. Uniforms, particularly crisp and clean uniforms, are strongly associated with fascists and the suppression of individuality, and thus good villains wear clearly identifiable uniforms. It helps if they are particularly stylish uniforms.
2. HIERARCHY: A good villain organization consists of rank and file who suspend critical thought and mindlessly obey a clearly identifiable group of leaders. This allows all responsibility for the actions of the rank and file to be directly blamed on the superiors of the group, while not excusing the behavior of the rank and file. Loose affiliations, or corrupted hierarchies where those at the top simply have little control over those at the bottom, are more morally gray and thus less fun to battle.
3. TOTALITARIANISM: A good villain organization seeks to use violent force to compel agreement with a set of irrational beliefs. It seeks to prevent one from thinking for oneself, and presents a clear danger to one's sense of self-determination.
4. ABSOLUTISM: A good villain organization cannot be negotiated and compromised with. It sees its particular truth as the only possible truth.
5. HYPOCRISY and DEGENERACY: A good villainous organization pretends it is good, and when describing itself uses only the most shining terms. A good villainous organization presents itself as representing the side of morality. Hypocrisy is a universally reviled trait. A good villainous organization also engages in clearly degenerate behavior, particularly its leadership -- this emphasizes its hypocrisy. It worships evil forces (The Empire), its leaders engage in hedonistic orgies (Nazis), it uses humanoid mercenaries to terrorize common folk (Zhentarim).
6. CLEARLY EVIDENCED EVIL: People clearly suffer under the control of a good villain organization. Peasants are repressed, lovers are split apart, puppies are kicked. the evil organization shows a flagrant disregard for the sanctity of life -- it slaughters harmless Jawas for information, kills your kindly aunt and uncle, and holds beautiful princesses hostage.
I think that covers the major bases.
Quote from: RPGPundit;220493You know, one of the things that was intensely appealing to me about FR, when it first came out as a setting, was the different organizations that existed in that setting: the Zhentarim, the Red Wizards, the Harpers, etc.
What are the formula for making a good fantasy organization, vs. a bad one, as far as usability in an RPG campaign are concerned? Is there a formula? or set rules?
I would say, for starters, that any group that your PCs can't either join or fight is probably not going to be much use.
Beyond that?
As a general guideline, when I'm stuck designing an organization I apply principles found in individual characters (PC and NPCs). So just like characters they need backstory, agendas, resources, fields of expertise, areas of interest, locations and so on. Just like characters they can grow, die, change, relocate.
Just like NPCs you can join them, hire them, get hired by them, fight them, bribe them, rob them or just plain interact with them.
Just like characters they can be extremely black and white entities or have shades of gray.
Where it does get even more interesting is how they function. Are they frighteningly monolithic, working like ants towards a common goal or are there different factions at odds? Will it fold as soon as you severe the head? If not, will a leadership change lead to noticable organizational changes?
What other organizations interact with this organization? Enemies? Friends?
When stuck for ideas, one can just follow an RPG lifepath such as those found in Interlock or any such product.
Anyway, it works for me. I just think of them as characters and go from there.
Conformity? Hierarchy? Totalitarianism? Absolutism? Hypocracy/Degeneracy? Clearly evidenced evil?
NO
Conformity: Any oraganization that has a chance of being a real threat will be pragmatic and adaptive. They will have multiple avenues of attack. An army of automatons is no threat to a D&D type fantasy adventuring party.
Hierarchy: The organization that is so top heavy would be vulnerable to simple cut the head off approach that clever players will always foresee. A bumbling mindless enemy does not require heroism to defeat. Such a foe is a parody of villainy.
Totalitarian-Absolutism: The oraganization should not seem irrational and if it can't be negotiated with it will be marginalized. Any villainous organization should appeal to something in the human heart, The Will To Power, Revenge, Even Peace or fairness. Otherwise they would be Cthulhoid entities or a zombie horde and such things may have cults that serve them, but humanoid organizations must seem sane on the surface to draw in the vulnerable.
Hypocracy/Degeneracy: These are human failings and should appear in good organizations as well. However blind blazing sincerity can be truly terrifying. The hypocrites are the ones that can be dealt with Messianic fervor can't be bribed away corrupt agents are a valuable asset to the enemy of an implacable fanatical organization.
Clearly Evidenced Evil: The Nazis fed the poor beer and sausages, Pablo Escobar bought food for the people of Medellin, Usama built roads and Mosques, Slavery Christianized Africans and Islamicized Slavs, Stalin raised peasants to heights of power and grew the industrial economy. People defending all of the above organizations pointed to these things to prove the benevolence of their causes. Evil (on the human scale) never looks and acts evil all the time.
....
No, you know what, this really fucking pissed me off. You're such a fucking choad, I'm going to have to go through this and illustrate the depths of your fucking stupidity so that everyone can understand how completely
fucktarded you are. Seriously you waterheaded piece of shit, I'm thinking your dad inseminated your mom with a baster full of bleach. that's how fucking stupid I think you are.
Quote from: Phizel;220543Conformity? Hierarchy? Totalitarianism? Absolutism? Hypocracy/Degeneracy? Clearly evidenced evil?
NO
First of all, a word on presenting arguments. Starting by shouting "NO" is a good way to piss people off. I want to point out to you that the things I described are true of all of the most memorable villain organizations in popular culture, from Pulp Nazis (to be distinguished from real Nazis) to Stormtroopers to COBRA. Even the very examples Pundit cited (Zhentarim, Red Wizards of Thay) hold true to these points.
Simply shouting NO like a big man only tells me your too fucking dense to see the clear examples ALL AROUND YOU NUMBSKULL.
QuoteConformity: Any oraganization that has a chance of being a real threat will be pragmatic and adaptive. They will have multiple avenues of attack. An army of automatons is no threat to a D&D type fantasy adventuring party.
Someone missed the part where I said "THE RANK AND FILE." Yeah, COBRA has Zartan and Dr. Mindbender, but mostly they have a bunch of idiots in blue jumpsuits with black masks. Likewise, when the Stormtroopers can't stop you, Darth Vader hires Boba fucking Fett to go get your ass. That's how villainous organizations work.
But the truly classic villain organizations have tons of faceless mooks who mindless conform and do as they are told.
QuoteHierarchy: The organization that is so top heavy would be vulnerable to simple cut the head off approach that clever players will always foresee. A bumbling mindless enemy does not require heroism to defeat. Such a foe is a parody of villainy.
The Emperor. Manshoon. Ming the Merciless. Hitler's High Command. Cobra Commander. Dr. Evil. The Monarch.
A clear leader that can be killed and cause the organization to collapse is essential to a good villain organization. Players need someone to focus on, someone to blame, and someone ultimately to kill. A loose affiliation of bad guys with no clear head that can't be destroyed is not
fun. It's
frustrating because you can't actually win against it.
QuoteTotalitarian-Absolutism: The oraganization should not seem irrational and if it can't be negotiated with it will be marginalized. Any villainous organization should appeal to something in the human heart, The Will To Power, Revenge, Even Peace or fairness. Otherwise they would be Cthulhoid entities or a zombie horde and such things may have cults that serve them, but humanoid organizations must seem sane on the surface to draw in the vulnerable.
No, otherwise they'd be THE BAD GUYS. You know, BLACK HATS. Fuck man, you're talking about a villainous organization that
isn't clearly evil. None of the classic famous villain groups are of questionably evil intent. You know why? Because questionably evil bad guys leave you feeling uncertain whether you should celebrate their defeat. It causes victory to leave a sour taste.
QuoteHypocracy/Degeneracy: These are human failings and should appear in good organizations as well. However blind blazing sincerity can be truly terrifying. The hypocrites are the ones that can be dealt with Messianic fervor can't be bribed away corrupt agents are a valuable asset to the enemy of an implacable fanatical organization.
Sure, if you want to rob players of the thrill of victory and leave them questioning their own heroism.
Again, you;re an idiot and have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You know so fucking little about heroic fantasy that it's fucking LAUGHABLE.
QuoteClearly Evidenced Evil: The Nazis fed the poor beer and sausages, Pablo Escobar bought food for the people of Medellin, Usama built roads and Mosques, Slavery Christianized Africans and Islamicized Slavs, Stalin raised peasants to heights of power and grew the industrial economy. People defending all of the above organizations pointed to these things to prove the benevolence of their causes. Evil (on the human scale) never looks and acts evil all the time.
NO SHIT SHERLOCK. Has FUCKALL to do with what I was talking about.
A good villain group does things that everyone at the table can look at and say "Oh yeah, that's fucking evil." My group is mostly composed of left-leaning liberal guys. But one of us is a card carrying Republican. A good villain group does things that leave evidence that all of my players can agree is clearly and unarguably wrong. Slavery, mass murder, genocide, terrorism, tyranny. Something everyone can point to and say "Yeah, THOSE GUYS are the BAD GUYS."
But really fucknuts, if you want to say I'm completely wrong, then cite some examples of famous and much loved (or loved-to-be-hated) villain organizations that don't feature these traits.
I'll give you the Legion of Doom, who aren't conformist. But they're everything else.
QuoteNO SHIT SHERLOCK. Has FUCKALL to do with what I was talking about.
NO
I am just not as limited as you.
All the organizations I mentioned were serious bad guys in real life. Not everyone wants to imitate George Lucas. If villains were like that they wouldn't be worth fighting against with anything, but the Care Bears.
Also the first NO in my original post was an accident I didn't even notice until I just looked at your hissy fit junior.
Cartoon villainy is lazy. Read a book and quit watching star wars.
Apparently the viilains in real life aren't evil enough for you just imitate the lowest forms of pop culture and shut your brain off.
Your point was good villainous organizations "need" these qualities I disagree. They can have these and still be interesting, but if they have ALL of these they're cliched and silly.
If you took offense at the "NO" then I apologize, but you are at some point going to have to grow up and learn to think before posting.
Quote from: Phizel;220589All the organizations I mentioned were serious bad guys in real life.
Yeah, real life. Which you'll notice is not a role playing game. Totally different mileu, motherfucker.
QuoteNot everyone wants to imitate George Lucas. If villains were like that they wouldn't be worth fighting against with anything, but the Care Bears.
Yeah, okay dude, there's people out there making shitloads of money on the proposition that you're completely full of shit. Where's your millions? Oh, that's right, you're full of shit and have no idea what you're talking about.
QuoteCartoon villainy is lazy. Read a book and quit watching star wars.
God, you're what Pundit is talking about when he calls people swine, aren't you? Well guess what Niles, most players don't want their DM to drag them into a moral quagmire where its unclear who is the bad guy and who is the good guy. Most players don't want to play
Three Kings, they want
Lord of the Rings.
See, most players actually like Star Wars. They want something like Star Wars. They want cliche. Players, by and large, are looking for a chance to engage with the tropes of the heroic fantasy genre. Giving them real world villains is
cheating them.
You can piss all over popular tropes you want, but there is a reason they are popular, and there is a reason they work.
QuoteAlso the first NO in my original post was an accident I didn't even notice until I just looked at your hissy fit junior.
...
If you took offense at the "NO" then I apologize, but you are at some point going to have to grow up and learn to think before posting.
Maybe you should pay more attention to what you fucking post, pigfucker.
Wow...
I'd walk away from a game that had a Jackalope-approved evil organization. I'd feel like the GM put in no effort if the bad guys were that poorly and tritely conceived.
Quote from: JimLotFP;220601Wow...
I'd walk away from a game that had a Jackalope-approved evil organization. I'd feel like the GM put in no effort if the bad guys were that poorly and tritely conceived.
Because you could do so much better, threadcrapper.
Quote from: Jackalope;220602Because you could do so much better, threadcrapper.
Goddamn right.
Quote from: Jackalope;220596God, you're what Pundit is talking about when he calls people swine, aren't you? Well guess what Niles, most players don't want their DM to drag them into a moral quagmire where its unclear who is the bad guy and who is the good guy. Most players don't want to play Three Kings, they want Lord of the Rings.
See, most players actually like Star Wars. They want something like Star Wars. They want cliche. Players, by and large, are looking for a chance to engage with the tropes of the heroic fantasy genre. Giving them real world villains is cheating them.
LOTR isn't best example, bacause Mordor isn't evil organization in traditional sence... it's more like empire of cloned automaton troopers ruled by Cthuhlu-like god.
Saruman's organization is better example, bacaese it's said, that he convnced some local tribes for his cause and he tryed to look at least somewhat good if I remember it corectly...
But I still agree with you, that player character in traditional heroic game should know who is evil, but that should not meant that every single peasant they met will think the same...
For interesting, inspiring organizations, I just use the same principles as for interesting, inspiring (N)PCs, which they basically are.
You neither should copy a cliché 1:1, nor should you create a unique snowflake that breaks all expectations: You have to find a fertile middleground between cliché and uniqueness.
Take note that you can still make use of the accessability of clichés by breaking and twisting them, or by breaking and twisting parts of it while keeping the overall cliché, but I cionsider this as an essential tool for good GMs and players, so I don't elaborate on this further.
Next, your organization needs to have an active goal. It can be morally wrong, illogical, deluded, it can be active only because interests from other entities intervene, but all in all your organization has to have a reason to get out of the bed each morning and do something.
Else, it justs exists and does nothing beside from "just be", and getting into motion is important for any interesting things to happen.
Finally, you need to tap into something that excites your players personally, or at least taps into something that makes you as GM excited and gives you the energy to be frantically about the organization and to potentially infect your players with the same ethusiasm.
Pundits Church of the Unconquered Sun (http://weblog.xanga.com/RPGpundit/657116733/i-ought-to-be-posting-a-review--specifically-t.html) in FTA!GN seems to be a good example of this, as Roman history, alt-history and the (wrong ways and wrong-doings of the) Catholic church seem to be great personal interests of him, and being personally interested into the stuff you present is vital to get enthusiasm going on in the group.
This shows also that this principle mostly applies to organizations homebrewed for your personal table, for people you personally know. In a group where no one has interest in this stuff, the CotUS would probably fall flat on its arse.
In published settings, your best bet is to offer choice and variety to increase the chances that there's something in your setting that thrills others, and to do some guesswork by thinking about what your potential custoimer group looks like and what should interest it.
Quote from: JimLotFP;220603Goddamn right.
Put your money where your mouth is, big shot.
Otherwise you just wrote a check you can't cash.
Jackalope I think you're missing the point most heroic fiction agrees with me not you. Even Ed Greenwood wanted the Zhentarim to be the competent powerful fearsome organization that it was in his campaign. All attempts to make the Zhents truly formidable were shot down by upper management.
Heroic fiction did not begin with the Saturday morning serials that influenced George Lucas into writing Indy and Star Wars. Evil organizations and evil powers in these other sources including Saruman's in LOTR were far more complicated than the Post Modernist would imply. I am not a Post Modernist and I don't think GI JOE is a useful source for designing a formidable enemy. Why base your ideas on inferior workmanship it requires no effort to create hollow minions with no motivations, no capabilities, no intellegence. I am not writing fiction I'm running a game if the organization is not capable of being a real threat to my players they will not treat it with respect.
If Cobra is your idea of an evil organization then that is your player's problem not mine. I can't help that you don't understand why COBRA is not a useful model for a game about overcoming challenges.
Unlike you I don't think Good and Evil are wholly the provence of juvenile fiction and the adult mind balks at such inanities. I admit I've read far more history than comic books and my idea of heroism is informed much more by Howard Hawks or John Ford than by TV shows I watched when I was 10.
My critcisms of your juvenile ideas of evil was purely pointing out that player in an RPG are not the pawns of a pulp fiction writer, but thinking individuals in an immersive enviroment. The Enemy should be too.
Also who says the PLAYERS have to be the good guys?
Hey Phizel,
If no one else has said it yet : WELCOME to The SITE Forums.
You posted some interesting comments there.
You know you can ignore Jackals if you want to.
When I ran my BANESTORM game , one of my players was part of the Caithness "CIA" that was directly loyal to King Conall IV. His cover was as a ranger/scout type. I decided to go with the idea that it was still a relatively young organization and corruption had not crept in yet.
In a fantasy world I figure that it might take 100 to 200 years for corruption to start to happen in traditionally "GOOD" type organizations and for there to be a considerable drift in their. Around that time schisms probably develop and new factional groups will break off from the original one.
- Ed C.
QuoteWELCOME to The SITE Forums.
Thank you Koltar.
QuoteWhen I ran my BANESTORM game , one of my players was part of the Caithness "CIA" that was directly loyal to King Conall IV. His cover was as a ranger/scout type. I decided to go with the idea that it was still a relatively young organization and corruption had not crept in yet.
I did not think in terms of "organizations" until the Forgotten Realms came out. I thought at the time it was cool, but unhistorical and suited to fantasy. I would later learn about the Strelzy, Assassins, Tuggee, and I began to see the Knights (Templars, Hospitalers, Tuetonic Knights) as another form of organization not as Chivalrous bodies isolated from the politics of the setting, but as integrated parts of the whole. The Forgotten Realms was a revelation to me in this. It gave me context. It helped by adding a whole new level of intrigue to my campaign worlds and I still have a weak spot for the Realms because of it.
Quote from: Phizel;220653Jackalope I think you're missing the point most heroic fiction agrees with me not you.
No, you're wrong. Which is why you are incapable of supplying examples.
QuoteHeroic fiction did not begin with the Saturday morning serials that influenced George Lucas into writing Indy and Star Wars. Evil organizations and evil powers in these other sources including Saruman's in LOTR were far more complicated than the Post Modernist would imply. I am not a Post Modernist and I don't think GI JOE is a useful source for designing a formidable enemy. Why base your ideas on inferior workmanship it requires no effort to create hollow minions with no motivations, no capabilities, no intellegence. I am not writing fiction I'm running a game if the organization is not capable of being a real threat to my players they will not treat it with respect.
First, you are completely misusing the word postmodernist. Where are you getting this idea that GI Joe is postmodern? That's idiotic.
Second, you are arguing against a completely fabricated strawman, in a desperate and pathetic attempt to obscure the very real fact that you have no substantive argument.
Nowhere did I say that a good villain organization should have no motivations, no capabilities, and be completely unintelligent. If you wish to argue that a good villain organization needs to also be COMPETENT, then yes, I agree. Outside of a comedy game, the villain does need to be an actual credible threat. I thought that point was so obvious, and so true of all enemies, that it didn't actually need to be said.
QuoteIf Cobra is your idea of an evil organization then that is your player's problem not mine. I can't help that you don't understand why COBRA is not a useful model for a game about overcoming challenges.
This is meaningless blather, pretentious obfuscation of your lack of a substantive argument. You're bluffing.
QuoteUnlike you I don't think Good and Evil are wholly the provence of juvenile fiction and the adult mind balks at such inanities. I admit I've read far more history than comic books and my idea of heroism is informed much more by Howard Hawks or John Ford than by TV shows I watched when I was 10.
Yeah, and I read philosophy. Have you ever read Neitzsche's
Beyond Good and Evil? How about
History of the Devil and the Idea of Evil by Dr. Paul Carsus. That's from the 15th century. You ever read anything from the 15th century? Or how about Joseph Campbell? You ever read
The Hero With 1,000 Faces?
RPGs aren't high literature. They aren't art. They're entertainment.
QuoteMy critcisms of your juvenile ideas of evil was purely pointing out that player in an RPG are not the pawns of a pulp fiction writer, but thinking individuals in an immersive enviroment. The Enemy should be too.
Yeah, keep jerking off, swineboy. You haven't heard
jack shit about my ideas of evil, You've only heard what I think the necessary ingredients are to create a memorable and useful villain organization for heroic fantasy role-playing games (specifically D&D). You've offered nothing in the way of an alternative, except to say I';m wrong and insult my ideas.
But you have no actual ARGUMENTS against my idea except some spurious uninformed bullshit and a bunch of fucking strawmen. More importantly, you've offered NOTHING substantive as a counter. You and Jim are the exact same type of diarrhetic asshole, nothing but useless self-aggrandizing crap flowing from your fingers and across the internet, but not a single fucking useful idea that might actually contribute positively to the conversation.
Go fuck yourself Phizel.
QuoteAlso who says the PLAYERS have to be the good guys?
Swine. You don't know jack shit about heroic fantasy. Get the fuck out of this conversation. You're a fucking idiot, and your ideas and opinions are useless shit.
You're person who answers "Yes" to these questions:
Quote from: RPG Pundit1. Is your setting one where absolutely no one is truly heroic? Everyone has to be either wrong, evil, self-serving, ignorant, or some other "shade of gray"?
2. Are the apparent villains not true villains in your setting? Is the evil archwizard really just misunderstood? Is it all "morally relative", and the Orcs are only invading because their tribal lands were taken from them? Did the Dragon just attack because the ignorant humans were destroying the ecosystem? Is the Troll just acting out because he's sexually confused?
3. Are the PCs allowed to be heros? That is, are they allowed to change the setting, save the day? will what they do matters? or would that go against your marxist conception of history as being the product of material developments and not the actions of great men? Is your game/novel set up so that in the end nothing the PCs/protagonists did mattered at all?
11. Have you set up the campaign so the Players can't possibly win against the (non-)villain they are facing? are they doomed from the start? Are they just supposed to grin and accept it when the tentacle things from dimension x (who are only evil because they had a bad childhood) suck their brains out, because you've made it damn clear that there's NO way to beat them, and trying to get into combat is both wrong, forbidden by their superior, and won't work anyways?
13. Do you secretly despise regular RPGs, and want to run your game as an example of how the "traditional" RPG is flawed and needs to be replaced with your superior vision? Is your game setting really designed as a reaction to other game settings that you claim are "dead" as a genre? Do you hate LoTR with a passion?
If you answered yes to these questions, your game setting will suck donkey balls far more than the most blatantly stereotypical of vanilla settings.
Quote from: RPGPundit;220493You know, one of the things that was intensely appealing to me about FR, when it first came out as a setting, was the different organizations that existed in that setting: the Zhentarim, the Red Wizards, the Harpers, etc.
What are the formula for making a good fantasy organization, vs. a bad one, as far as usability in an RPG campaign are concerned? Is there a formula? or set rules?
I would say, for starters, that any group that your PCs can't either join or fight is probably not going to be much use.
Beyond that?
In general I try to use realistic organizations drawing on history as much as possible. Using my judgment to decide which aspects are game worthy,fun and interesting. I do this because realism holds it own truth.
I also am aware of RPGs that use organizations that seem to have got it right. Like Ars Magica or like you said Forgotten Realms
Whatever the source I start with the initial premises and follow the consequences including the fact that PCs are involved. If I find not working then I tweak the premises and restart the process until I get something that works.
While I agree that organization serve as either PC adversary or something to join. A lot of my organization are what I would call service organization. The PC use them for some type of service they can't provide for themselves. The classic trope being going down to the local temple to be healed. In my campaign I have a thieves Guild known as the Beggars that several PCs used to get information.
http://home.earthlink.net/~wilderlands/beggarsguild.html
Here are some writeups of various organizations. Some are wholy original others are transplanted from other games (like the Order of Thoth/Ars Magica)
The Brotherhood of the Lion
The main thieves guild of City-State and the one that had the most PC join. Started as a resistance group to the Tharian Overlords and became corrupted.
http://home.earthlink.net/~wilderlands/brotherhoodlion.html
The Order of Thoth
Ars Magica's Order of Hermes transplanted and altered for a high magic setting. Also one organization that PC joined.
http://home.earthlink.net/~wilderlands/magic.html
Hamakhis
My attempt at making a religion involving human sacrifice and that was "evil" but plausible. Note that in my cosmology all the gods hate the demons. However in the fight against the demons not all the gods emerged unscathed. Hamakhis was one of those changed by the wars.
Also this cosmology predate wizards 4th edition. I also have similar writeup for several others of my gods.
http://home.earthlink.net/~wilderlands/hamakhis.html
In each of these four organizations I started with some premises and either borrowed or created elements that followed from the initial premises. When I had choices I picked those that seem the most fun or interesting to my group.
Jackalope: Sou basicaly you are saying that we aren't allowed to have shades of gray or to play evil, uncaring or covardly characters, otherwise we are swines who do not deserve to live because we are doing it wrong...
Look at some ancident myths... while the heroes were heroic, they aren't flawless and their worl is mostly "shades of grey"...
I. A place or places to find them. Even the most covert shadow organisation is usually active in some area, and can be contacted by turning the right vase upside down.
II. One or more bosses. If the boss is elected, it might be enough to explain how members become the boss. (Virtual Adepts in Mage are way cool that way.)
III. Some unique assets. They do not necessarily have to be a game mechanic, as long as they are iconic. Unique special rules certainly help, though.
IV. One or more goals. Goals that conflict with other organisations' goals are even better.
QuoteA good villain organization consists of rank and file who suspend critical thought and mindlessly obey a clearly identifiable group of leaders.
Sounds incompetent to me. Evil organizations built on a web of cells are not good evil organizations?
Sounds like moral relativism to me too. The bad guys aren't responsible for their own evil they're misguided by their leaders. My campaigns are immersive and the organizations need real motives otherwise they fall apart. And my players lose their willing suspension of disbelief.
I don't just hand players victories because they are good or bad. I want them to earn them. They want to earn them too.
As to what is and is not post modernism it is a mode of thought that tries to undermine traditional ideas of heroism. Post Modernism dominated artistic world in the US starting with the rise of the New Left. One of the methods was to take away context from struggle if there is a more perfect example than the contextless struggle between GI JOE and COBRA. Post Modernism reduces all struggle to pointless contests of will. The "good guys" are the good guys because the writer says they are. The "bad guys" are the bad guys because they are the "good guys's" enemy. I reject this utterly.
My games are not art, but I have to dwell in them when I write and create for my games. If I find an idea silly it takes me out of my camapign and can destroy immersion for my players.
Your examples are the Empire, Cobra, and the Legion of Doom (whoever they are). My examples are: Soviet Communism, the Medellin cartel, Al Queda, National Socialism. Which examples are more evocative of evil? Now apply their methods to fantasy organizations the Zhents are nazi like, the Red Wizards soviet like, the Cult of the Dragon as Al Qaeda, The Knights of the Shield as the Medellin Cartel. The analogs aren't perfect, but if you know history you can imagine how they will react to the on going political situation in a campaign. I can't imagine how cobra or the Empire would react if their enemies were more competent than the Joes and the Ewoks. Gross incompetence infects their organizations from top to bottom and yet they still chug on and on until the writer decides to put them out of their misery often through (literal)Deus Ex Machina (see Raiders of the Lost Ark).
Since we're writing about RPGs I don't see why genre fiction should be seen as more relavent, necessarily, than history. Most RPG tropes don't work in fiction and most fiction tropes don't work in D&D. I'm not a GNS guy I create a world for my PC's to explore and be suprised by. Not to force them into a story that's already written in my head. They may be shocked by what the good guys do, but in my world the good guys are still the good guys.
Quote from: Jackalope;220639Put your money where your mouth is, big shot.
Otherwise you just wrote a check you can't cash.
My new campaign begins this coming Sunday, 3pm, at Nilsiänkatu 10 in Helsinki. Basic Fantasy RPG (//www.basicfantasy.org) is the rule set we'll be using.
You're welcome to show up and see my creations in action.
Quote from: Phizel;220691Sounds incompetent to me. Evil organizations built on a web of cells are not good evil organizations.
It's true of every example you cited, you dumb fuck.
QuoteSounds like moral relativism to me too. The bad guys aren't responsible for their own evil they're misguided by their leaders.
That's actually the exact opposite of what I said. That is exactly how to build a bad villain organization.
QuoteMy campaigns are immersive and the organizations need real motives otherwise they fall apart. And my players lose their willing suspension of disbelief.
Yeah, I'm sure your players really, really fucking care about the motives of Mook #6 as they're chopping him down. Again, you're attacking a straw man.
QuoteI don't just hand players victories because they are good or bad. I want them to earn them. They want to earn them too.
Which has nothing to do with anything I've said. More strawmen.
QuoteAs to what is and is not post modernism it is a mode of thought that tries to undermine traditional ideas of heroism. Post Modernism dominated artistic world in the US starting with the rise of the New Left. One of the methods was to take away context from struggle if there is a more perfect example than the contextless struggle between GI JOE and COBRA. Post Modernism reduces all struggle to pointless contests of will. The "good guys" are the good guys because the writer says they are. The "bad guys" are the bad guys because they are the "good guys's" enemy. I reject this utterly.
This entire paragraph is the inchoate ramblings of a pseudointellectual twit trying to justify a poor argument. And clearly you know nothing at all about GI Joe, because there most certainly is a context to the ongoing battle between the Joes and Cobra. Cobra are the bad guys because they want to force America to adopt a fascist government. The Joes are the good guys because, in addition to embodying American ideals,
To claim that GI Joe is an example of moral relativism is fucking RIDICULOUS. It's a CHILDREN'S SHOW you fucking moron, i'ts not APOCALYPSE NOW. You literally know NOTHING about what you're talking about. You're an undereducated, pretentious shitstain, and with every post you make you only further prove that you are incapable of sustaining rational thought.
QuoteYour examples are the Empire, Cobra, and the Legion of Doom (whoever they are). My examples are: Soviet Communism, the Medellin cartel, Al Queda, National Socialism. Which examples are more evocative of evil?
You have the reading skills of a four year old.
I used Nazis as an example myself. The Empire and COBRA are both modeled on the Nazis, so they are examples of organizations
In fact, every single example you just gave displays the very traits I recognized. You are literally proving my point, you knuckledragging submoronic craphound.
The Legion of Doom (from
Super Friends) was an example I gave for you to use to support your own argument.
QuoteSince we're writing about RPGs I don't see why genre fiction should be seen as more relavent, necessarily, than history. Most RPG tropes don't work in fiction and most fiction tropes don't work in D&D. I'm not a GNS guy I create a world for my PC's to explore and be suprised by. Not to force them into a story that's already written in my head. They may be shocked by what the good guys do, but in my world the good guys are still the good guys.
Now you're just waffling, piss-for-brains. Go the fuck away. You contribute nothing. Nobody said shit about rail-roading, GNS, or any of that crap. And you're right, literary tropes -- like villains with complex motivations -- don't work in RPGs. To bad that supports my position.
I can just imagine your game. "Hey guys, why don't you all gather around while I read you the lifestory of this guy you're going to kill in five rounds, so that you can truly appreciate how he came to be the man he is. Blah blah blah..."
Quote from: JimLotFPMy new campaign begins this coming Sunday, 3pm, at Nilsiänkatu 10 in Helsinki. Basic Fantasy RPG (//www.basicfantasy.org) is the rule set we'll be using.
You're welcome to show up and see my creations in action.
Awww, he's talks game, but he's got nothing. "Oh hey, I
could give better advice on creating villain organizations, but instead I'll just invite you to move to a foreign country and play D&D with me for months so you can get a sense of the villain organizations I create."
Again, go fuck yourself, you shit-talking thread-crapping half-wit.
Quote from: Jackalope;220716"Oh hey, I could give better advice on creating villain organizations, but instead I'll just invite you to move to a foreign country and play D&D with me for months so you can get a sense of the villain organizations I create."
The troll got trolled, isn't that hilarious.
You know name calling with compound nouns that feature cusswords really doesn't bolster your argument.
Just because Phizel wants a tad more reality in his fiction (or something close to it) , that doesn't mean he's wrong.
- Ed C.
QuoteA good villain organization needs
You're the one who said these were "needed" traits and I disagreed. You said they "needed" all of these traits. I'm pointing out that it is not true that good villainous organizations can be built on other models.
I hope you are able to follow that.
QuoteI can just imagine your game. "Hey guys, why don't you all gather around while I read you the lifestory of this guy you're going to kill in five rounds, so that you can truly appreciate how he came to be the man he is. Blah blah blah..."
This is a straw man argument. Imagining arguments never presented by your opponent. I hope this clarifies things for you? I was worried you didn't know what it was.
Quote from: RPGPundit;220493What are the formula for making a good fantasy organization, vs. a bad one, as far as usability in an RPG campaign are concerned? Is there a formula? or set rules?
Mary Sue NPCs are annoying. So are Mary Sue organizations. If the organization is all powerful, all knowing, or simply too good to be true, then don't go there or put some limits or tarnish on it.
Quote from: Koltar;220718You know name calling with compound nouns that feature cusswords really doesn't bolster your argument.
Just because Phizel wants a tad more reality in his fiction (or something close to it) , that doesn't mean he's wrong.
- Ed C.
You're right Koltar, but I'm really appreciating the entertainment value of Jack's passionate use of profanity. Also, the flip side is that Phizel fired the first shot of this flame war, and just because he might not value Jack's ideas about what makes for evil organizations doesn't make Jack automatically wrong. Some people might appreciate less sophisticated ideas concerning their gaming and appreciate Jack's approach to the bad guys. By immediately attacking Jacks ideas and presenting his own opinions as some kind of inargueable truth Phizel did come across as a bit arrogant. They are both talking about individual tastes, any claims to the contrary are inaccurate.
Quote from: John Morrow;220729Mary Sue NPCs are annoying. So are Mary Sue organizations. If the organization is all powerful, all knowing, or simply too good to be true, then don't go there or put some limits or tarnish on it.
This is what I was going to say. The main issue I've always had with the Forgotten Realms is the prevalence of these kinds of characters and groups. Since I personally like espionage in games that I run, I almost always go for the kinds of groups Phizel has described... shadowy cells working against the heroes, villains with the public faces of heroes themselves, groups on both sides of a conflict with motivations that could be considered worthy (like the issue of environmental protection versus the need for resources).
Quote from: Phizel;220653Also who says the PLAYERS have to be the good guys?
In many cases, that's the game you're playing.
Marvel Superheroes... not Marvel Supervillains.
There's a lot in Basic D&D that sets things up for the players to have their characters as the heroes and not the villains.
If your character in Vampire acts too evil he gets turned into an NPC.
etc.
What...no popcorn? At least I got a sig out of it!
Quote from: The_Shadow;220744What...no popcorn? At least I got a sig out of it!
I don't know what offends me more, that he's talking in circles that don't mean anything, or that he's so ignorant of GI Joe he can't even identify the fundamental conflict of values between the Joes and COBRA (classic post-war liberal establishment vs right wing corporate fascism).
Deconstructing GI Joe is fun. Claiming GI Joe is a postmodern deconstruction of heroic action/fantasy is so dumb it should be painful.
Quote from: RPGPundit;220493I would say, for starters, that any group that your PCs can't either join or fight is probably not going to be much use.
I think you have to walk the line here, and it's a fine one. Some groups that the PC's don't fight, and can't join , can be fun and useful-but like any tool they have their limits, and uses.
Quote from: StuartIn many cases, that's the game you're playing.
Marvel Superheroes... not Marvel Supervillains.
I don't feel bound by those sorts of definitions. Some of the best games I've played have been completely contrary to the game's original concept. To me it's like buying Lego's and then someone coming along and saying "You can only use these legos to build what's on the box. Nothing else."
Silly.
Quote from: Jackalope;220750I don't know what offends me more, that he's talking in circles that don't mean anything, or that he's so ignorant of GI Joe he can't even identify the fundamental conflict of values between the Joes and COBRA (classic post-war liberal establishment vs right wing corporate fascism).
Well, look who G4 decided to compare Cobra Commander to in this "Yes, We Shall" - Vote Cobra Commander '08 video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzrd6eVAsjA). ;)
Quote from: John Morrow;220757Well, look who G4 decided to compare Cobra Commander to in this "Yes, We Shall" - Vote Cobra Commander '08 video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzrd6eVAsjA). ;)
I can't understand a word of that, and have no idea what it's referencing. The Cobra Commander announces his candidacy video made me laugh though.
COBRA is, in actuality, a violent right-wing paramilitary group dedicated to overthrowing the post-New Deal government and replacing it with a neofascist government. It's funded by several corporations, and its elite cadre -- the Crimson Guard -- includes senators, congressmen, and members of the American military.
COBRA is actually a really awesome bad guy organization, and anyone who reads the current Devil's Due series knows that it's far from childish. It's too bad the Joes are so...village peopleish.
This over-defense of "G.I.JOE" is starting to make the FR & BANESTORM Settings look like Shakespeare by comparison.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Serious Paul;220752I don't feel bound by those sorts of definitions. Some of the best games I've played have been completely contrary to the game's original concept. To me it's like buying Lego's and then someone coming along and saying "You can only use these legos to build what's on the box. Nothing else."
Silly.
You can sprinkle them on your cereal for some extra fibre if you want to -- they're your Legos. :)
And you can take any games you own and do all sorts of wild and crazy mods and house-rules on them.
But at some point you're not really playing the original game anymore. You're playing a new game based on the old one. Nothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with someone saying that's not really what the original game was about either.
Quote from: Jackalope;220773I can't understand a word of that, and have no idea what it's referencing. The Cobra Commander announces his candidacy video made me laugh though.
You should try to understand it. It's hilarious.
Quote from: Jackalope;220773COBRA is, in actuality, a violent right-wing paramilitary group dedicated to overthrowing the post-New Deal government and replacing it with a neofascist government. It's funded by several corporations, and its elite cadre -- the Crimson Guard -- includes senators, congressmen, and members of the American military.
Uh, huh. This is the same meaning of "right-wing" that uses it as a euphemism for "evil" such that old hard-line communists are called "right-wing", right? I think you are projecting your own politics on to the good guys and bad guys quite a bit there. The Venture Brothers parody of the theme (http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=8a25c3921a8130c6011a8241f5ce000c) seemed to poke fun at them more as what I remember, typical Reagan-era pro-military right-wing icons.
Quote from: Jackalope;220773COBRA is actually a really awesome bad guy organization, and anyone who reads the current Devil's Due series knows that it's far from childish. It's too bad the Joes are so...village peopleish.
The Venture Brothers parody (link above) plays on that, too.
Quote from: Stuart;220781But at some point you're not really playing the original game anymore.
I'm fine with that.
QuoteYou're playing a new game based on the old one.
I think that's splitting hairs, but fine.
QuoteNothing wrong with that, but there's also nothing wrong with someone saying that's not really what the original game was about either.
I agree, although I tend to think the beauty of games is that the only purpose they serve is to entertain. As long as they do that then, in my book, there is no wrong way to play them.
Quote from: John Morrow;220791Uh, huh. This is the same meaning of "right-wing" that uses it as a euphemism for "evil" such that old hard-line communists are called "right-wing", right? I think you are projecting your own politics on to the good guys and bad guys quite a bit there.
No...I mean right-wing as in members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.
I think you meant to use the stronger version of No... NO
Just giving the two of you quarrelers some grief. I'm just happy we're on page two by now!
As a side note, I'd like to say that a great way to test an RPG overall is to use the system and setting for opposite ends of the spectrum and see if it still feels like the game as it normally plays out (L5R: play as Eta or Oni; Amber: play as Shadowlings, or Chaosites during the PatternFall war; D&D 4e: play as a gnome druid and half-orc bard... Ok, bad example on that last one, but I had to make the joke before someone else did).
I enjoy using organizations and as complex, diverse and well-thought out as the backgrounds can get, the players don't tend to fish out all of the information that is made available in the game (unless an organization is the true focus of the campaign and requires infiltration work and such, which would be great with the right gaming group). So for the most part, I keep organizations (good or evil or neutral) narrow-minded about specific goals.
That's the bottom line: people get organized to get things done. Reasons for such and such individuals being a part of the organization is what will give you the variants within the organization and the flavor in the game. The Leader (or Leaders, or council or whatever the top of the hierarchy consists of) will set the standard for a lot of what the organization's actions are like.
If goals are obscure, that's cool too (unless they're not a secret organization).
I go with the flow too much to apply a formula per se, but I think defining specific aspects of the organization and making sure it is ripe with plot hook ideas for GMs is key.
Define the following and you're pretty good to go:
Name of organization:
Primary objective:
Secondary objective:
Secret objective (optional; also note that unless the campaign revolves around the organization, the PCs will likely never find out):
Leadership:
Hierarchy:
Secret leader (optional; the PCs are more likely to find that out, especially if it's an NPC or group of NPCs whom they frequent throughout the campaign):
Headquarters:
Fallback HQ/Bunker/Hideout:
Franchise HQ (optional; depends how large and widespread the organization is):
Secret Meeting Place (somewhere public maybe, where conversations can be overheard):
Goon type 1:
Goon type 2:
Goon type 3:
Uniform/Secret Handshake/Password/etc.:
That's a good start I think... What else?
What makes a good villain depends on the genre and tone of the game. Ultimately, you want them to be memorable and distinct from one another, pursuing distinct goals that the PCs can become aware of and deal with.
Frankly, if I had a cool anarchist organisation striving to overthrow the kingdom that was highly adaptable etc. like Phizel describes, I'd probably make their opponents - the kingdom's military - be more like Jackalope's description, just so that the PCs could see the difference between the two even more clearly, and to show why they don't simply reconcile and compromise.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;220895What makes a good villain depends on the genre and tone of the game. Ultimately, you want them to be memorable and distinct from one another, pursuing distinct goals that the PCs can become aware of and deal with.
Frankly, if I had a cool anarchist organisation striving to overthrow the kingdom that was highly adaptable etc. like Phizel describes, I'd probably make their opponents - the kingdom's military - be more like Jackalope's description, just so that the PCs could see the difference between the two even more clearly, and to show why they don't simply reconcile and compromise.
You mean the way Jackalope and Phizel don't want to reconcile and compromise? :p j/k
I agree there, organizations are flavorful and instead of focusing on what makes an organization work in a fantasy setting, we could perhaps look at things that will not work and eliminate or at least strive to stay away from those.
Any published RPG examples of organizations that do not work as intended or were poorly designed?
Quote from: Nihilistic Mind;220897You mean the way Jackalope and Phizel don't want to reconcile and compromise? :p j/k
I agree there, organizations are flavorful and instead of focusing on what makes an organization work in a fantasy setting, we could perhaps look at things that will not work and eliminate or at least strive to stay away from those.
Any published RPG examples of organizations that do not work as intended or were poorly designed?
The 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.
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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=220504&postcount=2). 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=220504&postcount=2) 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=220504&postcount=2). 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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=220504&postcount=2) 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.
Quote from: JackalopeEngine: "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."
Oh, thats trully great... now, let's have look at Jackalope's game:
Jackalope: "You see security guard."
Player: "So... how does that security guard look like...?"
Jackalope: "What..."
Player: "You know... looks, metatype..."
Jackalope: "It's fucking security guard, so, do you shoot, or what?!"
Player: "OK, but, is it guy or girl...?"
Jackalope: "FUCK YOU, YOU PRETENTIOUS SWINE, IT'S FUCKING SECURITY GUARD FUCKING MINION OF BIGGER ORGANIZATION, IT HAS NO LOOKS, NO PERSONALITY, NOTHING, THIS CRAP IS ACTUALLY DEFINED BY BEING CALLED SECURITY FUCKING GUARD AND IT'S THERE TO BE FUCKING OBSTACLE, CLERAR...? SO, WHAT DO YOU DO...?"
Player: "So, I shoot at shapeless blob of pure primal existence called security guard..."
Yeah, sorry Jackalope, but I'm not really interested in having anything other than a civil, adult conversation. My best wishes, though.
Edit: Also, since this keeps coming up, would you like conclusive proof that Paul and I are not the same person? I don't know what would suffice, but I shouldn't think of the method, anyway, since that would allow "me" [us] to manipulate it; why don't you come up with something, instead? You could always come game with us; our table is always open.
"In lieu of actual discussion I will instead make absurd accusations, which will seem so much more adult because I swear when I make them!"
It's funny to watch you slide from semi-reasonable teenager to mindless raving idiot in the space of three posts Jackie.
Quote from: Fritzs;221291Oh, thats trully great... now, let's have look at Jackalope's game:
Jackalope: "You see security guard."
Player: "So... how does that security guard look like...?"
Jackalope: "What..."
Player: "You know... looks, metatype..."
Jackalope: "It's fucking security guard, so, do you shoot, or what?!"
Player: "OK, but, is it guy or girl...?"
Jackalope: "FUCK YOU, YOU PRETENTIOUS SWINE, IT'S FUCKING SECURITY GUARD FUCKING MINION OF BIGGER ORGANIZATION, IT HAS NO LOOKS, NO PERSONALITY, NOTHING, THIS CRAP IS ACTUALLY DEFINED BY BEING CALLED SECURITY FUCKING GUARD AND IT'S THERE TO BE FUCKING OBSTACLE, CLERAR...? SO, WHAT DO YOU DO...?"
Player: "So, I shoot at shapeless blob of pure primal existence called security guard..."
:rotfl:
That's actually pretty funny Fritz, good job.
Quote from: Engine;221313Yeah, sorry Jackalope, but I'm not really interested in having anything other than a civil, adult conversation. My best wishes, though.
Oh, see, normally when people call me juvenile, tell me my ideas are tedious, and generally twist my argument so they can gloat about how rich and complex and detailed their game is, I just assume they're being a
PRETENTIOUS FUCKWAD. I didn't realize acting like a snide, pimply teenage fuckwit was suddenly the new definition of "civil and adult."
You want to have a civil conversation, try NOT starting with the assumption that whoever you are arguing with is a mindless simpleton.
QuoteEdit: Also, since this keeps coming up, would you like conclusive proof that Paul and I are not the same person? I don't know what would suffice, but I shouldn't think of the method, anyway, since that would allow "me" [us] to manipulate it; why don't you come up with something, instead? You could always come game with us; our table is always open.
No, I know you're not the same person. It's just that with Paul wearing your sphincter as a hat all the time, and you having your head up your ass, it seems your heads are always in the exact same place in time/space. So it can be hard to tell you apart.
Or maybe, your head is up Paul's ass while he wears your sphincter as a hat. Like some sort of really lame oroborous.
Yes, absolutely.
It's like he's speaking directly to me!
That's because he's a Troll, and GMs know all the monster languages.
Quote from: Engine;221404That's because he's a Troll, and GMs know all the monster languages.
Wait, so you jump into this thread with your "Neener neener, I'm more grown up than you!" bullshit, and somehow
I'm the troll? What. The. Fuck. Ever.
Yes, because I didn't do that.
[edit: I also didn't call you juvenile. I 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 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."
I 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.]
Quote from: Jackalope;221387try NOT starting with the assumption that whoever you are arguing with is a mindless simpleton.
At that point I'm sure it wasn't an assumption.
...
eh, I couldn't resist.
On a more serious note, ignoring Jackie's cries of foul and fowl, not every detail of the NPC's I create is discovered by the players. Sometimes the path that they choose in the course of the adventure leads them directly to my NPC, sometimes directly away.
So maybe my Ares Security Guard with a gambling habit never gets used, or maybe they find him and exploit him. I don't mind either way, since I enjoy creating minor details like that as I go.
Quote from: Jackalope;221134Maybe 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.
If you're aiming for a wide consumer base - ie, a popular game (no, not your* favourite game, but one that actually sells more than a few thousand copies), then you have to make it as appealing as possible to as many of those customers as you can in order to maximize sales. Therefore, by necessity, it won't be narrow in scope or focus, but fairly open-ended.
If you're targetting a niche within a niche, then you can get more specific and aim the magnifiying lense more precisely.
Popular games are popular for a reason - lots of people like them. Usually because they are not stifled by a narrow focus, but provide tools for individual groups to make the game their own. In writing the game, you presume nothing and provide a framework for folks to hang their own stuff from. You simply
cannot cater individually. You have to provide tools so that people can do it themselves.
*generic 'your', not you Jackalope.
Quote from: Jackalope;221410Wait, so you jump into this thread with your "Neener neener, I'm more grown up than you!" bullshit, and somehow I'm the troll? What. The. Fuck. Ever.
And here I thought I didn't know of any teenage girls who role-played! Did the RPG Site adopt a ten year old girl while I was at work?
Quote from: Serious Paul;221415So maybe my Ares Security Guard with a gambling habit never gets used, or maybe they find him and exploit him. I don't mind either way, since I enjoy creating minor details like that as I go.
That's what happens to me, too. Since so much time - years, sometimes - goes by between my GMing, I have plenty of time to flesh out the details of the setting and the people who live in it [a must, for sandbox games like mine, particularly since I'm apparently incapable of writing anything down]. I don't do this for the players, or for the game, I do this because it's what my brain does when I'm not using it for something else; it's just happy fortune that it fits well with the sort of game my group enjoys.
Way to ruin what could have been a great thread...
It's not hopeless. Add something other than the asinine!
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 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=221149&postcount=53) 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. :p
Quote from: One Horse Town;221473I'm glad i spent 20 minutes writing that post - it really brought the thread back on topic. :p
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.
Quote from: LeSquide;221506Sure, 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.
There's a term for this, and I can't think what it is, but it makes a campaign world seem more "lived-in" if one includes those sorts of details, even if only in broad hints. I also
really enjoy - particularly in play-by-post games, where the early game can be reviewed - dropping hints that won't be recognized as such by the players until later in the game. "Oh, shit, does that mean the amulet that skeleton was wearing in the first game was the symbol of this guy we're meeting a year later? Wait, that means he's been looking for us the whole time!" That sort of thing.
The "lived-in" feeling is all the more meaningful when the details don't actually
mean anything, when they're not directed at some plot point. There are organizations in my online D&D game that the players will
hear of, but likely never encounter a member of, much less meaningfully interact with. But, like NERPS, they're cool
because they're not meaningful: they make things seem more real, which, if your game requires suspension of disbelief, is useful as all get out.
Quote from: Engine;221510There's a term for this, and I can't think what it is, but it makes a campaign world seem more "lived-in" if one includes those sorts of details, even if only in broad hints. I also really enjoy - particularly in play-by-post games, where the early game can be reviewed - dropping hints that won't be recognized as such by the players until later in the game. "Oh, shit, does that mean the amulet that skeleton was wearing in the first game was the symbol of this guy we're meeting a year later? Wait, that means he's been looking for us the whole time!" That sort of thing.
The "lived-in" feeling is all the more meaningful when the details don't actually mean anything, when they're not directed at some plot point. There are organizations in my online D&D game that the players will hear of, but likely never encounter a member of, much less meaningfully interact with. But, like NERPS, they're cool because they're not meaningful: they make things seem more real, which, if your game requires suspension of disbelief, is useful as all get out.
I've heard it referred to as verisimilitude, which seems to be a pretty apt word for it. My players have flat out told me they really like bumping into details that suggest the world moves without them.
There are flat out more useful things to work out for an adventure or campaign, but a little time on the extra details never hurts.
I'm readily willing to believe that it can be taken too far, though, like with the above Pathfinder example.
Quote from: LeSquide;221515I've heard it referred to as verisimilitude...
Oh, thank you. It's been driving me crazy. That's the one.
Yeah, it's the feeling that there's a world beyond the characters that moves with or without them.
I prefer that to the world consisting of only the PCs and what they're doing, but many folks don't like it.
Quote from: One Horse Town;221518Yeah, it's the feeling that there's a world beyond the characters that moves with or without them.
I prefer that to the world consisting of only the PCs and what they're doing, but many folks don't like it.
I really like Verisimilitude in my games - it's a big part of what I find engaging about RPGs.
But the example of the Pathfinder adventure is a good one. Unless the players are going to learn that information somehow, or it has a direct influence on how you play the villain during the game, then it's of virtually no use and it's just filler fiction to pad the page-count. That can be fun for you as the GM to read, but it's not as useful for running a game as some other things...
QuoteYou'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.
Dude, it took you until now to figure this shit out? You're talking about a guy who's been wandering from thread to thread babbling on about how D&D sucks, oh but not HIS D&D because HIS group is so much more intelligent and different so they're not really the same game anymore, blah blah blah.
The mindless elitism has been pretty apparent to the rest of us for some time. You seriously need to pay more attention.
Yes, absolutely.
Jackalope - is it only your internet persona that has these major anger management problems or do you find yourself violently abusing people in real life over apparently trivial issues?
I sometimes have similar problems myself maintaining a proper sense of proportion in these sort of discussions and am genuinely interested.
Quote from: Hubert Farnsworth;221768Jackalope - is it only your internet persona that has these major anger management problems or do you find yourself violently abusing people in real life over apparently trivial issues?
It's all just internet fun.
So, for a game I'm running, the players received hints that a mysterious society of shapeshifters lives on the edges between the Empire they're in and the other (often otherworldly) societies that border it.
It's called the Mirror Concordance, and is started as a mutual defense and assistance network when pogroms against shapeshifters (suspected and actual) tore apart their generally less numerous, militarily weaker enclaves in civilization. Like many mutual defense networks...it later morphed into something more akin to a criminal gang, often running smuggling and spying rings.
They're not inherently antagonistic to the players or society (the worst among them are predators or 'cuckoos,' but the average shapeshifting individual is usually just trying to get by); so far, the players have run into them in the midst of a criminal enterprise, and successfully exploited tensions between members of the Concordance and their erstwhile partners to turn their enemies against one another.
While I've figured out the 'local' hierarchy of the organization (generally a town or city's Concordance will be run by prominent members of each shapeshifting subcommunity in a sort of council of peers), I'm trying to figure out how the wider hierarchy would work, especially across traditional national boundries. So far, all I have is that there's an Invisible King at the top of it, but I'm still figuring out how the middle levels of it work (or if each local council answers only to the King himself.)
Is it really that necessary to have evil organization... what about organization which is not evil, but pursues some goal that is not inherently evil, even their methods aren't evil by deffinition, but that goal is antagonistic with what characters are trying to acomplish
I don't think such organization fall into cathegory of misunderstood villians... they just want diferent thinks to happen than characters wants and can be decent people...
Well, that's an excellent point. Not only that but Pundit's original post doesn't suggest this thread should focus on 'evil' organizations.
I don't think organizations need to even have the good or neutral or evil predetermination... Like I said, goals should be the focus of defining an organization that is viable for an rpg.
A couple of notes:
First, my OP was about organizations, not specifically evil organizations. So yes, this thread is to discuss organizations in general.
Second, I think its got to be emphasized that any organization has to have two very different sorts of raisons d'etre:
A: They have to have a raison d'etre within the game. Having UberCool Secret Order X, where this order makes no sense within the social context of the setting, or where they don't seem to fit in any where, or are anachronistic, or just plain wacky, is unsatisfying.
B: they have to have a raison d'etre within the context of the players. Any organization that the PCs cannot either interact with in a meaningful way, or belong to, is not worth talking about. They should be something that at least some of the PCs can either Join, or Fight, or get stuff from, or get hassled by. If they're just there, just to be cool or whatever, it seems a waste of space.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;222134B: they have to have a raison d'etre within the context of the players. Any organization that the PCs cannot either interact with in a meaningful way, or belong to, is not worth talking about. They should be something that at least some of the PCs can either Join, or Fight, or get stuff from, or get hassled by. If they're just there, just to be cool or whatever, it seems a waste of space.
Uber-cool NPC organizations that can be neither fought nor joined verge on becoming another version of the dreaded
DMPC. Just as its not cool to show up your players with some uber NPC who is always rubbing it in the PC's faces how much the he has the DM's favor, it's no good to have an organization that only exists to show the PCs how awesome the DM's campaign would be if they weren't involved.
Quote from: RPGPundit;222134Second, I think its got to be emphasized that any organization has to have two very different sorts of raisons d'etre:
A: They have to have a raison d'etre within the game. Having UberCool Secret Order X, where this order makes no sense within the social context of the setting, or where they don't seem to fit in any where, or are anachronistic, or just plain wacky, is unsatisfying.
B: they have to have a raison d'etre within the context of the players. Any organization that the PCs cannot either interact with in a meaningful way, or belong to, is not worth talking about. They should be something that at least some of the PCs can either Join, or Fight, or get stuff from, or get hassled by. If they're just there, just to be cool or whatever, it seems a waste of space.
I strongly agree with both of these points.
With reference to the debate Jackalope kick-started, I think there's a place in campaign settings for both black-and-white "good" and "bad" outfits and for more nuanced, ambiguous organisations. In my view, if the players are definitely meant to Join, or Fight, or otherwise interact with the organisation in a very specific way, it should be reasonably unambiguous - organisations which exist specifically for PCs to fight should be out-and-out horrible and directly working against all the PCs hold dear, outfits which exist specifically for PCs to join should fundamentally have their hearts in the right place (although there's scope for them to have different idea to the PCs as to what's the best way to achieve their goals). Ambiguous organisations should be the outfits where you're not sure
how the players are going to interact with them - so you should set them up so that players could
potentially join them, or fight them, or do anything in between if things pan out that way.
Quote from: RPGPunditA: They have to have a raison d'etre within the game. Having UberCool Secret Order X, where this order makes no sense within the social context of the setting, or where they don't seem to fit in any where, or are anachronistic, or just plain wacky, is unsatisfying.
That's a given really. NPCs need a reason to do what they do, if nothing else so I as the GM know how to play them when inevitable unpredicted situations come up.
QuoteB: they have to have a raison d'etre within the context of the players. Any organization that the PCs cannot either interact with in a meaningful way, or belong to, is not worth talking about. They should be something that at least some of the PCs can either Join, or Fight, or get stuff from, or get hassled by. If they're just there, just to be cool or whatever, it seems a waste of space.
Sometimes things are cool on their own, either as set-dressing or interesting diversions or what have you. Brothels, for example, make interesting "organizations", even though they're hardly enemies or allies in the traditional sense.
Set-dressing is fine if its just that, dressing. If you dedicate, say, two lines of text in a book to the "Noble Brotherhood of Tapestry-Makers", a group that will neither be villains or associates, but will just be there, for flavour, that's fine.
But doing a 4-page spread in a setting book about such a group would just be stupid. It would be more than stupid, bordering on criminal, if you do that but only write two throwaway lines about some other group that might really be important.
RPGPundit
Flavor category VS. Usability in a campaign sets the amount of material that should be written about an organization.
That's a good first rule to follow, I'd say.
Quote from: One Horse Town;221473I'm glad i spent 20 minutes writing that post - it really brought the thread back on topic. :p
I found your post to be useful and illuminating. There was a discussion on this board about do you develop and possibly roleplay The Evils ( http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=10588 ). What you said dovetails nicely with what the general trend of the thread showed. My post from there...
Everyone who is in Evil for Evil sake, has a backstory to explain why they are that way. Sure you can be Evil and still be a functional "normal" member of society. It is when they decide to "risk themselves" and be all they want to be, that they become villians.
Most Evil Villians don't consider themselves Evil, they just think that the rules don't apply to them, or that they deserve this. The Selfishness applies.
Now my Deamons are Evil of Evil's sake. He is their boss. They eat/ gain energy due to discord/ negative emotions/ evil energies generated by the actions of "souls". How they do it and their motivation for liking their "evil" this way or that, requires some degree of backstory. (I was there and caused the first murder in a jazz club. I liked the flavor. Now I haunt the clubs, looking for that smokey flavor of dispair with a tinge of magical music.) It does not have to a lot, but it changes a mechanical challange to something interesting (and gives you a wedge to trick the demon).
if you think about Orcs, they are following X-leader (who has personal goals that are important in game context). In addition, they are just trying to make a name for themselves (thus will do things normal maurading orcs might not do), looking for food and anything they can easily get (so they get something and run), or ... well you see how this works. Each motivation changes the "tactics" of your fodder monster.
Sometimes, you might even see the dynamics of the fodder monster group. One guy tries to run, the guy in back whacks him on the head and he keeps on fighting. (Thus the PCs target the guy in back and sure enough that one orc runs immediately and others soon follow).
Nobody said the story had to be long and involved, but it should be there. (Nor does it need to be delved into in depth.) Nobody said you had to stat out everyone and come up with their mother's maiden name, but sprinkling of details changes thing from a simple video game mowdown to something that could be interesting.
This small motivation for a handful of characters in an Evil organization creates a complex web of interactions. Savy players can pick up on that and use it. Or they can just mow down everyone in site. (If they can't mow down everything, then they will need these as options.) Besides, if the members of the organziation were not selfish/evil and looking for a route to more power for less effort or around the normal paths, they would be on the good side.
And if your players screw up (gee, like that has never happened) the web of motivations in the Evil Org begins to come into play... as somebody will go after their own goals, and throw the wobble into the big plan.
So, in response to what Pundit said before:
The Mona Lisa Rule: Spend only as much time on a world, map, scenario, or NPC as the amount of play time and enjoyment it will allow. Two years of planning for six hours of game play is not a good investment in time and effort. So invest a few hours into the game setting you are going to be in for a few hundred hours of gaming fun.
This can easily be adapted for a suppliment, in which case you would substitute column inches for time.
Only give as much space over to something as the enjoyment/ useful play it will provide. Four pages dedicated to a throw away minion is not a good use of space. So you only have so much space to write out a scenario, suppliment. So only invest space in something equal to its usefulness and "fun factor".
aside: "Hmmmmm need a name for this rule"
This aside, and aiming towards topic:
An Evil Organization (and I try never to use the term Evil in writing any mortal group) will need a strong leader, charismatic or charismatic in a very scary way (thus the tougher than you boss).
He will need people who are willing to follow his lead and believe in his goals (or that their own goals match the leaders). If the group is big enough, he will need sub-leaders to control the minion. While minions can be faceless, they don't have to be. I usually throw a trait at every mook, that makes him a little different. This prevents cookie cutter syndrome. Interesting villians tend to make for an interesting game in my experience.
They need to have tools and resources to reach their goal, even if they are insufficient to the task. This is "The Evil Goal". This provides something to make the Villians more interesting. Especially if the goal is something you can vaguely sympathize with. (We want to throw down the ruler of the country.... The PC's don't like him because he shorted them their reward... but he is the local lawful ruler.)
If they don't, they will often have a plan or plot to get some of those tools and resources. This is normally The Evil Plot that the players are somehow entangled in.
Usually they will have an opposition group or two. Who said things had to be easy?
Of course, this is a general statement. With a tiny bit of tweaking, it works for good organizations. Or Neutral. However this should not suprise us. Most Evil Villians don't consider themselves Evil. They just think that the rules don't apply to them or that they deserve this and are just taking steps to get what should be theirs.
To be tongue in cheek: There are no Good Guys. There are no Bad Guys. There are just ... Guys.
Because the "good guys" could be the "bad guys" depending on how you spin it.
Dark Heresy while it has many good points provides an object lesson how not to handle organisations (with the qualification that it is not so much the organisations and the way they are described that is at issue but the assumptions about how PCs must interact with them).
Making the Inquisition totally central to the game but providing PCs with no way to become Inquisitors or even Interrogators who work directly for an Inquisitor?
In its absence you are left running the equivalent of a Charlie's Angels or A-Team scenario every session but the rather important difference that your off-stage mission-givers are actually Evil Space Nazis - but Nazis who this time around genuinely are defending a beleaguered human race from demonic alien conspiracies.
This puts most of the interesting moral conflict at the Charlie the Inquisitor rather than at the operatives/acolytes level - but as you can't even stat an Inquisitor in DH there is not much you can do to represent it.
What it really needed was multiple levels of play like Ars Magica where you get to alternate playing both the Inquisitors politicking in their cabal and the grunts out in the field - but for that to work you need to expend as much effort on writing rules for social conflict as you do on lovingly detailing items of weaponry.
Quote from: beejazzBrothels, for example, make interesting "organizations...
Thaˇ's not organization, at least not from the view of story, that's place... (well, characters might work in one, then it's organization, but in most games,it would serve as place...)
Quote from: Fritzs;222721Thaˇ's not organization, at least not from the view of story, that's place... (well, characters might work in one, then it's organization, but in most games,it would serve as place...)
I'd consider it an organization. Hell, it should have peripheral relations with organized crime, local law (bribery at least), and many other groups (there's blackmail potential if the brothel gets unscrupulous). A brothel is a place where money and secret shames change hands frequently. A PC falling for a girl who gets sent later to a brothel to repay her family's debts is one way of kick starting a "damsel in distress" sort of adventure. It isn't directly relevant to the PCs, but can gain significance depending on how you play.
Generally, I prefer it as a catalyst rather than the center-stage "villain" or "ally" but... not an organization?
beejazz: It could become organization if it's incorporated into story as organization (it's villain of game, it's where characters work and so on), otherwise, it's place where character go to do whatever said characters do in brothers...
Quote from: Hubert Farnsworth;222643Dark Heresy while it has many good points provides an object lesson how not to handle organisations (with the qualification that it is not so much the organisations and the way they are described that is at issue but the assumptions about how PCs must interact with them).
Making the Inquisition totally central to the game but providing PCs with no way to become Inquisitors or even Interrogators who work directly for an Inquisitor?
In its absence you are left running the equivalent of a Charlie's Angels or A-Team scenario every session but the rather important difference that your off-stage mission-givers are actually Evil Space Nazis - but Nazis who this time around genuinely are defending a beleaguered human race from demonic alien conspiracies.
This puts most of the interesting moral conflict at the Charlie the Inquisitor rather than at the operatives/acolytes level - but as you can't even stat an Inquisitor in DH there is not much you can do to represent it.
What it really needed was multiple levels of play like Ars Magica where you get to alternate playing both the Inquisitors politicking in their cabal and the grunts out in the field - but for that to work you need to expend as much effort on writing rules for social conflict as you do on lovingly detailing items of weaponry.
The more
Dark Heresy I play, the more I'm convinced that the Inquisition angle was just their way of giving a bunch of random space bums access to space travel in a manner that fits in with the 40K canon. The big difference between WFRP and the 40K universe is that in the Warhammer setting if you want to up sticks and go travelling all you need is a functioning pair of legs, but if you want to go travelling the universe in the 40K setting you really need a spaceship, and spaceships
just ain't that common. It'd have been really hard to do a 40K RPG with PCs of WFRP-like levels of power unless you had them stuck on the same planet (or stowing away on the same ship) all the time. Really, the scope for Inquisitorial Acolytes to go off and do a little extracurricular activity is vast in DH; if you're playing with a group of PCs who aren't averse to a little corruption, profiteering, and maybe even dabbling in black magic you can even become a bigger danger to the galaxy than anything your Inquisitor sends you after.