A long while back I took a stray comment on this forum to heart (paraphrasing): "Though betrayal is a staple of fine literature for a reason, even one NPC betrayal poisons your players' future interactions with all other NPCs for many, many sessions, possibly even multiple campaigns."
Now this is just anecdotal, but I really do thing my players' willingness to invest in and fully interact with NPCs has improved since I secretly implemented the "no NPC betrayals" policy.
What do you folks think?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585A long while back I took a stray comment on this forum to heart (paraphrasing): "Though betrayal is a staple of fine literature for a reason, even one NPC betrayal poisons your players' future interactions with all other NPCs for many, many sessions, possibly even multiple campaigns."
Now this is just anecdotal, but I really do thing my players' willingness to invest in and fully interact with NPCs has improved since I secretly implemented the "no NPC betrayals" policy.
What do you folks think?
I don't have it as a policy, I just don't do it except under special conditions*. But yes, the first NPC screw job is usually the last.
* For example, if the group mistreats an NPC, or if one infiltrates the group. The former is self-inflicted, so the players have no business complaining. The latter is very rare, and the PCs should at least have a chance to smell the rat.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585A long while back I took a stray comment on this forum to heart (paraphrasing): "Though betrayal is a staple of fine literature for a reason, even one NPC betrayal poisons your players' future interactions with all other NPCs for many, many sessions, possibly even multiple campaigns."
Now this is just anecdotal, but I really do thing my players' willingness to invest in and fully interact with NPCs has improved since I secretly implemented the "no NPC betrayals" policy.
What do you folks think?
What if it's one of the known villains who tricks them into a deal that screws them later.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585A long while back I took a stray comment on this forum to heart (paraphrasing): "Though betrayal is a staple of fine literature for a reason, even one NPC betrayal poisons your players' future interactions with all other NPCs for many, many sessions, possibly even multiple campaigns."
I've occasionally had NPCs betray the PCs. I don't recall it ever poisoning future interactions with NPCs. Perhaps this is because I run games with lots of NPCs (including hirelings, henchmen, friends, acquaintances, enemies, etc. -- and what camp an NPC falls in changes with PC actions in the game.
Players are often wary of NPC motivations and that's okay to an extent. My favorite NPCs are those the PCs know they can't trust, but they need them anyway. Those are fun for me.
Anything that could happen in an adventure story could happen in one of my games.
If the players allow the very occasional betrayal to make them bitter and paranoid, that's their problem. Nothing is off the table just because it might make somebody whine.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585What do you folks think?
It depends on the tone of the campaign. I'll have more NPC betrayals in a Dark Sun or Cyberpunk campaign, where I think the tone of not trusting NPCs fits.
For a more Paladins and Princesses, or Space Opera campaign, I'd reserve NPC betrayal for very rare and memorable situations.
I think the core of the advice, that trusting/not trusting NPCs is a very different concequence in an RPG, because you have an interactive scenario with participants and aren't just relating a story, is a very good one to make. The players make decisions based on the situations they find themselves in, and trusting NPCs when previous experience tells them this is a bad idea, is going to impact gameplay.
Absolutely, the PCs can be betrayed. An especially devious nemesis is going to fund ways to gain an advantage, and gathering info from within is a great way of doing it. The only rule I use for myself is that I must drop hints along the way at what's going on. If the players feel they could have caught on, then all's fair, sez I.
"NPC betrays PC" is the second most overused trope in gaming.
The problem comes in when any NPC who is more than a simple shopkeeper ALWAYS betrays the PCs. I've seen more campaigns than I can remember over the last 40 years where literally every NPC was treacherous. In cases like that it's no wonder players acquire a "kill first and let the referee sort them out later" point of view.
I was in one game session where it had gotten so bad that the PCs, IN CHARACTER, were sitting at a dinner party discussing when, how, and why the host was going to betray them.
Which, of course, he did.
Much easier for NPCs to get vengeance for stuff the PCs do. PCs do plenty of things to piss off NPCs without you going out of the way to make NPCs want to hurt them.
Some of my favorite adventures was a Ravenloft campaign where the DM left plenty of rope lying around and when we saw the gallows we could only thung about how much we had this coming.
I have NPC's betray my players, but I also have NPC's who are staunch allies who would willingly die for the PC's as well. It really depends on the genre and what type of game you're playing.
My players have a long running gag to immediately shoot anyone who offers them food in my Deadlands games, as they've been poisoned a number of times. This started back in the 90s and early 00's because many of the pre-written Deadlands adventures have the PC's get poisoned when they're offered food by NPC's ((Really like 5 of the Adventures have this happen)).
Really, if you're going to do betrayal just make sure the NPC has the right motivation to do so...My favorite tactic when I do a betrayal is to have the NPC doing it against their own will...maybe a family member is being held hostage, or they have some dark secret they're being blackmailed with...
My players end up having sympathy for the character and feel less screwed over by it..
Having an NPC who stabs them in the back and then laugh manically about how stupid they were is just more likely to piss your PC's off and not want to play more than anything else.
It's like oregano, a little goes a long way. Some play groups have real trust issues, both against play mechanics and setting. You can't fix that through play, but it also cannot be completely hashed out through table talk either ("Trust me! We good now, yeah?").
I can see the reasoning behind offering a larger period of NPC trust. I understand this is not an all-or-nothing situation, more of a currently-unavailable situation. When your players learn to unclench their sphincters I can imagine you may return to reevaluate this decision.
edit: Adventure modules are HUGE offenders in this area. It's one of my biggest red flags for bad writing. It ain't clever if everything betrays eveyone all the time forever...
I don't really use NPC betrayal all that much. Rarely does an NPC get enough screen time to really get comfortable in the PC group and then BAM, stab them in the back.
That doesn't mean the NPCs can't be ambiguous in their wording, not tell the whole truth or manipulate the PCs as it fits their own ends. I've had lots of fun with NPCs that are all working towards their own goals, and the PCs trying to guess and maneuver their way through the situation.
I've also seen the PCs betray and kill a friendly NPC. Having them confront his grieving widow later was a great roleplaying experience, much fun was had :D
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585A long while back I took a stray comment on this forum to heart (paraphrasing): "Though betrayal is a staple of fine literature for a reason, even one NPC betrayal poisons your players' future interactions with all other NPCs for many, many sessions, possibly even multiple campaigns."
I've mainly seen this advice in a more extreme form: "NPCs must
never lie to the PCs, or else the players will distrust the GM." In either form, this strikes me as a failure to draw a distinction between the GM and the NPCs he plays. Playing a lying NPC doesn't make the GM a liar and more than playing Hannibal Lecter makes Anthony Hopkins a serial killer.
So, yes, as a general rule, it's possible that my NPCs may lie to or betray PCs, but it doesn't happen often and I don't think I've ever noticed any of my players taking it as an indication that I was any less trustworthy as a GM.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846627"NPC betrays PC" is the second most overused trope in gaming.
What's number one? "You all meet in a tavern"?
I just pay a lot more attention / thought to my NPCs than I used to.
It's certainly possible that my NPCs will do one or more levels of betrayal to others, but it's going to be consistent with a lot of things, not just a random undetectable PC-centric thing, like it might've been when I first started out.
For example, I ran an adventure where some NPCs were part of a grand deception plot. I expected either the PCs would discover it and foil the plot, or at least there would be a great dramatic reveal at the moment the plot unleashed itself (upon other NPCs, but with the PCs probably present). What happened in play, was the PCs ended up creating so many of their own intrigues, that they were mostly focused on trying to solve the mysteries being created by other PCs (which they couldn't tell I wasn't doing, due to careful note-passing etc), and when the plot did get unleashed (twice, actually), no one (PC nor NPC) figured out who the plotmaster was - they convinced themselves of another explanation that they invented, and continued to act as if they were right about that. That enabled the plot to succeed wildly beyond the original plan.
I think my NPCs tend to be varied enough that they're in different categories and the PCs tend to relate to them more or less appropriately except when the players are being especially paranoid. That is, most of my NPCs behave normally and many are very useful and valuable resources or allies - treating those as backstabbers would tend to be a bad idea. The ones who might "betray" in one way or another, will also at least be consistent in how and why they do what they do. But yeah there may be some nefarious agents and wackos with weird plots out there, or possibly at your side. I almost never have anything like I see in some (usually D&D, it seems) game stories I've read where characters (it seems, as often PCs as NPCs) where someone is attempting some grand betrayal actually directed at the PC group, where they all get poisoned or led into a trap or whatever.
I think a few times an NPC spear-fodder got eaten by a bear while peeing alone in the woods, and the PCs decided he must've been a spy.
As mentioned in some of my morality comments, though, if my PCs act like decent folks and make friends, and then start acting more like murderers or something, then their NPC friends are likely to "betray" them by either intervening or leaving, or something, depending on the nature of the atrocity. Unless the NPC friends also start descending into dreadfulness, which sometimes mirrors to the players what goons they've been, and may have them want to abandon the NPCs for doing what they themselves were doing...
I let the players do the betraying for the most part when it comes to townsfolk and wandering non-hostile encounters in genearl- and let the NPCs get the appropriate revenge for the (generally inevitable) betrayal.
Last session the rogue thought she was dealing fairly with goblins (after cheating them at dice, natch), but of course it wasn't a dick move when they immediately betrayed the bargain and attacked, because goblins.
I have the npc's betray the players if it makes sense for them to do so but I'm not going to shoehorn it in. My old group started to really invest in their npc allies after the first time they had been betrayed, once they grew to trust one they went the extra mile for them.
My group captured Zark the evil dwarf slaver of Loudwater - and offered him his crossbow back if he'd use it against his fellow slavers. They were very surprised when during the battle with the slavers Zark turned his crossbow on the PCs.
That's generally the level of betrayal IMCs - NPCs will betray where it strains credulity for them *not* to do so. Captured evil dwarf slaver. Captured Chaotic Evil ogre. Captured Mercenary working for the Chaotic Evil cult. All three went back to working for the bad guys when convenient to do so.
I found myself guilty of overusing NPC betrayals, in published adventures and in my own material, so I made the same decision to ease off about a year ago. Still, old habits die hard. My players regard any NPC who asks them to do something as a villain who hasn't revealed himself yet. The only reason they don't kill them outright is because they're curious about what kind of scam is going to be pulled.
I suppose the trick is to condition the players to believe they have more to gain from trusting NPCs than they do from distrusting them.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846627"NPC betrays PC" is the second most overused trope in gaming.
The problem comes in when any NPC who is more than a simple shopkeeper ALWAYS betrays the PCs.
Verily. It sets a bad example to the players too when over-used. "Dont trust anyone!" Much like the annoying henchman or the DM Pet uberNPC.
I have had NPCs betray the party before and had it done to me as a player. Ive also as a player had the fun of turning a betrayer NPC to MY side! nyah-haa-haa! Used sparingly and with some clues, its all fine.
Quote from: nDervish;846758What's number one? "You all meet in a tavern"?
"The orcs/wogs/Yan Koryani/Green Slime/zombies/Klingons come over the walls."
(i.e. attack en masse.)
Raymond Chandler's advice as directed by Cecil B. DeMille.
I don't have NPCs betraying PCs. I have conditions under which NPCs would do some actions, and they vary by NPC.
For some NPCs, the condition of betraying a PC is "getting the opportunity and getting something out of it". "Something" might be "the lulz" in some cases.
For other NPCs, the condition is "if blackmailed, but no other reason counts".
Players are well-advised to exercise discretion in whom they choose to trust:).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846627"NPC betrays PC" is the second most overused trope in gaming.
The problem comes in when any NPC who is more than a simple shopkeeper ALWAYS betrays the PCs. I've seen more campaigns than I can remember over the last 40 years where literally every NPC was treacherous. In cases like that it's no wonder players acquire a "kill first and let the referee sort them out later" point of view.
I was in one game session where it had gotten so bad that the PCs, IN CHARACTER, were sitting at a dinner party discussing when, how, and why the host was going to betray them.
Which, of course, he did.
Was that an Amber-style campaign of intrigue and betrayal, or a game you walked out of;)?
Whoever made the original comment was on to something. I've seen it myself: players have a visceral and heated reaction to betrayal, and it often changes their POV in any game, with any GM.
I kinda wonder how it's going to turn out in my current group, because one of the players has set up a deal to help out the down-at-heels neighborhood he sometimes hangs out in. The entrepreneur he dealt with is in fact an infiltration agent for the Evil Bad Guy Empire -- my hand to heaven, he picked her out of my book, I didn't set this up as a plot -- whose task is to stir up as much trouble as she can. Since the NPC has a public guise as a quasi-socialist who's a darling of the mob, we can predict where this one is going.
NPCs are just people. They have their motivations and they have their agendas. Some of them are noble and heroic and would lay down their life for an ally. Some of them are evil bastards looking for a quick win or a way to take over the universe.
Clever allies don't give things away either. The evil villain doesn't have a long black moustache and cackle evily behind the scenery. They present themselves as the best guy in the world.
So if you live in a world where people are "real" you have to cope with that.
Having played Amber a lot and focused more on cities than dungeons since the early 80s this is just standard to me. NPCs as Real People is the main plank of my DMing style.
In my current gaming group the players just happen to have met mostly trustworthy people. Now they are playing a short high level game with 20th level PCs in an Amber like setting and weirdly trusted all the remaining 9 Lords when they met to discuss what should be done now the king had died. The NPCs were shocked when the PCs trusted them all when it was obvious to all of them that everyone in the room was going to be trying to kill everyone else within about 30 minutes of the meeting ending. Anyway ...
Some of the best betrayals are just the ones that see the NPC executing their plan regardless of the PCs who are far more superfluous than they think.
As for my favourite NPCs they are the ones that seem like they are going to betray you because you think all NPCs betray people but in fact they don't betray you they are merely acting like that because they think you are going to betray them.
Quote from: Ravenswing;846929Whoever made the original comment was on to something. I've seen it myself: players have a visceral and heated reaction to betrayal, and it often changes their POV in any game, with any GM.
In practice, I've found that players very much end up following the idiom:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
In the end, the players end up with a mentality of killing everything in sight for the rest of the campaign, after the first betrayal. (ie. The game degenerates into complete hack and slash).
To get around this problem whenever I was DM, on the first day I ask upfront how the players want to deal with the issue of NPC betrayal. The solution that the players end up agreeing to, is rolling dice to determine whether the "traitor switch" is turned on.
Back in the day, I usually rolled NPCs randomly. Typically the players agreed to a particular % probability of an NPC being a traitor. (The actual % varied from group to group, but most of the time it was anywhere from 5% to 25%).
I have rarely seen players so smugly happy when they have successfully foreseen and effectively anticipated the possible betrayal of a not particularly trustworty ally. Effectively outsmarting such a foe is a major triumph for the players, even if the actual accomplishment within the campaign is miniscule.
However, this requires two things: first it is absolute obligatory that the PCs have some ways to find out about this threat and can learn about before the fact (which also means that if they did not anticipate the betrayal, it is their own damn fault) Second, like many many plots and twists, this is an element that works best if it used quite sparsely.
Quote from: ggroy;846935In practice, I've found that players very much end up following the idiom:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
In the end, the players end up with a mentality of killing everything in sight for the rest of the campaign, after the first betrayal. (ie. The game degenerates into complete hack and slash).
My experience is also that players react badly to betrayal, though not always the same way.
As I diagnose it, the main problem is that GMs often use NPCs in order to convey necessary information - effectively using the NPC partly as a mouthpiece for GM voice. If the players refuse or disbelieve a key NPC, they're often nixing the adventure or possibly screwing themselves over.
I observe a similar thing with players. Once a player creates a traitorous PC, then all their characters after that are treated with suspicion at best.
My solutions:
1) Give the PCs a bunch of key useful information, so they're less reliant on NPCs.
2) As a result, some NPCs try to pull a fast one on PCs that flop because they know more about what is going on.
Once this is the case, it's much easier to break into having PCs distrust NPCs (and distrusting each other).
Quote from: jhkim;846944My experience is also that players react badly to betrayal, though not always the same way.
As I diagnose it, the main problem is that GMs often use NPCs in order to convey necessary information - effectively using the NPC partly as a mouthpiece for GM voice. If the players refuse or disbelieve a key NPC, they're often nixing the adventure or possibly screwing themselves over.
I observe a similar thing with players. Once a player creates a traitorous PC, then all their characters after that are treated with suspicion at best.
My solutions:
1) Give the PCs a bunch of key useful information, so they're less reliant on NPCs.
2) As a result, some NPCs try to pull a fast one on PCs that flop because they know more about what is going on.
Once this is the case, it's much easier to break into having PCs distrust NPCs (and distrusting each other).
I think this is an artifact of the skill system. Back before skill rolls became ubiquitous, information the players need could be deduced from the environment. They were given the opportunity to find it, and clever people would.
Then there were skills for everything. So if the PCs wanted to find something out, they needed to roll a skill. So if they rolled low enough in the "find my own ass" skill, it turns out they couldn't find their own ass, even with both hands and a map. Ever.
Thus DMs started shunting useful information onto NPCs, who would dutifully toddle up and deliver parcels of information. Because this came from the DM, and was the info delivery vehicle, when it was wrong it was obvious that it was the DM screwing them (because, of course, the players couldn't trust their own common sense, a d20 could be gating them off from their own ass).
Ironically this was a problem that Vampire had in the 90s, since there was a skill for everything and the PCs could horribly fail. Of course back then we solved it by leaving the PCs miserably in the dark, and then having pointed questions asked about the plot that they were completely missing, but most systems are not set up around an enjoyment of torturing the players. Also Vampire is a frequently reactive game where trouble comes to you, rather than one where you go looking for it.
Only once. The party was in a port city and approached by a couple claiming their daughter had been taken by a helmed horror and needed rescuing from his Island. Our heroes took the bait went to the island cleaned house and rescued the "poor child." The only problem was the child was a powerful Witch Queen who had been banished. When they arrived in the port town she showed her true self. Only had one player get butt hurt over this than again he was always a pain.
I don't have a hard rule against, it but I careful to use it in moderation.
What I really hate is when you are fed one plot hook for the night and that hook involves working for someone that is going to betray you. The untrustworthy patron is a risky move by a GM in any case, but if you use it, at least give the players the option to turn down the offer and not grind the session to a halt.
You need to have setting where NPCs can be a genuine help as well, providing real assistance at times, not just plot hooks and clues.
NPCs are people with lives, personalities and motivations. They may betray you or lay down their life for you, or both depending on circumstances.
It's life.
At a perfect table I absolutely agree, run NPCs with appropriate breath of life. That said, actual betrayal requires at least some modicum of a relationship, trust, and then an issue at stake. Outside of confidence men and pickpockets you are not going to stumble into a betrayal from such short term NPC relationships.
The problem is the ratio is often off, particularly in modules. Most of us in life are not betrayed so freely, and we casually give our trust at rates considered bad form In-Character at many tables. To break that you really need to show players that the VAST MAJORITY of day to day interactions are too quick and/or transactional to set up betrayal.
The big challenge is flooding social play with enough benign indifference to get players to unclench and relax. Real quality betrayal takes time and effort. Quick betrayal needs just a bit of help from the mark's own greed (con men). The majority of personal interactions are too busy in their own lives to care.
When players assume their PCs are the center of the universe, and are treated constantly as such, expectation and anxiety builds. Then it feels someone's out there "just waiting to exploit the center of the universe." Downgrade their import, downgrade their threat expectations; so up the level of genial, yet distant, acquaintances.
Quote from: CRKrueger;846987NPCs are people with lives, personalities and motivations. They may betray you or lay down their life for you, or both depending on circumstances.
It's life.
That's how I try to run NPCs and keep them as close to believable as I can. There will and have been some betrayals and acts of extreme loyalty based in the situation, their personalities and how the PCs have interacted with them in the past, directly or indirectly. I want the players to see NPCs as characters they interact with not my mouth pieces.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846627The problem comes in when any NPC who is more than a simple shopkeeper ALWAYS betrays the PCs.
Every NPC always does X for any X is boring as all get out.
Most NPCs will want to get something in an exchange with the PCs, i.e. they want a more or less fair exchange. A few NPCs will be really loyal and/or helpful to the PCs. And a few NPCs will try to betray the PCs.
Quote from: Beagle;846936I have rarely seen players so smugly happy when they have successfully foreseen and effectively anticipated the possible betrayal of a not particularly trustworthy ally. Effectively outsmarting such a foe is a major triumph for the players, even if the actual accomplishment within the campaign is miniscule.
Yes. And why shouldn’t some of the NPCs who try to betray the PCs be much less than perfect in their approach? Most of my NPCs aren’t any smarter or skilled than the PCs. And in almost all the games I run after a year or so of play, the PCs are smarter or more skilled than most NPCs (though not all of them) so they should be able to anticipate, foil, or turn about a lot of the NPC attempts to betray them.
And as Beagle said, the players are ever so happy when they can see and foil an NPC plot.
Quote from: Nexus;847009I want the players to see NPCs as characters they interact with not my mouth pieces.
This!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846878"The orcs/wogs/Yan Koryani/Green Slime/zombies/Klingons come over the walls."
"Fuck that, Vimúhla roast their balls, my men'll stop those Yan Kor scum!"
(So okay, my very first RPG character was an officer in the Legion of Ever-Present Glory.)
Quote from: GreyICE;846963I think this is an artifact of the skill system. Back before skill rolls became ubiquitous, information the players need could be deduced from the environment. They were given the opportunity to find it, and clever people would.
Then there were skills for everything. So if the PCs wanted to find something out, they needed to roll a skill. So if they rolled low enough in the "find my own ass" skill, it turns out they couldn't find their own ass, even with both hands and a map. Ever.
Thus DMs started shunting useful information onto NPCs, who would dutifully toddle up and deliver parcels of information. Because this came from the DM, and was the info delivery vehicle, when it was wrong it was obvious that it was the DM screwing them (because, of course, the players couldn't trust their own common sense, a d20 could be gating them off from their own ass).
Ironically this was a problem that Vampire had in the 90s, since there was a skill for everything and the PCs could horribly fail. Of course back then we solved it by leaving the PCs miserably in the dark, and then having pointed questions asked about the plot that they were completely missing, but most systems are not set up around an enjoyment of torturing the players. Also Vampire is a frequently reactive game where trouble comes to you, rather than one where you go looking for it.
Um ... no don't agree at all. Does that mean in your games of Traveller because there are skills all NPCs are information vending machines?
Skills are just a way of differentiating PCs and defining the limits of their experience and knowledge they in no way replace the environment or detailed believable NPCs
Quote from: Bren;847095Yes. And why shouldn't some of the NPCs who try to betray the PCs be much less than perfect in their approach? Most of my NPCs aren't any smarter or skilled than the PCs. And in almost all the games I run after a year or so of play, the PCs are smarter or more skilled than most NPCs (though not all of them) so they should be able to anticipate, foil, or turn about a lot of the NPC attempts to betray them.
This is a key point. The NPCs will act within the confines of their own abilities and knowledge. Chances are the senior courtier with years of diplomacy and spycraft will be cunning and a highly accomplished liar. The chances are the innkeeper that charges drunk guests double and occasionally lets a local bunch of rogues in to turn over guests with heavy purses will be a lot more mundane and a lot more likely to panic, make a mistake or screw up in a lie.
Quote from: Opaopajr;846997At a perfect table I absolutely agree, run NPCs with appropriate breath of life. That said, actual betrayal requires at least some modicum of a relationship, trust, and then an issue at stake. Outside of confidence men and pickpockets you are not going to stumble into a betrayal from such short term NPC relationships.
The problem is the ratio is often off, particularly in modules. Most of us in life are not betrayed so freely, and we casually give our trust at rates considered bad form In-Character at many tables. To break that you really need to show players that the VAST MAJORITY of day to day interactions are too quick and/or transactional to set up betrayal.
The big challenge is flooding social play with enough benign indifference to get players to unclench and relax. Real quality betrayal takes time and effort. Quick betrayal needs just a bit of help from the mark's own greed (con men). The majority of personal interactions are too busy in their own lives to care.
When players assume their PCs are the center of the universe, and are treated constantly as such, expectation and anxiety builds. Then it feels someone's out there "just waiting to exploit the center of the universe." Downgrade their import, downgrade their threat expectations; so up the level of genial, yet distant, acquaintances.
If we are people were engaged in the business of killing folk and taking their stuff I am sure we would be betrayed a lot more often.
With lower stakes the betrays are just smaller and pass without comment.
So when Dave applies for that job in sales that you had told him about, or when you do some photocopying at work, or when you don't tell the shop assistant she has given you too much change. Scale that up and its Dave reporting you to the City Watch so he can get the post of captain, or its you skimming an extra 5% of the top of the treasure take for yourself or its you raiding the local blacksmith for a decent suit of chain and a sword.
You assume RPGs are all about Adventure! in the pulp fiction vein. Even mercenary companies, which dealt in high stakes, had a business to run. The day-to-day still had to even out with a lot of boredom, otherwise there is no stability for the logistics to get done. It is just like military veterans who attest to war being large streaks of boredom punctuated with ass-clenching fear.
Regardless the stakes the dominant experience over time has to be calm otherwise things fizzle out. Spiraling entropy assures this of anything remotely looking like organization. Regardless the altitude of peaks and valleys the periods of level mundanity have to be present in far greater proportion otherwise the world goes into crisis mode and all bets are off with the four horsemen running rampant.
L5R's story canon seems interesting until you realize it is all within the span of less than a century (like 80 years). Having "worldwide cataclysms" where the very fate of the world is at stake every ten years is nothing short of absurd. Imagine at least ten World Wars in the 20th Century, instead of just two. Untenable.
Quote from: Opaopajr;847423You assume RPGs are all about Adventure! in the pulp fiction vein. Even mercenary companies, which dealt in high stakes, had a business to run. The day-to-day still had to even out with a lot of boredom, otherwise there is no stability for the logistics to get done. It is just like military veterans who attest to war being large streaks of boredom punctuated with ass-clenching fear.
What tends to set RPGs apart from real world situations is that the vast majority of games and gamers* skip over the vast majority of the boring or even enjoyably mundane aspects of life to focus on the danger and the drama. Thus the play experience is skewed towards an artificially high level of ACTION even for very active PCs.
* There are semi-exceptions.
- Flashing Blades assumes about one adventure per game month.
- Pendragon assumes about one adventure per game year.
- And if I understood Chirine's descriptions of Professor Barker's Petal Throne campaign, it assumed one game session per real world week covering the activities of the PCs (which are sometimes pretty mundane) of one game week.
Which makes for an argument against fast healing then, I would say. Or at least a re-evaluation of what is defined as boring. I couldn't care less about dungeons or heavily-involved combat, yet still I play RPGs. Can I fast-forward through those boring parts instead?
Why yes, yes I can in my campaign! :p
Quote from: Bren;847095Every NPC always does X for any X is boring as all get out.
Most NPCs will want to get something in an exchange with the PCs, i.e. they want a more or less fair exchange. A few NPCs will be really loyal and/or helpful to the PCs. And a few NPCs will try to betray the PCs.
Depends on the setting. I've played in campaigns modeled off the Dying Earth, where pretty much everyone is suspicious and looks out for number one.
Quote from: Haffrung;847446Depends on the setting. I've played in campaigns modeled off the Dying Earth, where pretty much everyone is suspicious and looks out for number one.
But do they all do that looking after #1 first the exact same way? Are they all equally good at how they try to screw over others to get more for themselves? Part of what made Vance's stories go was that people weren't equally good or exactly motivated in how they handled their self-interest.
Quote from: Bren;847434What tends to set RPGs apart from real world situations is that the vast majority of games and gamers* skip over the vast majority of the boring or even enjoyably mundane aspects of life to focus on the danger and the drama. Thus the play experience is skewed towards an artificially high level of ACTION even for very active PCs.
* There are semi-exceptions.
- Flashing Blades assumes about one adventure per game month.
- Pendragon assumes about one adventure per game year.
- And if I understood Chirine's descriptions of Professor Barker's Petal Throne campaign, it assumed one game session per real world week covering the activities of the PCs (which are sometimes pretty mundane) of one game week.
Interestingly, in Greyhawk Gary assumed we were adventuring about once a week. If we did the old "get munched/run home/heal up/try again" we might get a bit faster turnover, but for the most part he assumed one dungeon adventure per week with the rest of the time for healing, maintenance, and other mundane tasks. But it wasn't tied to the real calendar... people were all over the place time-wise.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847455Interestingly, in Greyhawk Gary assumed we were adventuring about once a week. If we did the old "get munched/run home/heal up/try again" we might get a bit faster turnover, but for the most part he assumed one dungeon adventure per week with the rest of the time for healing, maintenance, and other mundane tasks. But it wasn't tied to the real calendar... people were all over the place time-wise.
That was about the same for us in OD&D. In AD&D we ended up with some very high level characters where most of the game turned into Wilderness Exploration and Conquest. Game time moved significantly faster than real time in that game. Same in Runequest where we did a lot of exploration in the Elder Wilds. In Star Trek time moved close to real time as well as we were emulating the weekly series style of play. Star Wars we took longer in real time to play out game time so 10 years of real time was only about 3 years of game time.
It may not be entirely coincidental that once a week is the rate of action in the typical TV series. I'd say that is too fast a rate of action for down time to seem significant compared to the danger and drama, especially when the players can skip over the down time when it is uninteresting.
Because Pendragon does some fairly elaborate year end rolling, maintenance, and accounting it is more successful in feeling like the PCs are in a Michael Bay movie. It sounds like the pace you and Chrine had in EPT allowed for a lot of non-action movie actions. En Garde (which I forgot to mention) with its monthly turns also included a lot of action (toadying, gambling, courting) that was not ACTION.
I think if you're a GM who overuses the NPC betrayal plot point, then you either need to stop doing that or quit complaining.
If you're not overusing it, and your players are being paranoid little bitches and letting their interaction with one NPC influence their interactions with all other NPCs in such an extreme and unrealistic way, have a frank talk with them. If they don't get better, replace them with better players.
I tend to feed off of my players' ideas. If they suspect an otherwise benign NPC of being a secret traitor, and they all appear amused by this idea (or, at least, emotionally invested in it), then I make the NPC start to get all "shifty-eyed" all of a sudden.
Whether they actually turn out to be a traitor or not (or at least, whatever their motives are in line with what the PCs suspected) is another matter :D
Quote from: GeekEclectic;847512have a frank talk with them. If they don't get better, replace them with better players.
This would solve 99 44/100% of all "problems" in RPGs.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;847515This would solve 99 44/100% of all "problems" in RPGs.
Too high. At least 10% of the problems need to be fixed by getting better GMs.
Quote from: Bren;847434What tends to set RPGs apart from real world situations is that the vast majority of games and gamers* skip over the vast majority of the boring or even enjoyably mundane aspects of life to focus on the danger and the drama. Thus the play experience is skewed towards an artificially high level of ACTION even for very active PCs.
* There are semi-exceptions.
- Flashing Blades assumes about one adventure per game month.
- Pendragon assumes about one adventure per game year.
- And if I understood Chirine's descriptions of Professor Barker's Petal Throne campaign, it assumed one game session per real world week covering the activities of the PCs (which are sometimes pretty mundane) of one game week.
Oh, you can add my GuildShool in here.
we fall way behind, due to the way everyhting gets roleplayed. The online game, the 59 full game sessions and the 36 intermezzo sessions (one on one) equal 28 game days.
And, to continue, because of this, we have many, many more NPCs that are fleshed out.
And they have their own agendas, also carefully fleshed out. And the games are very Machiavellian, so there are many who are actually working against the PCs, and some who are working in their own directions. But like in any game with more politics and conversations and social rolls; there is always a lot more below the surface.
Quote from: LordVreeg;847550Oh, you can add my GuildShool in here.
we fall way behind, due to the way everyhting gets roleplayed. The online game, the 59 full game sessions and the 36 intermezzo sessions (one on one) equal 28 game days.
Slow real time to game time is no big deal. Anyone who doesn't play often can do that, but yowza! You get the record for the highest ratio of real time expended to game time passed.
Quote from: Bren;847584Slow real time to game time is no big deal. Anyone who doesn't play often can do that, but yowza! You get the record for the highest ratio of real time expended to game time passed.
There have been worse I've run. I had a time sensitive scenario happen where the PCs played almost every minute. that was 60 ish sessions of live play that did not break 17 days of in game.
It is only pertinent in that the OP is about NPCS betraying the PCs...but the more you play an intrigue and social based game, the more NPCS that you meet, and the more the motives are fleshed out.
And when there are hidden brotherhoods and cults, motivated merchants and guilds, secret agreements and desperate families...things are not always what they seem.
Quote from: LordVreeg;847591There have been worse I've run. I had a time sensitive scenario happen where the PCs played almost every minute. that was 60 ish sessions of live play that did not break 17 days of in game.
You were already the champ. Now all you are doing is making the record that much more difficult for anyone else to break. ;)
QuoteIt is only pertinent in that the OP is about NPCS betraying the PCs...but the more you play an intrigue and social based game, the more NPCS that you meet, and the more the motives are fleshed out.
And when there are hidden brotherhoods and cults, motivated merchants and guilds, secret agreements and desperate families...things are not always what they seem.
I agree. The problem I encounter is that my players can't recall all the NPCs they met nor what all their motivations were. Given that the players have real lives and real motivations to worry about, I'm not surprised (though occasionally a little disappointed) that they don't remember all the details or constantly review their notes out of game to refresh their memories.
What have you or your players done to help track the many NPCs and their connections and motivations and keep that information fresh enough to include in play?
Quote from: Bren;847600You were already the champ. Now all you are doing is making the record that much more difficult for anyone else to break. ;)
I agree. The problem I encounter is that my players can't recall all the NPCs they met nor what all their motivations were. Given that the players have real lives and real motivations to worry about, I'm not surprised (though occasionally a little disappointed) that they don't remember all the details or constantly review their notes out of game to refresh their memories.
What have you or your players done to help track the many NPCs and their connections and motivations and keep that information fresh enough to include in play?
well, one is that we keep player pages on the game wiki, and that we have a wiki altogether. There are pages the players and the GM can write on.
for the online game I referenced, with the 59 and intermezzo is still going on. not only the NPCs, but factions and locations and sessions are here.
Player page (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/67725545/Collegium%20Arcana%20Play%20Notes)
Dramatis Personae (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/89085566/Collegium%20Arcana%20Game%20the%20People)
but in all the games I run, I find that that, since I run very long games, continuity and repetition and consistency is huge. So when we play in town a lot, my note taking and inclusion of known NPCs is huge.
Also, while it may seem a drag to some, continually adding to the wiki in terms of history and information makes it easier for the pcs to go there and keep up with the things that relate to events, notes on guilds and families, locales and neighborhoods.
The other group I mentioned, who spent 60 of their (so far) 165 session tightly wound in a race to find the source of an undead curse, they play in Igbar (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955656/Igbar%2C%20Capital%20of%20Trabler), which is very heavily supported in written work and updated constantly with new information. I also season all of the written work with useful info they have not heard or found yet, but would know.
And yes, they DO forget often, and sometimes so do I, but since my players also have access to the wiki, they update a lot of things themselves. And this is just me, my way of having fun is mine, but giving them so many touchstones seems to help, especially when the people and relationships are so constantly critical.
I think this whole issue is only a problem if you've had players coming from situations where the GM makes just about everyone betray the PCs.
But saying "no NPC will ever betray the PCs" seems just as stupid to me as saying "Bwahahaha, ANYONE who the PCs dare to build a relationship with will end up screwing them over!"
I would think the trick is somewhere in between these extremes.
To return to the original topic of the thread: in my gaming circles I've not seen a problem with PCs mistrusting NPCs in general. The specific issue is the old "NPC who employed the PCs turns out to be the bad guy, betrays them" plot point, which became such a cliche that these days people would be faintly embarrassed to run such a thing.
(For one thing, it rarely makes sense. Even cartoonishly evil characters will appreciate having competent, reliable hirelings and would be more inclined to keep them alive and loyal than betray them pointlessly and make further enemies - worse still, enemies who already have some inside knowledge of the Master Plan. That doesn't mean I won't run games where the PCs' NPC employer turns out to be the bad guy - but at the same time I won't have them turn on the PCs unless the PCs have shown sufficient signs of disloyalty as to lose their employer's trust. I find it much more interesting to see when the PCs decide to betray their NPC employer - for instance, when they decide to take the Gemstone of the Gods that their employer just had them stole and fence it for themselves rather than taking it back to the boss, or when their conscience prompts them to re-evaluate exactly what they're doing and they have a "Hans, are we the baddies?" moment.)
Quote from: Warthur;848226To return to the original topic of the thread: in my gaming circles I've not seen a problem with PCs mistrusting NPCs in general. The specific issue is the old "NPC who employed the PCs turns out to be the bad guy, betrays them" plot point, which became such a cliche that these days people would be faintly embarrassed to run such a thing.
(For one thing, it rarely makes sense.
Yep. The last cyberpunk-type campaign I ran had an experienced Shadowrun player and he immediately brought this up (because, apparently, the PCs get screwed over by their employer in damn near every published Shadowrun adventure). He got a lot more relaxed when I told him that any fixer or Mr. Johnson who made a habit of betraying the teams he hired would be cutting his own throat professionally because, as soon as word got out, nobody would be willing to work for him any more. Depending on who he screwed over and how it went down, he might be cutting his own throat literally, as well.
Quote from: nDervish;848235Yep. The last cyberpunk-type campaign I ran had an experienced Shadowrun player and he immediately brought this up (because, apparently, the PCs get screwed over by their employer in damn near every published Shadowrun adventure). He got a lot more relaxed when I told him that any fixer or Mr. Johnson who made a habit of betraying the teams he hired would be cutting his own throat professionally because, as soon as word got out, nobody would be willing to work for him any more. Depending on who he screwed over and how it went down, he might be cutting his own throat literally, as well.
Vampire/WoD games also had a reputation in my area for being chronic for this, possibly because people tended to apply the mission-based Shadowrun/cyberpunk style of adventure design to them. (Likewise, the local fantasy LARP system tended towards mission-based adventure design and the same cliche kept coming up there.)
Quote from: RPGPundit;848223I think this whole issue is only a problem if you've had players coming from situations where the GM makes just about everyone betray the PCs.
But saying "no NPC will ever betray the PCs" seems just as stupid to me as saying "Bwahahaha, ANYONE who the PCs dare to build a relationship with will end up screwing them over!"
I would think the trick is somewhere in between these extremes.
I don't think the problem is in all-betrayal-all-the-time games.
The more common problem is games where the PCs
have to rely on NPCs or they're breaking the adventure. For example, a man comes up to the PCs telling them about a strange threat over his town to the east - and he asks their help. If the players interrogate him, and check up on his references, the GM gets annoyed about them derailing the adventure.
In the case where there are a bunch of NPCs that GMs want and expect the PCs to rely on, then the players get used to accepting NPC offers as a way of getting to the adventure. Suppose then the players accept an offer, and it turns out to be a trap for the PCs - and the NPC betrays them.
The players get rightly annoyed, because they got into accepting offers as part of going with what GMs wanted.
Well, if you're talking Shadowrun/Cyberpunk or a lot of other games, the PCs are deniable assets if not outright professional criminals. Even in the most hierarchical organization, and you're "made", all that means is someone has to get the right ok to bury you in the desert.
The "Fixer is gonna screw us" trope is a comic cliché really, I have practically every Shadowrun adventure ever published and the number of fixers who screw you I can count on one hand and have fingers left over. As was said above, a Fixer who betrays his clients is a Fixer without clients and/or dead.
That having been said, it depends on the PCs. If they are fuckups who like collateral damage and have a shaky street rep, sending them on a suicide run as a distraction for the real professional team is just good business.
Bottom line, every society has rules, even anarchist ones, and PCs who don't follow any of them are asking to be dry-gulched.
Vreeg may have the record for long-term campaign time compression, but during one harrowing Shadowrun episode when we were running for our lives from an unknown enemy, we had to be extremely careful how we looked for information, who we dealt with, what resources we relied on, etc... A single 24 hr period in-game played out over 5 full 8-10 hour weekend sessions.
Quote from: CRKrueger;848298Well, if you're talking Shadowrun/Cyberpunk or a lot of other games, the PCs are deniable assets if not outright professional criminals. Even in the most hierarchical organization, and you're "made", all that means is someone has to get the right ok to bury you in the desert.
The "Fixer is gonna screw us" trope is a comic cliché really, I have practically every Shadowrun adventure ever published and the number of fixers who screw you I can count on one hand and have fingers left over. As was said above, a Fixer who betrays his clients is a Fixer without clients and/or dead.
That having been said, it depends on the PCs. If they are fuckups who like collateral damage and have a shaky street rep, sending them on a suicide run as a distraction for the real professional team is just good business.
Bottom line, every society has rules, even anarchist ones, and PCs who don't follow any of them are asking to be dry-gulched.
Vreeg may have the record for long-term campaign time compression, but during one harrowing Shadowrun episode when we were running for our lives from an unknown enemy, we had to be extremely careful how we looked for information, who we dealt with, what resources we relied on, etc... A single 24 hr period in-game played out over 5 full 8-10 hour weekend sessions.
In my cyber punk games the big bad is much more likely to cut the PCs a deal than try and fight them. In one memorable scene reminiscent of the shoot out in True Romance. All but 1 of the PCs are dead, all the bad guys are dead, the big bad, a Sony Executive who has been running a Terrorist Group called the Blue Circle is sitting in the middle of the room gut shot and bleeding out. The remaining PC, Dragard D'Bard, ex-popstar, ex TV actor, ex drug dealer turned fixer is about to shoot the guy that poisoned him, killed all his mates, framed him for a series of murders in a lunar space station etc. in the head. Lawrence just looks at him and says,"So isn't it about time we talked about your future TV career."
Quote from: Warthur;848226To return to the original topic of the thread: in my gaming circles I've not seen a problem with PCs mistrusting NPCs in general. The specific issue is the old "NPC who employed the PCs turns out to be the bad guy, betrays them" plot point, which became such a cliche that these days people would be faintly embarrassed to run such a thing.
Yeah, pretty much this. If an NPC betrays the PCs, and it makes sense in context, and as a result of the developing situation, then I don't know many people that would have issues with it.
The issue arises, I think, when it was clear that the betrayal was planned from day one. It's less about "betrayal" and more about "GMs fucking with you."
Quote from: jibbajibba;848303In my cyber punk games the big bad is much more likely to cut the PCs a deal than try and fight them. In one memorable scene reminiscent of the shoot out in True Romance. All but 1 of the PCs are dead, all the bad guys are dead, the big bad, a Sony Executive who has been running a Terrorist Group called the Blue Circle is sitting in the middle of the room gut shot and bleeding out. The remaining PC, Dragard D'Bard, ex-popstar, ex TV actor, ex drug dealer turned fixer is about to shoot the guy that poisoned him, killed all his mates, framed him for a series of murders in a lunar space station etc. in the head. Lawrence just looks at him and says,"So isn't it about time we talked about your future TV career."
Yup, "Nothing personal, it's just Business." However, a lot of the time, guys in that position are so Alpha Personality the fact that you got one over on them and made them deal will stick in their craw, and you'll have to off them eventually. So you get the money, they get to live, then you both start the shadow plans to kill each other once and for all. :D
Well, in a genre like cyberpunk you should expect that betrayal be a bit more common.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585.. I really do thing my players' willingness to invest in and fully interact with NPCs has improved since I secretly implemented the "no NPC betrayals" policy.
What do you folks think?
I think it's a really good idea, and I have been adopting a much more benign,
Yes, and..
Yes, but
Would you like to fail forward
approach to all my gaming recently, and this fits well with it.
Quote from: jhkim;848289I don't think the problem is in all-betrayal-all-the-time games.
The more common problem is games where the PCs have to rely on NPCs or they're breaking the adventure. For example, a man comes up to the PCs telling them about a strange threat over his town to the east - and he asks their help. If the players interrogate him, and check up on his references, the GM gets annoyed about them derailing the adventure.
In the case where there are a bunch of NPCs that GMs want and expect the PCs to rely on, then the players get used to accepting NPC offers as a way of getting to the adventure. Suppose then the players accept an offer, and it turns out to be a trap for the PCs - and the NPC betrays them.
The players get rightly annoyed, because they got into accepting offers as part of going with what GMs wanted.
The more 'social' or 'political' the game, the more this is true.
But there is a difference between betrayal and having self interest or motivation.
Quote from: RPGPundit;848769Well, in a genre like cyberpunk you should expect that betrayal be a bit more common.
Someone with relevant knowledge who tells you the whole, honest truth and nothing but the truth is so incredibly rare that the PCs should immediately distrust such an individual.
In a cyberpunk setting it's best to setup a small, easily discovered covert agenda that's sufficiently innocuous that no one cares to dig further. Like discovering corps advertising campaigns for a PR firm to let them get a leg up or something like that.
Quote from: RPGPundit;848769Well, in a genre like cyberpunk you should expect that betrayal be a bit more common.
Oriental Adventures had this too. Yakuza and Ninja masters might "test" you by sending you out to kill a loved one. Who might have been a plant by said master all along. So a double dose of screwover in the making.
Quote from: tzunder;848781Yes, and..
Yes, but
Would you like to fail forward
approach to all my gaming recently, and this fits well with it.
Jesus Wept. RPGSite, we need an Intervention!
What I think is that, just to participate sanely in real life, people need to learn that one instance of a dirty deal does not warrant global paranoia.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;846627"NPC betrays PC" is the second most overused trope in gaming.
The problem comes in when any NPC who is more than a simple shopkeeper ALWAYS betrays the PCs. I've seen more campaigns than I can remember over the last 40 years where literally every NPC was treacherous. In cases like that it's no wonder players acquire a "kill first and let the referee sort them out later" point of view.
I was in one game session where it had gotten so bad that the PCs, IN CHARACTER, were sitting at a dinner party discussing when, how, and why the host was going to betray them.
Which, of course, he did.
Yes, THAT creates a problem!
Having NPCs behave like the spectrum of real people is the way to go if we want PCs to be that way. After all, the players *are* real people, which means they are likely to notice patterns and make strategies in light of their own priorities.
Every table sort of establishes its own comfort zone. For example, at my table if I have an NPC building up towards a betrayal of the party, or if I was setting up an encounter where a monster disguised as an ordinary NPC is bracing for an ambush, not only would the players in my longest-running game be fine with it, they would often play along when they could see the twist coming (I'm not that clever at hiding this kind of stuff I gotta say) "because [our characters] wouldn't know." Which I always felt was a little condescending; if you saw through my trap then please blow it the fuck up and don't go all White Wolf on me but w/e.
On the other hand one time I had a rifleman engage the party at something like 1,500 feet, an extreme but not impossible targeting range for a skilled marksman, and it took the party straight up 10 rounds to reach him and I guess nobody had Protection from Arrows prepared. After that game I had two of my players come up to me and basically say if I ever did that again they'd walk out. I really didn't know what to say... it was a campaign where flintlock weapons were a well-established part of the setting (which the PCs had basically chosen to never make use of) and an obvious tactic for the party's enemies to think of. But in the mind of at least some of my players it violated some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" they thought I had been running with them. People are weird.
Quote from: Harime Nui;851424On the other hand one time I had a rifleman engage the party at something like 1,500 feet, an extreme but not impossible targeting range for a skilled marksman,...
Yes indeed. Modern marksmen with smokeless powder and high quality rifles can hit targets way out there.
Also, welcome to the Forum!
Quote...and it took the party straight up 10 rounds to reach him and I guess nobody had Protection from Arrows prepared.
Does Protection from Arrow protect from rifle bullets? They have a lot more kinetic energy than an arrow.
QuoteAfter that game I had two of my players come up to me and basically say if I ever did that again they'd walk out. I really didn't know what to say... it was a campaign where flintlock weapons were a well-established part of the setting (which the PCs had basically chosen to never make use of) and an obvious tactic for the party's enemies to think of. But in the mind of at least some of my players it violated some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" they thought I had been running with them. People are weird.
The sniper hit a moving target with a flintlock rifle from 1500 feet? That sounds unlikely to me with a flintlock black powder gun, rifled or not.
This was a game where the party fighter was using a Large Greatsword (it was literally 11 ft long) and making three attacks a round, an elite marksman being able to hit something at 500 yards with a specially designed long rifle might be pushing what was really possible for flintlock weapons but they had no room to complain on that score. But they weren't complaining on that score. Their complaint was that their characters were completely designed to interact with melee and win melee encounters and when the world didn't accommodate this, they weren't having fun. I mean I didn't do it again after that and stuck to huge monsters and stuff but it was like..... I know it's maybe not sexy like fighting with two scimitars but have you considered buying a tower shield....
e: Er, not the point. Point was, my players were A-OK with me using narrative deception, but they wanted a completely straightforward game where I definitely was making no effort to outwit them when it came to combat (and they still get pissy if I use terrain like, at all). It goes to show that people all come to the table with different expectations and you have to make an accommodation that works for that table. There's no one size fits all guideline to playing Pretend Knights and Elves!
Quote from: Bren;851442Does Protection from Arrow protect from rifle bullets? They have a lot more kinetic energy than an arrow.
Off topic: According to Dragon 100 AD&D module The City Beyond the Gate, yes. Protection from normal missiles stops bullets and grenade fragments. Shield improves AC against bullets too.
Quote from: Harime Nui;851424After that game I had two of my players come up to me and basically say if I ever did that again they'd walk out. I really didn't know what to say... it was a campaign where flintlock weapons were a well-established part of the setting (which the PCs had basically chosen to never make use of) and an obvious tactic for the party's enemies to think of. But in the mind of at least some of my players it violated some unspoken "gentleman's agreement" they thought I had been running with them. People are weird.
"Good bye." Alternatively, "don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on your way out."
ON the other hand, as I say repeatedly, establishing expectations before the game ever even starts is crucial.
Quote from: Harime Nui;851444I definitely was making no effort to outwit them when it came to combat (and they still get pissy if I use terrain like, at all).
Why would you even continue playing under those circumstances? Firstly, any player who whines is not invited back in my game, and secondly, I tell people right up front that the bad guys are trying to win.
"Of course I'm working against the players! I'm playing the bad guys!" Tim Kask, GaryCon 2014.
Really, lining up enemies for your players to knock over without trying is my ultimate in Bad Gaming. And not gaming is better than bad gaming.
I said it was what they wanted, but not what I gave them! We compromised like adults, and while I play enemies as intelligent as appropriate---and I use terrain, elevation and group tactics whether my players like it or not---I don't use certain things like snipers or save-or-die spells anymore.
e: There is one guy I don't game with anymore who had this asshole crushbeast greatsword fighter who was the worst character to design encounters around because she had no will save, no ranged weapons, was literally just a one-trick character who would annihilate everything in melee (always did 100+ total damage in two rounds.... to this day I think there was something fishy about it) but could get her game totally ruined if she couldn't run in a straight line right at her opponent. Like you could fuck her invincible charge up by putting a fairly heavy chair in her path. One time I had the party fight an enemy in a cathedral full of pews and I couldn't stop laughing but anyway he was the worst one about wanting literally an XP conveyor belt. I seriously asked him one time, do you just want to easily win every fight every time and he was like "yeah?"
e: A real big difference between me and my players is, I think the idea of slowing combat to a crawl so you can stealth up to a guy who's got a rifle or having to take cover and carefully consider an approach is cool and my players want to... I don't know, smack Pit Fiends with glowing swords?
Quote from: Harime Nui;851444This was a game where the party fighter was using a Large Greatsword (it was literally 11 ft long) and making three attacks a round, .... Their complaint was that their characters were completely designed to interact with melee and win melee encounters and when the world didn't accommodate this, they weren't having fun. ... I know it's maybe not sexy like fighting with two scimitars but have you considered buying a tower shield....
... they wanted a completely straightforward game where I definitely was making no effort to outwit them when it came to combat (and they still get pissy if I use terrain like, at all).
Wow. Is there a word for that sort of player? A-Tactical Fantasy-Penis-Stokers?
QuoteIt goes to show that people all come to the table with different expectations and you have to make an accommodation that works for that table. ...
What? I "have to make an accommodation that works for that table"? LOL. Not likely. Oh look, it's a squad of redcoats at 300ft, who have a warrant for a demon with an 11-foot greatsword...
Quote from: Skarg;851745Wow. Is there a word for that sort of player? A-Tactical Fantasy-Penis-Stokers?
I've always used "roll to see how awesome you are".
Power Gamer was sometimes applied to that type. But that may be a misnomer. The Power Gamer wants to be more awesome than anyone else. Whereas this type of player just wants their side to allways win. Was that what they called the Safety Gamer? (Safety Net?)
These are the types that might baulk at betrayer NPCs. Though some just limit their view to combat.
I would totally fire those players from my table. Totally badwrongfun and truly deserving of atonement and penance. Fighters who strictly do melee on coveyer belt of enemies, my ass! What's next, you don't do windows or talk to NPCs? Bullshit, off my table. Keep that masturbation in private.
Quote from: Skarg;851745Wow. Is there a word for that sort of player? A-Tactical Fantasy-Penis-Stokers?
Power Fantasy Penis Stokers, maybe. But there's nothing "tactical" about XP conveyor belts or hammering the "I win" button with the expectation that it will work every time without fail.
From the description Id lean more to classifying them as safety gamers. They dont want to one-up eachother or the DM from the sounds of it. They just dont want any chance of losing in combat? Which sounds like it extends to NPCs pulling tricks either.
Sounds a little boring. But who knows what instilled in them that ideal. A bad DM. They really like the story only? That is all theyve ever known? This is where I'd site down with the players and go. "Uh. Guys and Gals? Explain to me why things are going like they are going because it feels a little off kilter? What is your problem with there being any threat to your characters?"
Kinda the opposite of the players who happily throw themselves into the meatgrinder over and over.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;846585A long while back I took a stray comment on this forum to heart (paraphrasing): "Though betrayal is a staple of fine literature for a reason, even one NPC betrayal poisons your players' future interactions with all other NPCs for many, many sessions, possibly even multiple campaigns."
Now this is just anecdotal, but I really do thing my players' willingness to invest in and fully interact with NPCs has improved since I secretly implemented the "no NPC betrayals" policy.
What do you folks think?
I think it is a matter of volume. If it is completely off the table, then I think you can miss out on the fun of "should we really trust this guy" situations. But if their best allies are constantly betraying them, it gets old quickly.
Quote from: nDervish;851892Power Fantasy Penis Stokers, maybe. But there's nothing "tactical" about XP conveyor belts or hammering the "I win" button with the expectation that it will work every time without fail.
Right. I meant A-Tactical as in "Not-Tactical", since the OP wrote their main objection seemed to be to the presence of anyone using a tactic against them. (Heaven forbid they take cover or not simply charge-and-kill-and-win against everything.)
I wouldn't say Power Gamer was the same thing. I can enjoy running a game for super-powered PCs and letting them use their powers to lay waste to stuff. As long as they don't also insist on not having to think at all and never having any tactical circumstances that don't fit their abilities, etc.
Quote from: Opaopajr;851886I would totally fire those players from my table. Totally badwrongfun and truly deserving of atonement and penance. Fighters who strictly do melee on coveyer belt of enemies, my ass! What's next, you don't do windows or talk to NPCs? Bullshit, off my table. Keep that masturbation in private.
Ever play World of Warcraft? Every starting zone is full of medium to high level players running around killing squirrels, cows, sheep, and other critters with one hit point, no XP, and no treasure.
I did say that guy doesn't game with me anymore. In the end he got bored with RPGs altogether, but I'm sure it had nothing to do with his ehhh "playstyle."
At present I have one remaining player and am running a solo game because I decided I was done trying to put up with the two bad players and the other good one got A GIRLFRIEND
I'm running my first campaign in a long time now since I finally admitted the old campaign had died (after nine years---admittedly with a two year gap in there--it was hard to let go). It's a solo game for my remaining player, so it's essentially everything he likes---political intrigue + conspiracies, no wilderness, no dungeons. He is a nobleman with a lot of social power but he also has to make allies/patrons in court to get anywhere. It's fun but it's barely recognizable as D&D which makes me sad, but that's not the game my friend wants to play. Maybe if I had Birthright...
Quote from: Bren;851442The sniper hit a moving target with a flintlock rifle from 1500 feet? That sounds unlikely to me with a flintlock black powder gun, rifled or not.
I just remembered what I actually did in that encounter: it was a long rifle with spells of
True Strike etched onto attached brass plates. The rifleman (having the Use Magic Device skill) just read one off before firing. Shoulda said so but it's been a few years since I ran that game
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;851935Ever play World of Warcraft? Every starting zone is full of medium to high level players running around killing squirrels, cows, sheep, and other critters with one hit point, no XP, and no treasure.
"Death to harmless, fluffy critters!"
Yeah, I know. I have played WoW... I got bored from the "first 20 lvls free" enticement, and quit somewhere around lvl 10 I think. Wasn't there a few early level quests where you had to kill so many deer and stuff and return? It's all a vague blur of me getting tired of looking at hotkey buttons waiting on their timers to reset.
But at least that sort of masturbation is mostly out of sight, out of mind — except for PC Rooms.
Birthright is good, by the way. The challenge is in bokkeeping the NPC regents and reminding your players that it is not a Four X game. (Basically, you are more than a server for NPC regents plotting, that going on adventures and visiting the world at least a few times a year is important.)
Quote from: Harime Nui;851940It's fun but it's barely recognizable as D&D which makes me sad, but that's not the game my friend wants to play. Maybe if I had Birthright...
It is barely in modern D&D. But the endgame for O/BX/BECMI/AD&D was the castle/kingdom. Especially in BECMI. So political intrigues fits right in with D&D. Birthright may be another, but I know very little on it past doing some line readings for a recording.
Quote from: Skarg;851924Right. I meant A-Tactical as in "Not-Tactical", since the OP wrote their main objection seemed to be to the presence of anyone using a tactic against them. (Heaven forbid they take cover or not simply charge-and-kill-and-win against everything.)
Ah, right. Got you. I missed the hyphen and assumed the "a" was just an indefinite article rather than a negating prefix.
Quote from: Skarg;851924I wouldn't say Power Gamer was the same thing.
Agreed. Power gaming and power fantasies are two different, but often related, things.