Discussion:
Five Character Types to Avoid
(too old to reply)
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-22 06:44:08 UTC
Permalink
For your commentary and/or amusement, here is something I recently
posted as a .txt file on my gaming group's Web site.

Character types to avoid

The hyperkinetic, obnoxious spotlight hog
The Man With No Name
The dual-scimitar-wielding Drow ranger
Conan the Librarian
The Wrong Toadstool

The spotlight hog comes in quite a few varieties. The root of the
problem is usually that the player designed his character as the star of
the show, not as a member of a team; that or the player just lacks the
social graces to back down and let others enjoy the game on something
other than his terms once in a while. Some such players assume that if
the others don't complain in front of them, there isn't a problem, which
shows a rather poor understanding of human nature. In any event, make
sure your character will work with the others and that you as a player
aren't taking up too much more than your share of the group's time and
the GM's effort.

The Man With No Name is the character who comes in with no background or
personality to speak of (this includes most backgrounds of the loner-
orphan-with-a-shadowy-past variety). While it's okay to start out
sketchy and develop the details in play, starting as *too* much of a
blank slate makes it almost impossible for the GM or the other players
to relate to or motivate your character. At a minimum, come in with a
name, a couple of motives or personality traits, a minimal sense of your
character's moral beliefs and a vague idea of where you want your
character to go in the future (it's okay if the latter changes a lot).

The dual-scimitar-wielding Drow ranger refers to obvious ripoffs of
characters from movies, novels, TV series, etc (the direct reference is
to Drizzt Do'Urden, hero of many Forgotten Realms novels and one of the
most frequently "cloned" characters around). While the occasional homage
can work well, in general it takes an experienced player who is flexible
enough to understand that the character *won't* be exactly like the one
in the source material - and even embrace this fact as an opportunity to
put his or her own stamp on it - to pull it off. (Murdock, Laurie
Smith's character in my recently ended Birthright game, is an example of
doing this *well*.) In less capable hands this is a recipe for
disapointment for the player and hard on suspension of disbelief for
everyone else, and even if it works it's likely to be less satisfying in
the long run than something more original in all but a few cases.

Conan the Librarian is what I call characters who have no motivation to
actually go on adventures. At some point your options boil down to two -
retire the character, or take suspension of disbelief out behind the
shed and kill it with an axe. Neither is a very satisfying experience.
Characters surprise you sometimes, and not always in a good way, so
sometimes it can be understandable for this to end up happening, but try
to avoid characters where you can see it coming a mile off. Adventurers
are not normal people; they make their livings taking risks that most
people would dismiss as insane. They need to have ambitions that don't
involve retiring into quiet obscurity.

One other character type to avoid is worth mentioning - the character
who used to be of a normal race like human or elf, but got transformed
into something else after angering a witch, eating the wrong toadstool,
or encountering some other supernatural agent. First of all, in D&D and
some other fantasy games this sort if thing normally isn't that hard to
undo, so the character is likely to lose their big "hook" early on.
Secondly I'm not that enamoured of characters with bizarre races to
begin with. I know a lot of people are, and I am aware that WotC has an
entire book on the subject (as does at least one other D20 publisher),
but personally I just don't see the attraction. But my real objection is
just that it's been overdone in my games over the last few years. If it
hadn't been, I might be more willing to accept it.

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-22 15:54:13 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@news.easynews.com>,
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote:

>Conan the Librarian is what I call characters who have no motivation to
>actually go on adventures. At some point your options boil down to two -
>retire the character, or take suspension of disbelief out behind the
>shed and kill it with an axe.

We call this guy the Reluctant Hero, and we discourage him too.
If the character's natural bent is to get away from the adventures,
the GM is in for endless amounts of work trying to rope him back
in. At some point, I lost my willingness to work so hard as GM....

If the player wants a character who does not like adventuring, a
solution that works for us is having a strong duty obligation, often
to another PC. (But watch out that the second PC is played by
a reliable player, because if they quit or change characters it's
a pest.) While it's a staple of roleplaying advice books, revenge
does *not* work for us as a substitute for duty. It's too likely
that once revenge is accomplished the PC will become unplayable, or
that this essentially personal motivation will lead the PC to break
up with the party.

>One other character type to avoid is worth mentioning - the character
>who used to be of a normal race like human or elf, but got transformed
>into something else after angering a witch, eating the wrong toadstool,
>or encountering some other supernatural agent.

We call this one Scooby-Do, after that post several years ago which
explained ideal party composition in terms of the team on the Scooby
Show. The author of that post felt that Scoobys come no more than one
per party, and I'm inclined to agree. Being weird is a niche just
like everything else, and too many characters in the same niche leads
to trouble.

I haven't had so many of them that I feel inclined to ban them in
general, though I'm sure I'd come to that point fairly quickly.

The other character type I am personally doubtful about is the guy
with a Big Awful Secret, either one that will cause constant trouble
with the game-world or one that will cause the other PCs to reject
him if discovered. The first one seems to coerce the GM and other
players into spending too much time on this one PC, and may be a
variant of your Spotlight Hog. The second one I have seen work well,
but the risk of having to choose between evicting the PC or breaking
SOD is rather high.

Mary kuhner ***@eskimo.com
Charlton Wilbur
2004-10-22 17:44:53 UTC
Permalink
>>>>> "MK" == Mary K Kuhner <***@kingman.gs.washington.edu> writes:

MK> We call this guy the Reluctant Hero, and we discourage him
MK> too. If the character's natural bent is to get away from the
MK> adventures, the GM is in for endless amounts of work trying to
MK> rope him back in. At some point, I lost my willingness to
MK> work so hard as GM....

MK> If the player wants a character who does not like adventuring,
MK> a solution that works for us is having a strong duty
MK> obligation, often to another PC.

In a campaign that featured multiple characters per player, but with
each player only playing one character at once, I played a reluctant
hero -- the kicker was that (as you note) he needed *something* to
goad him into action, and the most common one was that his liege lord
ordered him to go do whatever-it-was. This worked quite well for the
campaign structure: Kael would get ordered to go do X, spend a few
sessions grumbling about it and lecturing assorted fellow PCs and NPCs
on how it was safer to stay at home, accomplish whatever-it-was, and
then go back offstage for a while. I don't think it would have worked
nearly as well for a campaign with only one character per player,
because the "his liege ordered him to, um, hang out with these people"
would have really stretched disbelief.

MK> The other character type I am personally doubtful about is the
MK> guy with a Big Awful Secret, either one that will cause
MK> constant trouble with the game-world or one that will cause
MK> the other PCs to reject him if discovered. The first one
MK> seems to coerce the GM and other players into spending too
MK> much time on this one PC, and may be a variant of your
MK> Spotlight Hog. The second one I have seen work well, but the
MK> risk of having to choose between evicting the PC or breaking
MK> SOD is rather high.

I've seen this work exceptionally well when the players trusted each
other *and* the character was scheduled to depart the scene for
NPChood when the Big Secret was revealed. I'm not sure it would have
worked with less trust (because it did involve an element of betrayal)
and with trying to keep the character in play (because of the Big
Secret).

Charlton


--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Brandon Cope
2004-10-23 20:40:29 UTC
Permalink
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message news:<clbaf5$n9b$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <***@news.easynews.com>,
> Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote:
>
> >Conan the Librarian is what I call characters who have no motivation to
> >actually go on adventures. At some point your options boil down to two -
> >retire the character, or take suspension of disbelief out behind the
> >shed and kill it with an axe.
>
> We call this guy the Reluctant Hero, and we discourage him too.
> If the character's natural bent is to get away from the adventures,
> the GM is in for endless amounts of work trying to rope him back
> in. At some point, I lost my willingness to work so hard as GM....

The Reluctant Hero isn't bad *if* he lets him know the condistion(s)
under which he will no longer be Reluctant (and hopefully these are
not very hard conditions to meet) and the GM works toward fulfulling
these conditions starting around the second or third adventure.

Brandon
Kevin Lowe
2004-10-24 00:57:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:

> ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message
> news:<clbaf5$n9b$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...

> > We call this guy the Reluctant Hero, and we discourage him too.
> > If the character's natural bent is to get away from the adventures,
> > the GM is in for endless amounts of work trying to rope him back
> > in. At some point, I lost my willingness to work so hard as GM....
>
> The Reluctant Hero isn't bad *if* he lets him know the condistion(s)
> under which he will no longer be Reluctant (and hopefully these are
> not very hard conditions to meet) and the GM works toward fulfulling
> these conditions starting around the second or third adventure.

I don't think a character is a Reluctant Hero in the first place if they
are easy to motivate to take part in the game, and the GM knows how to
motivate them.

("Easy" of course is a complicated value judgement, involving suspension
of disbelief and choice of premises used more than anything else in my
experience of these cases).

A mildly annoying variant of the Reluctant Hero I've seen a few times is
the Inappropriately Mercenary Hero, who refuses to engage with the
scenario unless they are offered a suitable reward for their time and
trouble up front. This is just fine in some games, but I've seen people
insist on playing these guys in games where the campaign premise was
that the PCs were altruistic heroes who did good for its own sake.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-26 09:55:59 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:57:26 +1000, Kevin Lowe <***@private.net> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> A mildly annoying variant of the Reluctant Hero I've seen a few times is
> the Inappropriately Mercenary Hero, who refuses to engage with the
> scenario unless they are offered a suitable reward for their time and
> trouble up front. This is just fine in some games, but I've seen people
> insist on playing these guys in games where the campaign premise was
> that the PCs were altruistic heroes who did good for its own sake.

I find these types more than mildly annoying. They only work in games
about making money (or gaining power). In games about saving the
world, or just wandering through the world doing good and great deeds
they suck. One game I was in we had a player get quite upset when his
character said he wasn't interested in finding some lost peasant
because there was no money in it, and we went ahead without him. He
seemed to think that we should break our characters to keep his in
play.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-26 09:49:54 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:54:13 +0000 (UTC),
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) carved upon a
tablet of ether:

> We call this guy the Reluctant Hero, and we discourage him too.
> If the character's natural bent is to get away from the adventures,
> the GM is in for endless amounts of work trying to rope him back
> in. At some point, I lost my willingness to work so hard as GM....

I spent years trying to persuade a friend that this was a bad idea as
a character type. I think he finally understood what he meant when he
ran a game, and had several such characters in it. I haven't seen him
run a reluctant hero again.

> If the player wants a character who does not like adventuring, a
> solution that works for us is having a strong duty obligation, often
> to another PC. (But watch out that the second PC is played by
> a reliable player, because if they quit or change characters it's
> a pest.) While it's a staple of roleplaying advice books, revenge
> does *not* work for us as a substitute for duty. It's too likely
> that once revenge is accomplished the PC will become unplayable, or
> that this essentially personal motivation will lead the PC to break
> up with the party.

It also, IME, tends to result in very one-dimensional characters, and
for it to explain a willingness to adventure it needs to be a strong
motivation for revenge, which means the character is likely to resist
side-quests, down-time, and so on.

I've had some problems with this in my current D&D game in which one
group of PCs all came from the same village, which was put to the
sword and flame by orcs. They PCs all swore revenge together, and
things went well until one of them (the knight leading the party, to
make matters worse), decided that personal advancement and power was
more important than revenge. This shattered the party's cohesion, as
half still wanted revenge, the knight wanted to deal with one of the
orc factions, and another character felt that if they were no longer
going to kill all the orcs in the world he may as well retire and grow
apples.

> I haven't had so many of them that I feel inclined to ban them in
> general, though I'm sure I'd come to that point fairly quickly.

Heh. This same D&D game currently has two characters who might
qualify, though they aren't that wierd. One got transformed from a
fiarly normal High Elf into a Primal Elf from Before Time. Another has
become a deity's Agent, and gained the Celestial template (and about a
foot of height).

> The other character type I am personally doubtful about is the guy
> with a Big Awful Secret, either one that will cause constant trouble
> with the game-world or one that will cause the other PCs to reject
> him if discovered. The first one seems to coerce the GM and other
> players into spending too much time on this one PC, and may be a
> variant of your Spotlight Hog. The second one I have seen work well,
> but the risk of having to choose between evicting the PC or breaking
> SOD is rather high.

I've never had the latter type work - either the secret comes out, and
the party comes apart or SoD dies, or the game gets all bent out of
shape by the need to keep the secret hidden. This can be avoided if
secret is easy to hide, or never comes up, but then it's not really
significant to the character, either.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-22 15:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Oh, thought of another one: the Strong Silent type. He can work in
a combat-centric game, but if much of the game is carried by conversation
and social interaction, whether between the PCs or PC to NPC, this
character is just not going to be visible in play.

In some post-mortems of the convention module "Webs of Deceit" the
GMs reached an interesting conclusion. They had included a Strong
Silent Guy among the PCs, but his players were frustrated and
disappointed--if they kept silent they had little engagement with
the game, if they didn't they were out of character. As a result,
they weren't happy during play and also could never win the
Best Character awards, though no fault of their own. This analysis
convinced me to be wary of such PCs.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
Brandon Cope
2004-10-23 20:31:33 UTC
Permalink
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message news:<clbak1$nfa$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> Oh, thought of another one: the Strong Silent type. He can work in
> a combat-centric game, but if much of the game is carried by conversation
> and social interaction, whether between the PCs or PC to NPC, this
> character is just not going to be visible in play.
>
> In some post-mortems of the convention module "Webs of Deceit" the
> GMs reached an interesting conclusion. They had included a Strong
> Silent Guy among the PCs, but his players were frustrated and
> disappointed--if they kept silent they had little engagement with
> the game, if they didn't they were out of character. As a result,
> they weren't happy during play and also could never win the
> Best Character awards, though no fault of their own. This analysis
> convinced me to be wary of such PCs.

OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
Jayne Cobb from the TV series Firefly is a prime example.

Brandon
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-24 09:23:28 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
> OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of

It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
and decides that the PC must die?

> Jayne Cobb from the TV series Firefly is a prime example.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Brandon Cope
2004-10-24 19:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> Brandon Cope wrote:
> > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
>
> It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> and decides that the PC must die?

In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.

Brandon
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-24 21:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
>>Brandon Cope wrote:
>>>OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
>>>the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
>>>inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
>>>says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
>>>danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
>>
>>It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
>>and decides that the PC must die?
>
> In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.

No. The GM in no way decides whether the PC lives or dies.
The NPC does.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Brandon Cope
2004-10-25 01:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> Brandon Cope wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> >>Brandon Cope wrote:
> >>>OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> >>>the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> >>>inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> >>>says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> >>>danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> >>
> >>It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> >>and decides that the PC must die?
> >
> > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
>
> No. The GM in no way decides whether the PC lives or dies.
> The NPC does.

However, as the GM ing running the NPC ...

Brandon
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-25 11:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
>>No. The GM in no way decides whether the PC lives or dies.
>>The NPC does.
>
> However, as the GM ing running the NPC ...

I'm not responsible for the actions of the NPCs.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Indiana Joe
2004-10-25 11:22:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>,
Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

> Brandon Cope wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> >>No. The GM in no way decides whether the PC lives or dies.
> >>The NPC does.
> >
> > However, as the GM ing running the NPC ...
>
> I'm not responsible for the actions of the NPCs.

What about the inaction of other NPCs that you hadn't created?

--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
***@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Sea Wasp
2004-10-25 11:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> Brandon Cope wrote:
>
>> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>>> No. The GM in no way decides whether the PC lives or dies. The NPC does.
>>
>>
>> However, as the GM ing running the NPC ...
>
>
> I'm not responsible for the actions of the NPCs.
>

Bakana. Of course you are. You design the NPCs. You decide how they
think. You're completely responsible for their actions.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Beowulf Bolt
2004-10-25 19:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
>
> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > >
> > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining.
> > > Unlike the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be
> > > *highly* inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In
> > > other words, he says what the other PCs are thinking but don't
> > > dare to say. The only danger is that the other _players_ get
> > > offended. The character of
> >
> > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > and decides that the PC must die?
>
> In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.

No 'annoyance' on the part of the GM is required. If the personality
of the NPC is such that he will take lethal offense to such provocation,
then the whole thing is as impartial and preordained as, say, a 1st
level character attacking a dragon.

F'rex in a campaign I ran, one of the characters - who emerged from
obscurity to be a hero to the realm for having helped preserve the rule
of a new king - took the opportunity provided by a gladhanding and
reward ceremony offered by the new king to unsubtly - and in public -
warn his liege that if he screwed up his reign, the character would
"come for him".

So we have an open threat offered against a leader who cannot allow
any challenges to his shaky authority to go unchallenged. My decision
that the king sought out one of his foremost warriors to manufacture a
public insult at the ceremony and force a lethal challenge was based on
the politics involved - of which the group was perfectly aware - and not
any annoyance I may have felt.

(You could say that this character had it coming. While engaged in
delicate diplomacy with a tribe with whom the group was communicating by
rudimentary sign language, he once whipped his, err, 'unit' out to
illustrate the concept of a river. That urinating in their direction
might be regarded as an insult apparently never occured to him. The
object lesson provided by that particular battle apparently never sank
home.)

Biff

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Cope
2004-10-26 03:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<***@shaw.ca>...
> Brandon Cope wrote:
> >
> > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining.
> > > > Unlike the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be
> > > > *highly* inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In
> > > > other words, he says what the other PCs are thinking but don't
> > > > dare to say. The only danger is that the other _players_ get
> > > > offended. The character of
> > >
> > > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > > and decides that the PC must die?
> >
> > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
>
> No 'annoyance' on the part of the GM is required. If the personality
> of the NPC is such that he will take lethal offense to such provocation,
> then the whole thing is as impartial and preordained as, say, a 1st
> level character attacking a dragon.

Ah, well, I don't think a GM is supposed to be impartial, so we differ
on a fundamental level.

> So we have an open threat offered against a leader who cannot allow
> any challenges to his shaky authority to go unchallenged. My decision

See, you even admitted that this was your decision.

Brandon
Beowulf Bolt
2004-10-26 16:06:03 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
>
> Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:<***@shaw.ca>...
> > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining.
> > > > > Unlike the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to
> > > > > be *highly* inappropriate (but often what others are
> > > > > thinking). In other words, he says what the other PCs are
> > > > > thinking but don't dare to say. The only danger is that the
> > > > > other _players_ get offended.
> > > >
> > > > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > > > and decides that the PC must die?
> > >
> > > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the
> > > character.
> >
> > No 'annoyance' on the part of the GM is required. If the
> > personality of the NPC is such that he will take lethal offense to
> > such provocation, then the whole thing is as impartial and
> > preordained as, say, a 1st level character attacking a dragon.
>
> Ah, well, I don't think a GM is supposed to be impartial, so we differ
> on a fundamental level.

I don't know that I'd strictly agree that a GM is 'supposed' to be
impartial either. But in that particular campaign, I was adjudicating
according to a largely simulationist methodology. In other campaigns,
run according to different criteria, I may have handled it in other
fashions.

What would you have done in the situation I described (politically
unimportant PC commits lèse-majesté)? As a matter of curiousity.


> > So we have an open threat offered against a leader who cannot
> > allow any challenges to his shaky authority to go unchallenged. My
> > decision
>
> See, you even admitted that this was your decision.

Oh, absolutely it was my decision. It just was not based on anything
as trivial as whether or not I was 'annoyed'. It played out as strictly
as I could make it according to in-game factors that the group was (or
could have been) aware of. As far as I'm concerned, the character
committed an ugly and indirect form of suicide (equivalent to
suicide-by-dragon).

Even now - more than a decade later - our gaming group still jokes
about this as a textbook case of "what NOT to say to a king". It may be
significant that none of them - including player whose character it was
- fault the response.

Biff

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-26 10:01:56 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Oct 2004 12:23:11 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> >
> > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > and decides that the PC must die?
>
> In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.

How about the GM sees that it would be out of character for the NPC to
not take offence and have the PC killed?


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 02:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 24 Oct 2004 12:23:11 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > > > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > > > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > > > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > > > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> > >
> > > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > > and decides that the PC must die?
> >
> > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
>
> How about the GM sees that it would be out of character for the NPC to
> not take offence and have the PC killed?

Because it's too easy for the GM to justify killing a PC based on an NPC's whim.

Brandon
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-27 02:56:05 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Oct 2004 19:51:19 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> > How about the GM sees that it would be out of character for the NPC to
> > not take offence and have the PC killed?
>
> Because it's too easy for the GM to justify killing a PC based on an NPC's whim.

And? The GM not killing your character on an 'NPC whim' is a matter
for group contract. If the game's being run in a realistic manner, and
you piss off a king, there's a good chance you'll be dead or in the
dungeons, depending on the king and kingdom, of course. For it to be
otherwise is likely to break people's WSOD.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 12:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 26 Oct 2004 19:51:19 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > > How about the GM sees that it would be out of character for the NPC to
> > > not take offence and have the PC killed?
> >
> > Because it's too easy for the GM to justify killing a PC based on an NPC's whim.
>
> And? The GM not killing your character on an 'NPC whim' is a matter
> for group contract. If the game's being run in a realistic manner, and
> you piss off a king, there's a good chance you'll be dead or in the
> dungeons, depending on the king and kingdom, of course. For it to be
> otherwise is likely to break people's WSOD.

Unless the campaign is cinematic, where PCs can expect to get away
with those sorts of things (for a certain value of "get away with").I
find realistic campaigns incredibly boring. If I wanted realistic, I'd
go outside and stop gaming.

Brandon
Bradd W. Szonye
2004-10-27 18:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn wrote:
>> The GM not killing your character on an 'NPC whim' is a matter for
>> group contract ....

Brandon Cope wrote:
> Unless the campaign is cinematic ....

No shit, Sherlock. That's exactly what Rupert wrote.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
David Meadows
2004-10-26 21:51:36 UTC
Permalink
"Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> >
> > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > and decides that the PC must die?
>
> In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.

Or -- here's a radical thought that actually involves role-playing -- the GM
might *not* be annoyed yet still decide to kill the character because it
makes sense for the NPC to get annoyed.

--
David Meadows
"Hey - They've got super-human powers. How could they
possibly be in any danger?" -- Huey, Heroes #20
Heroes: a comic book www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 02:52:50 UTC
Permalink
"David Meadows" <***@no.spam.here.uk> wrote in message news:<417ec8fc$0$80655$***@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
> "Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > > > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > > > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > > > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > > > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> > >
> > > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > > and decides that the PC must die?
> >
> > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
>
> Or -- here's a radical thought that actually involves role-playing -- the GM
> might *not* be annoyed yet still decide to kill the character because it
> makes sense for the NPC to get annoyed.

It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.

Brandon
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-27 03:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> "David Meadows" <***@no.spam.here.uk> wrote in message news:<417ec8fc$0$80655$***@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
> > "Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > > > > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > > > > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > > > > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > > > > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> > > >
> > > > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > > > and decides that the PC must die?
> > >
> > > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
> >
> > Or -- here's a radical thought that actually involves role-playing -- the GM
> > might *not* be annoyed yet still decide to kill the character because it
> > makes sense for the NPC to get annoyed.
>
> It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
> kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.

Proof positive that you don't understand these ideas of "roleplaying"
and "character" anywhere near as well as you think you do.

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 12:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > "David Meadows" <***@no.spam.here.uk> wrote in message news:<417ec8fc$0$80655$***@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
> > > "Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > > > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > > > > > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > > > > > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > > > > > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > > > > > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> > > > >
> > > > > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > > > > and decides that the PC must die?
> > > >
> > > > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
> > >
> > > Or -- here's a radical thought that actually involves role-playing -- the GM
> > > might *not* be annoyed yet still decide to kill the character because it
> > > makes sense for the NPC to get annoyed.
> >
> > It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
> > kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.
>
> Proof positive that you don't understand these ideas of "roleplaying"
> and "character" anywhere near as well as you think you do.

No, it's proof that I don't think GMs should run around killing PCs
because "an NPC wanted it so."

Brandon
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-27 19:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> > Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > > "David Meadows" <***@no.spam.here.uk> wrote in message news:<417ec8fc$0$80655$***@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
> > > > "Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> > > > > > Brandon Cope wrote:
> > > > > > > OTOH, the Strong, "Please be silent" Type can be entertaining. Unlike
> > > > > > > the SST, he does sometimes say things, but they tend to be *highly*
> > > > > > > inappropriate (but often what others are thinking). In other words, he
> > > > > > > says what the other PCs are thinking but don't dare to say. The only
> > > > > > > danger is that the other _players_ get offended. The character of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's not a danger if a socailly powerful NPC takes offence
> > > > > > and decides that the PC must die?
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
> > > >
> > > > Or -- here's a radical thought that actually involves role-playing -- the GM
> > > > might *not* be annoyed yet still decide to kill the character because it
> > > > makes sense for the NPC to get annoyed.
> > >
> > > It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
> > > kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.
> >
> > Proof positive that you don't understand these ideas of "roleplaying"
> > and "character" anywhere near as well as you think you do.
>
> No, it's proof that I don't think GMs should run around killing PCs
> because "an NPC wanted it so."

-sigh-

You just don't get it, do you? Some of us DON'T WANT the GM to ignore
the logical consequences of PC actions in the world. From that point of
view, your statements here are so far off the mark that they don't even
carry enough meaning to say they're wrong; they're simply gibberish. The
GM is not killing the PC, the NPC is, because that's what THAT
***CHARACTER*** would do. This can happen even if the GM actively
prefers that it didn't.

If you don't even understand the distinction between what the GM wants
and what an NPC wants, this makes (even more of) a joke of every word
you've ever written about character and roleplaying being important to
you.

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Brandon Cope
2004-10-28 19:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> >
> > No, it's proof that I don't think GMs should run around killing PCs
> > because "an NPC wanted it so."
>
> -sigh-
>
> You just don't get it, do you?

Yes, I do. I know that an NPC acts how the GM wants him to act.

> Some of us DON'T WANT the GM to ignore
> the logical consequences of PC actions in the world.

Then do what you want and stop complaining about how I do it.

> The GM is not killing the PC, the NPC is

The NPC doesn't make decisions; the GM makes decisions. Even if the GM
makes the decision based on the NPC's personality, it was the GM who
gave the NPC that personality.

> because that's what THAT
> ***CHARACTER*** would do. This can happen even if the GM actively
> prefers that it didn't.

As the sign of a poor GM. Nothing happens with NPCs in a game unless
the GM wants it so; any other claims are outright lies.

> If you don't even understand the distinction between what the GM wants
> and what an NPC wants

As GM, what I want is for everyone to have fun. Having an NPC execute
a PC is not included in any definition I use for 'fun'. NPCs are
always suborbinate to PCs.

Brandon
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-28 22:13:07 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>
> > because that's what THAT
> > ***CHARACTER*** would do. This can happen even if the GM actively
> > prefers that it didn't.
>
> As the sign of a poor GM. Nothing happens with NPCs in a game unless
> the GM wants it so; any other claims are outright lies.

What the fuck are you talking about? Playing NPCs correctly is the sign
of a poor GM? A good GM will mangle the world and characters rather than
follow through with what the

You could not possibly be more wrong. Earlier I said that you were
spouting nonsense *from a certain point of view*. Now you're spouting
nonsense from *any* point of view.

Whatever the hell it is that you do at your gaming table, it is clear
that roleplaying has no part in it. You don't even understand what
roleplaying IS, and thus what faint hope I had of you maybe having
something worthwhile to say about the subject was clearly in vain.

*plonk*

(That was done a long time ago in rgfd, but in my newsreader as I've
currently got it set up the killfile is newsgroup-specific, and for a
while there you looked like you might actually have something to
contribute over here.)

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Brandon Cope
2004-10-29 21:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
>
> *plonk*

Thank god. I was getting tired of responding to an ass like you.

Brandon
Brandon Cope
2004-10-29 21:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> >
> > > because that's what THAT
> > > ***CHARACTER*** would do. This can happen even if the GM actively
> > > prefers that it didn't.
> >
> > As the sign of a poor GM. Nothing happens with NPCs in a game unless
> > the GM wants it so; any other claims are outright lies.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about? Playing NPCs correctly is the sign
> of a poor GM?

A GM that excuses his actions because "that's what the NPC would do"
is a poor GM. It's a variaton of "The Devil made me do it" defense,
where the GM is not taking responsibility for his own actions.

> Whatever the hell it is that you do at your gaming table, it is clear
> that roleplaying has no part in it.

RPing has everything to do with it.

> You don't even understand what roleplaying IS

Yes I do, and being a killer GM isn't part of it.

Brandon
Sea Wasp
2004-10-29 22:38:27 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
> Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
>
>>Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>>
>>>>because that's what THAT
>>>>***CHARACTER*** would do. This can happen even if the GM actively
>>>>prefers that it didn't.
>>>
>>> As the sign of a poor GM. Nothing happens with NPCs in a game unless
>>>the GM wants it so; any other claims are outright lies.
>>
>>What the fuck are you talking about? Playing NPCs correctly is the sign
>>of a poor GM?
>
>
> A GM that excuses his actions because "that's what the NPC would do"
> is a poor GM. It's a variaton of "The Devil made me do it" defense,
> where the GM is not taking responsibility for his own actions.

Sorry, Brandon, I can't agree. My NPCs do what they do based on who
they are, just as my PCs do. I won't tell my players how to play their
characters, and no one else is going to tell me how the NPCs behave.

Now, I *DO* agree that in a cinematic game (which you appear to run,
as do I) that PCs shouldn't be KILLED due to factors of that sort.

This just means I have to have escape clauses available. Virigar is
NOT going to be merciful unless you fulfill certain conditions; if you
fail to do so, he'll be trying to kill you, because that's the way he is.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-30 02:13:55 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
Brandon Cope <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>A GM that excuses his actions because "that's what the NPC would do"
>is a poor GM. It's a variaton of "The Devil made me do it" defense,
>where the GM is not taking responsibility for his own actions.

Calling something "poor GMing" when it's not only allowed but
*required* by many groups for their enjoyment seems, well,
parochial. As in "my views are the only real views. Everyone
else is just like me."

(This is my last comment on this line: it's not a useful
discussion anymore. No meeting of minds.)

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-30 17:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Mary K. Kuhner, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...

> (This is my last comment on this line: it's not a useful
> discussion anymore. No meeting of minds.)

A less kind person than Mary - like, for example, me - would note here
that a meeting of minds involving Brandon is an impossibility, lacking,
as he does, an essential prerequisite for such.

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-27 17:00:57 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
Brandon Cope <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
>kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.

Essentially every time I've seen this happen--and there have been
quite a few--the player group insisted that the GM follow through with
the world logic. If the GM had failed to do this the players would
have stopped trusting him.

I'm particularly thinking of the time Jeopardy (a PC) sent my PC Jasper,
his sworn subordinate, to deliver a really offensive message to someone
who would naturally kill the messenger. Jasper knew he was going to
die; all the players, except possibly Jeopardy's player, knew he was
going to die. (I think Jeopardy was surprised, though.) If the GM hadn't
gone through with it, the whole situation would have stopped making
sense.

The GM chose to resurrect the character later, which I think was a
mistake in this particular case.

I don't think I would care to play for long with a GM who would never,
ever kill a PC for this kind of reason, both because it suggests
less concern for world reality than I like, and because it sometimes
encourages players to treat the world as a joke, unreal, without
consequences. The latter could be avoided by going in for non-lethal
consequences, but the former is still a problem.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
Brandon Cope
2004-10-28 01:30:27 UTC
Permalink
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message news:<clok89$a27$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <***@posting.google.com>,
> Brandon Cope <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
> >kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.
>
> Essentially every time I've seen this happen--and there have been
> quite a few--the player group insisted that the GM follow through with
> the world logic. If the GM had failed to do this the players would
> have stopped trusting him.

The world logic in my campaigns allows PCs, to a certain extent, get
away with this. If I starting killing PCs because that's what an NPC
wants, without the PC being given a chance to save himself, my players
would stop trusting me.

Brandon
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-28 16:06:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
Brandon Cope <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[killing people because of in-character reasons]

>The world logic in my campaigns allows PCs, to a certain extent, get
>away with this. If I starting killing PCs because that's what an NPC
>wants, without the PC being given a chance to save himself, my players
>would stop trusting me.

Play groups obviously differ on this. Either game contract seems
workable, for the right players.

I wouldn't play under yours, though. I hate the strong PC/NPC
distinction it implies. It makes the NPCs seem unreal and
uninteresting to me: plot tokens, not people. I'd figure that
this would spill over into other parts of the game than the
(rare) event of NPCs killing PCs.

What *would* you have done in the case of Jasper and Jeopardy?
Jeopardy sent Jasper to hand-deliver a remarkably offensive
message to someone whose need to save face would require her to
react by killing Jasper. (And going after Jeopardy; but Jeopardy
had resources to save himself, whereas Jasper had quite
deliberately gone in alone and unarmed as a messenger.)

Jasper knew he ought to die. The player knew; the other players,
except maybe Jeopardy's player, knew. If you won't kill a PC
this way, what *do* you do in such a situation? Or would it
never have arisen?

I would have been upset, as Jasper's player, if his calculated
act of self-sacrifice had met with an unreal response.

If I had been Jeopardy's player I don't know how I would
have felt about it. Remorseful, certainly. Jasper did comment
on the message when he got it; Jeopardy could have rethought. But
Jeopardy's actions were very much in character. He was not known
for his social sensitivity. I would probably have apologized to
Jasper's player, and backed down if the player was very upset;
but gone ahead otherwise.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
Brandon Cope
2004-10-29 02:13:53 UTC
Permalink
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message news:<clr5dp$3ij$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> In article <***@posting.google.com>,
> Brandon Cope <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [killing people because of in-character reasons]
>
> >The world logic in my campaigns allows PCs, to a certain extent, get
> >away with this. If I starting killing PCs because that's what an NPC
> >wants, without the PC being given a chance to save himself, my players
> >would stop trusting me.
>
> Play groups obviously differ on this. Either game contract seems
> workable, for the right players.
>
> I wouldn't play under yours, though. I hate the strong PC/NPC
> distinction it implies. It makes the NPCs seem unreal and
> uninteresting to me: plot tokens, not people.

As I run my campaigns like Hollywood action movies, the treatment NPCs
get is appropriate.

> What *would* you have done in the case of Jasper and Jeopardy?

Quite simply, I would not have set the situation up where the NPC had
to kill Jasper to begin with.

What it sounds like, to me, was that one player and the GM manipulated
the situation to kill your character.

> If you won't kill a PC
> this way, what *do* you do in such a situation? Or would it
> never have arisen?

The situation doesn't arise, because there the PC knows they will
always have an out. Additional, if one of the players in my campaign
ordered another player's character into a certain death situatiom he'd
be told to screw himself (in the highly unlikely even that such an
order was given). Note that there are certain NPCs that the PCs
wouldn't order into such a situation.

Brandon
Nikolas Landauer
2004-10-29 03:29:32 UTC
Permalink
We finally have an explanation for Brandon's attitude...

Brandon Cope wrote:
>
> As I run my campaigns like Hollywood action movies,

... which are notorious for being unbelievable, unrealistic, homogenous
and often very, very stupid (and virtually never creative or
intelligent).

This sums up Brandon's fields of authority quite nicely, I think. :D

--
Nik
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-29 17:09:22 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
Brandon Cope <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>As I run my campaigns like Hollywood action movies, the treatment NPCs
>get is appropriate.

Horses for courses, then. It would help if you didn't make
quite such sweeping statements about 'right' and 'wrong' ways
to GM, though I acknowledge that this is equally true of most
of the people arguing with you.

>***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message news:<clr5dp$3ij$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...

>> What *would* you have done in the case of Jasper and Jeopardy?

>Quite simply, I would not have set the situation up where the NPC had
>to kill Jasper to begin with.

>What it sounds like, to me, was that one player and the GM manipulated
>the situation to kill your character.

This is about a hundred miles away from the situation as perceived
by any of the participants.

It seems to me that *I* got Jasper killed; more to the point, I was
the one who agreed to play a butterfly (a sworn servant whose life
could be spent for an artistic statement) in the first place. I knew
what the likely consequences would be--a couple of months of play
and an artistic death. So did the GM and the other player, both of
whom had to agree to let me do Jasper as a PC.

I don't think Ken knew what he was doing. He was a bit clueless,
and his character was a *lot* clueless, about the social dynamics.
I think he parsed Jeopardy's statement as gently chiding rather than
mortally insulting, though he was the only one at the table who
thought so.

I don't think the GM had a lick of choice, if he wanted to keep me
as a player. I knew that Jasper must die at least a couple of minutes
before he did (he was still gaping in shock at what Ken had just
said!) and I wasn't likely to let him off the hook. I mean, it's
stupid to play a butterfly and then refuse the artistic death,
and it would have ruined any sense that the gameworld mattered. I
would probably have quit the campaign if he'd done more than gently
hint at a way out.

As a GM I have killed PCs this way, and allowed PCs to kill each
other this way, and in every case my strong sense was that I was
forced to it because my players would not accept a break in the
world model. I mostly play with very stubborn people with a big
stake in the world model. I am *not* a God GM; I have to do what
my agreement with the players requires, and sometimes this is
exactly what it requires.

>The situation doesn't arise, because there the PC knows they will
>always have an out. Additional, if one of the players in my campaign
>ordered another player's character into a certain death situatiom he'd
>be told to screw himself (in the highly unlikely even that such an
>order was given). Note that there are certain NPCs that the PCs
>wouldn't order into such a situation.

This makes some sense for a recent Hollywood action movie. There's a
set of traditional American values that always play out this way. But
you couldn't really do a Japanese or Hong Kong action movie, or
an older US movie. I'm not saying you should care. If your games
work for your group, that's all that matters. I'd find it limiting,
but then, if we all liked haggis there wouldn't be enough to go
around.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
David Meadows
2004-10-29 22:45:20 UTC
Permalink
"Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) wrote in message
news:<clok89$a27$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>...
> > In article <***@posting.google.com>,
> > Brandon Cope <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
> > >kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.
> >
> > Essentially every time I've seen this happen--and there have been
> > quite a few--the player group insisted that the GM follow through with
> > the world logic. If the GM had failed to do this the players would
> > have stopped trusting him.
>
> The world logic in my campaigns allows PCs, to a certain extent, get
> away with this. If I starting killing PCs because that's what an NPC
> wants, without the PC being given a chance to save himself, my players
> would stop trusting me.

Oh, the PC always has the chance to save himself in my game. The get-out
clause is something like, "don't be so bloody stupid as to interfere with an
Elemental Power", and if it's already past that stage... well, tough, you
had your chance to avoid the situation...


--
David Meadows
"Hey - They've got super-human powers. How could they
possibly be in any danger?" -- Huey, Heroes #20
Heroes: a comic book www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts
David Meadows
2004-10-29 22:13:28 UTC
Permalink
"Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "David Meadows" <***@no.spam.here.uk> wrote in message
news:<417ec8fc$0$80655$***@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
> > "Brandon Cope" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In other words, the GM gets annoyed and decides to kill the character.
> >
> > Or -- here's a radical thought that actually involves role-playing --
the GM
> > might *not* be annoyed yet still decide to kill the character because it
> > makes sense for the NPC to get annoyed.
>
> It's one thing for an NPC to get annoyed; it's another for the GM to
> kill a PC because an NPC got annoyed.

Sure it's two different things. Two different NPCs, for example; one who
kills people who annoy him and one who doesn't. I have both types in my
game.

--
David Meadows
"I might play rock for another year then do a mediaeval
album or something" -- Ritchie Blackmore, 1976
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-26 10:00:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:56:49 +0000 (UTC),
***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) carved upon a
tablet of ether:

> Oh, thought of another one: the Strong Silent type. He can work in
> a combat-centric game, but if much of the game is carried by conversation
> and social interaction, whether between the PCs or PC to NPC, this
> character is just not going to be visible in play.

One type I hate is the angst-ridden silent type. Brooding and silent
they tag along with the party for no discernable reason, helping or
not as the whim takes them. Often played by players who are quite sure
that they are great roleplayers for such a strong and effective
portrayal of a dark and moody character.

They are annoying to GMs because they tend to have no ties to anything
at all, and so they are hard to involve with the world, or with the
plot.

They are annoying to other players because they are invaribly
unreliable, so you can't work with them at all.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-26 15:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 15:56:49 +0000 (UTC),
> ***@kingman.gs.washington.edu (Mary K. Kuhner) carved upon a
> tablet of ether:
>
> > Oh, thought of another one: the Strong Silent type. He can work in
> > a combat-centric game, but if much of the game is carried by conversation
> > and social interaction, whether between the PCs or PC to NPC, this
> > character is just not going to be visible in play.
>
> One type I hate is the angst-ridden silent type. Brooding and silent
> they tag along with the party for no discernable reason, helping or
> not as the whim takes them. Often played by players who are quite sure
> that they are great roleplayers for such a strong and effective
> portrayal of a dark and moody character.
>
> They are annoying to GMs because they tend to have no ties to anything
> at all, and so they are hard to involve with the world, or with the
> plot.
>
> They are annoying to other players because they are invaribly
> unreliable, so you can't work with them at all.

That's my Man With no Name type, or at least, is indistinguishable from
it in many situations.

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-26 22:14:50 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:45:58 GMT, Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> carved upon
a tablet of ether:

> That's my Man With no Name type, or at least, is indistinguishable from
> it in many situations.

I figured it to be different because I've seen Moody Angsty Loners
with extensive backgrounds written up (often ones that have little to
no relation to the game-world, but that's a whole other gripe). Of
course these backgrounds exist solely to justify the character being a
Moody Angsty Loner.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-24 01:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
>
> One other character type to avoid is worth mentioning - the character
> who used to be of a normal race like human or elf, but got transformed
> into something else after angering a witch, eating the wrong toadstool,
> or encountering some other supernatural agent. First of all, in D&D and
> some other fantasy games this sort if thing normally isn't that hard to
> undo, so the character is likely to lose their big "hook" early on.

This assumes the character wants it undone. The Librarian from
Discworld is a prime example of a changed human who prefers not to
turned back.

> Secondly I'm not that enamoured of characters with bizarre races to
> begin with. I know a lot of people are, and I am aware that WotC has an
> entire book on the subject (as does at least one other D20 publisher),
> but personally I just don't see the attraction. But my real objection is
> just that it's been overdone in my games over the last few years. If it
> hadn't been, I might be more willing to accept it.

Just about every character type has been overdone at some point.

Brandon
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-24 09:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
> Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
>>One other character type to avoid is worth mentioning - the character
>>who used to be of a normal race like human or elf, but got transformed
>>into something else after angering a witch, eating the wrong toadstool,
>>or encountering some other supernatural agent. First of all, in D&D and
>>some other fantasy games this sort if thing normally isn't that hard to
>>undo, so the character is likely to lose their big "hook" early on.
>
> This assumes the character wants it undone. The Librarian from
> Discworld is a prime example of a changed human who prefers not to
> turned back.

Usually it takes a transformed person (or other creature)
some time to get used to the new shape, so initially there
should be a strong desire to get the transformation undone.
This means that it works best if it takes several weeks to
figure out a way (e.g. invent a new spell or procedure) to
undo the transformation.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-24 17:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> >
> > One other character type to avoid is worth mentioning - the character
> > who used to be of a normal race like human or elf, but got transformed
> > into something else after angering a witch, eating the wrong toadstool,
> > or encountering some other supernatural agent. First of all, in D&D and
> > some other fantasy games this sort if thing normally isn't that hard to
> > undo, so the character is likely to lose their big "hook" early on.
>
> This assumes the character wants it undone. The Librarian from
> Discworld is a prime example of a changed human who prefers not to
> turned back.

Nope. Nothing in that passage makes any such assumption. If anything,
the problem is worse if he *doesn't* since it can happen by accident
from an area dispel or similar effect.

> > Secondly I'm not that enamoured of characters with bizarre races to
> > begin with. I know a lot of people are, and I am aware that WotC has an
> > entire book on the subject (as does at least one other D20 publisher),
> > but personally I just don't see the attraction. But my real objection is
> > just that it's been overdone in my games over the last few years. If it
> > hadn't been, I might be more willing to accept it.
>
> Just about every character type has been overdone at some point.

But not necessarily by any particular group.

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Brandon Cope
2004-10-25 02:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> > >
> > > One other character type to avoid is worth mentioning - the character
> > > who used to be of a normal race like human or elf, but got transformed
> > > into something else after angering a witch, eating the wrong toadstool,
> > > or encountering some other supernatural agent. First of all, in D&D and
> > > some other fantasy games this sort if thing normally isn't that hard to
> > > undo, so the character is likely to lose their big "hook" early on.
> >
> > This assumes the character wants it undone. The Librarian from
> > Discworld is a prime example of a changed human who prefers not to
> > turned back.
>
> Nope. Nothing in that passage makes any such assumption.

The line about "this sort of thing isn't that hard to undo" argues otherwise.

> If anything,
> the problem is worse if he *doesn't* since it can happen by accident
> from an area dispel or similar effect.

So don't allow it to be dispelled by accident.

Brandon
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-10-25 02:37:03 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> > Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > > Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> > > >
> > > > One other character type to avoid is worth mentioning - the character
> > > > who used to be of a normal race like human or elf, but got transformed
> > > > into something else after angering a witch, eating the wrong toadstool,
> > > > or encountering some other supernatural agent. First of all, in D&D and
> > > > some other fantasy games this sort if thing normally isn't that hard to
> > > > undo, so the character is likely to lose their big "hook" early on.
> > >
> > > This assumes the character wants it undone. The Librarian from
> > > Discworld is a prime example of a changed human who prefers not to
> > > turned back.
> >
> > Nope. Nothing in that passage makes any such assumption.
>
> The line about "this sort of thing isn't that hard to undo" argues otherwise.

I don't see how. I certainly didn't intend it to, and it seems to me
that nothing about those words carries any such implication, unless
you're already predisposed to see one.

> > If anything,
> > the problem is worse if he *doesn't* since it can happen by accident
> > from an area dispel or similar effect.
>
> So don't allow it to be dispelled by accident.

There are people who prefer to, you know, actually use the rules.
Something about wanting the world to actually behave consistently, I
hear.

--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Brandon Cope
2004-10-25 15:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> >
> > So don't allow it to be dispelled by accident.
>
> There are people who prefer to, you know, actually use the rules.

The rules should never stand in the way of a good and viable character concept.

> Something about wanting the world to actually behave consistently, I
> hear.

But it is consistent, just not in the way you seem to want.

Brandon
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-26 10:03:26 UTC
Permalink
On 25 Oct 2004 08:31:15 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> > Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > >
> > > So don't allow it to be dispelled by accident.
> >
> > There are people who prefer to, you know, actually use the rules.
>
> The rules should never stand in the way of a good and viable character concept.

And if the rules reflect the world, and it's one in which curses and
polymorphs are easy to reverse it's not a good and viable character
concept.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-26 18:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 25 Oct 2004 08:31:15 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> > > Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > > >
> > > > So don't allow it to be dispelled by accident.
> > >
> > > There are people who prefer to, you know, actually use the rules.
> >
> > The rules should never stand in the way of a good and viable character concept.
>
> And if the rules reflect the world, and it's one in which curses and
> polymorphs are easy to reverse it's not a good and viable character
> concept.

Then you change the rules, or come up with a reason why the PC is an
exception to the rules.

Brandon
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-26 22:16:00 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Oct 2004 11:38:57 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Then you change the rules, or come up with a reason why the PC is an
> exception to the rules.

So I should break my world for a player? Aren't you the one who boots
PC concepts because you don't like them? Isn't this a little
inconsistent?


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 02:45:18 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 26 Oct 2004 11:38:57 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Then you change the rules, or come up with a reason why the PC is an
> > exception to the rules.
>
> So I should break my world for a player?

Bending the world for an otherwise good concept is acceptable.

> Aren't you the one who boots
> PC concepts because you don't like them?

I boot concepts that are based on "I'm taking IQ 14 and Magery 3
because it's the cheapest way to get spells at 15". Interesting
roleplaying concepts are wanted, not characters who are exercises in
rules-rape.

> Isn't this a little inconsistent?

Not at all.

Brandon
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-27 03:01:38 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Oct 2004 19:45:18 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> > On 26 Oct 2004 11:38:57 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> > upon a tablet of ether:
> >
> > > Then you change the rules, or come up with a reason why the PC is an
> > > exception to the rules.
> >
> > So I should break my world for a player?
>
> Bending the world for an otherwise good concept is acceptable.

If I let a character into my game that has a persistent and hard to
remove curse/shapechange effect, and the world otherwise doesn't have
this effect, at least one PC, and any number of NPCs will be wanting
to get hold of the magic that caused that PC's affliction. That means
I need to know how it happened, and why. Immediately that one
character has put a whole bunch of elements into my world that I
didn't want (if I had wnated them I'd have already put them in).
Unless I had, in fact, simply not thought about whether or not that
element existed (and now decide it's cool) That PC requires me to
break part of my world, so it's a non-starter. To rule otherwise is to
say that because I do a good writeup I can have Spiderman in your game
about the crusades in a mythic medieval Europe.

> > Aren't you the one who boots
> > PC concepts because you don't like them?
>
> I boot concepts that are based on "I'm taking IQ 14 and Magery 3
> because it's the cheapest way to get spells at 15". Interesting
> roleplaying concepts are wanted, not characters who are exercises in
> rules-rape.

But you've said in the past you'd throw out that character even if
they came with a good concept and background.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 12:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 26 Oct 2004 19:45:18 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> > > On 26 Oct 2004 11:38:57 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> > > upon a tablet of ether:
> > >
> > > > Then you change the rules, or come up with a reason why the PC is an
> > > > exception to the rules.
> > >
> > > So I should break my world for a player?
> >
> > Bending the world for an otherwise good concept is acceptable.
>
> If I let a character into my game that has a persistent and hard to
> remove curse/shapechange effect, and the world otherwise doesn't have
> this effect, at least one PC, and any number of NPCs will be wanting
> to get hold of the magic that caused that PC's affliction. That means
> I need to know how it happened, and why.

Cursed by a god, major magical accident, etc.

> break part of my world, so it's a non-starter. To rule otherwise is to
> say that because I do a good writeup I can have Spiderman in your game
> about the crusades in a mythic medieval Europe.

That would take more than a good writeup. Not impossible, but very
unlikely.

> > > Aren't you the one who boots
> > > PC concepts because you don't like them?
> >
> > I boot concepts that are based on "I'm taking IQ 14 and Magery 3
> > because it's the cheapest way to get spells at 15". Interesting
> > roleplaying concepts are wanted, not characters who are exercises in
> > rules-rape.
>
> But you've said in the past you'd throw out that character even if
> they came with a good concept and background.

No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
automatically a bad concept.

Brandon
John Phillips
2004-10-27 16:27:16 UTC
Permalink
"Brandon Cope" wrote
> Rupert Boleyn wrote
> > Brandon Cope carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > > I boot concepts that are based on "I'm taking IQ 14 and Magery 3
> > > because it's the cheapest way to get spells at 15". Interesting
> > > roleplaying concepts are wanted, not characters who are exercises in
> > > rules-rape.
> >
> > But you've said in the past you'd throw out that character even if
> > they came with a good concept and background.
>
> No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
> automatically a bad concept.

Because lord knows, there are no examples of people who are really really
good at things in real life or in literature.


John
Brandon Cope
2004-10-28 01:27:34 UTC
Permalink
"John Phillips" <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<E%Pfd.787172$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Brandon Cope" wrote
> > Rupert Boleyn wrote
> > > Brandon Cope carved upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > > > I boot concepts that are based on "I'm taking IQ 14 and Magery 3
> > > > because it's the cheapest way to get spells at 15". Interesting
> > > > roleplaying concepts are wanted, not characters who are exercises in
> > > > rules-rape.
> > >
> > > But you've said in the past you'd throw out that character even if
> > > they came with a good concept and background.
> >
> > No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
> > automatically a bad concept.
>
> Because lord knows, there are no examples of people who are really really
> good at things in real life or in literature.

I'm talking about highly optimized from a point cost perspective, not
from a being good at something perspective.

Brandon
John Phillips
2004-10-28 01:38:38 UTC
Permalink
"Brandon Cope" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > "Brandon Cope" wrote
>
> > > No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
> > > automatically a bad concept.
> >
> > Because lord knows, there are no examples of people who are really
really
> > good at things in real life or in literature.
>
> I'm talking about highly optimized from a point cost perspective, not
> from a being good at something perspective.

What if the only way to achieve your concept is to highly point cost
optimize your character?
In a recent M&M game it took me something like 5 tries to build a character
I had played in other game systems. The only way I could do so and stay true
to the character was to optimize the hell out of it.

John
Brandon Cope
2004-10-28 19:44:21 UTC
Permalink
"John Phillips" <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<y4Yfd.789580$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Brandon Cope" wrote
> > "John Phillips" wrote
> > > "Brandon Cope" wrote
>
> > > > No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
> > > > automatically a bad concept.
> > >
> > > Because lord knows, there are no examples of people who are really
> really
> > > good at things in real life or in literature.
> >
> > I'm talking about highly optimized from a point cost perspective, not
> > from a being good at something perspective.
>
> What if the only way to achieve your concept is to highly point cost
> optimize your character?

Then the power level of the campaign doesn't support you concept.

Brandon
John Phillips
2004-10-29 00:09:04 UTC
Permalink
"Brandon Cope" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > "Brandon Cope" wrote
>
> > > I'm talking about highly optimized from a point cost perspective, not
> > > from a being good at something perspective.
> >
> > What if the only way to achieve your concept is to highly point cost
> > optimize your character?
>
> Then the power level of the campaign doesn't support you concept.

Sure it does, the concept is just harder to get correct.

John
Doug Lampert
2004-10-28 20:11:22 UTC
Permalink
"John Phillips" <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<y4Yfd.789580$***@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Brandon Cope" wrote
> > "John Phillips" wrote
> > > "Brandon Cope" wrote
>
> > > > No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
> > > > automatically a bad concept.
> > >
> > > Because lord knows, there are no examples of people who are really
> really
> > > good at things in real life or in literature.
> >
> > I'm talking about highly optimized from a point cost perspective, not
> > from a being good at something perspective.
>
> What if the only way to achieve your concept is to highly point cost
> optimize your character?
> In a recent M&M game it took me something like 5 tries to build a character
> I had played in other game systems. The only way I could do so and stay true
> to the character was to optimize the hell out of it.

Again at the risk of appearing to agree with Brandon these are
orthoganal.

If the GM wants you to play that character or even just agrees it
should be possible and doesn't like highly optimized builds he can
simply GIVE YOU LOTS OF POINTS!

Simple. No requirement that anyone optimize anything.

Power does not require optimization, there is no concievable level
of power which can be met by an optimized character which cannot
be met by a non-optimized character. Only AFTER you limit the points
may optimization be needed, and even then only because the limit was
set too low to do it without optimization.

A highly optimized GURPS character built on zero points with no more
than 5 points in disadvantages is still a wimp, a non-optimized build
on 2000 points can still be VERY VERY good at something. You do not
need to optimize to be good at something unless the GM sets the point
total for the campaign too low to be good at something without
optimization.

Optimization tends to act as a "force multiplier" for points
(typically IME 10%-100% improvement between throw it togather and
fully optimized), if the GM does not want optimization but does want
effective characters he can simply multiply the points directly.

The only time non-optimization or optimization is really a problem
is when some people are doing it and others are not in the same
campaign, or the GM sets the difficulties based on one level of
optimization and the players play at another.

I would not play in Brandon's game if you paid me, but on this he is
right, if none of his current builds are highly optimized and he
gives new characters points comparable to experienced characters he
is RIGHT to not allow highly optimized builds for new characters.
Worse since he is silly enough to be playing GURPS 3 it is inevitable
that characters who develope in play will not be nearly as well
optimized as new builds can be. The doubled cost for new attributes
and limits on starting skills combine to make sure that naturally
advanced characters are skill heavy compared to an optimized new
build, so new characters must either (a) be given substantially fewer
points, (b) forcibly non-optimized, or (c) will be noticably more
effective than long term characters. I consider (c) above a really
bad idea. So it has to be (a) or (b) or switch to GURPS 4th ed which
has largely fixed this problem.

DougL
John Phillips
2004-10-29 00:09:05 UTC
Permalink
"Doug Lampert" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
> > "Brandon Cope" wrote
>
> > > I'm talking about highly optimized from a point cost perspective, not
> > > from a being good at something perspective.
> >
> > What if the only way to achieve your concept is to highly point cost
> > optimize your character?
> > In a recent M&M game it took me something like 5 tries to build a
character
> > I had played in other game systems. The only way I could do so and stay
true
> > to the character was to optimize the hell out of it.
>
> Again at the risk of appearing to agree with Brandon these are
> orthoganal.

No risk at all, as you are able to discuss the idea rationally.

> If the GM wants you to play that character or even just agrees it
> should be possible and doesn't like highly optimized builds he can
> simply GIVE YOU LOTS OF POINTS!
>
> Simple. No requirement that anyone optimize anything.
>
> Power does not require optimization, there is no concievable level
> of power which can be met by an optimized character which cannot
> be met by a non-optimized character. Only AFTER you limit the points
> may optimization be needed, and even then only because the limit was
> set too low to do it without optimization.

Giving lots of points would be cheating, unless everyone else got the same
amount. What mattered was less the power of the character (I could have made
one more powerful with out optimizing) but getting the character Right. Some
of the abilities were redundant but needed to be there to make the character
consistent with the background of the character.

> A highly optimized GURPS character built on zero points with no more
> than 5 points in disadvantages is still a wimp, a non-optimized build
> on 2000 points can still be VERY VERY good at something. You do not
> need to optimize to be good at something unless the GM sets the point
> total for the campaign too low to be good at something without
> optimization.

True enough, but the argument here was that an optimized character can have
a good and detailed concept and background, and that in the case presented
optimization was needed to achieve that concept.

> Optimization tends to act as a "force multiplier" for points
> (typically IME 10%-100% improvement between throw it togather and
> fully optimized), if the GM does not want optimization but does want
> effective characters he can simply multiply the points directly.
>
> The only time non-optimization or optimization is really a problem
> is when some people are doing it and others are not in the same
> campaign, or the GM sets the difficulties based on one level of
> optimization and the players play at another.

We more or less agree here, but then neither one of us has such a
pathological view of optimization as he does.

John
Doug Lampert
2004-10-29 16:20:04 UTC
Permalink
"John Phillips" <***@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<BSfgd.39412$***@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Doug Lampert" wrote

> > Power does not require optimization, there is no concievable level
> > of power which can be met by an optimized character which cannot
> > be met by a non-optimized character. Only AFTER you limit the points
> > may optimization be needed, and even then only because the limit was
> > set too low to do it without optimization.
>
> Giving lots of points would be cheating, unless everyone else got the same
> amount. What mattered was less the power of the character (I could have made
> one more powerful with out optimizing) but getting the character Right. Some
> of the abilities were redundant but needed to be there to make the character
> consistent with the background of the character.

I disagree. Points are a tool to achive ballance, not an end in
themselves, if someone has a concept that is ballanced and needs
more points it is perfectly reasonable to give them more points.

There is no reason in a game where the players are not competing
with each other not to give out different points to different
characters.

Redundant similar abilities SHOULD have a big discount, in some
systems they do, in others they don't. If the system does not
provide a discount for redundant similar abilities it is reasonable
to modify the costs.

Similarly a "standard" solution suggestion for the too expensive
high skill GURPS character was to let the player design a globally
more effective character within the point limit, and then play the
too expensive but less effective character that he wanted to play
since it was demonstratably less powerful than a legal character.

The problem with optimizing to meet a hard to do in the ruleset
concept is that you will still be overshadowed by optimized
characters who fit well with the system.

DougL
John Phillips
2004-10-30 16:53:04 UTC
Permalink
"Doug Lampert" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote
>
> > Giving lots of points would be cheating, unless everyone else got the
same
> > amount. What mattered was less the power of the character (I could have
made
> > one more powerful with out optimizing) but getting the character Right.
Some
> > of the abilities were redundant but needed to be there to make the
character
> > consistent with the background of the character.
>
> I disagree. Points are a tool to achive ballance, not an end in
> themselves, if someone has a concept that is ballanced and needs
> more points it is perfectly reasonable to give them more points.
>
> There is no reason in a game where the players are not competing
> with each other not to give out different points to different
> characters.

Sure there is, it is entertaining to try and build a character 'just right'
with in the limits provided. Its kind of like putting together a puzzle.

John
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-27 21:41:42 UTC
Permalink
On 27 Oct 2004 05:16:33 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> > But you've said in the past you'd throw out that character even if
> > they came with a good concept and background.
>
> No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
> automatically a bad concept.

Which means that you're booting out characters like Luke Skywalker,
and saying that there are no IQ14, Magery3 mages in your world.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-28 19:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 27 Oct 2004 05:16:33 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > > But you've said in the past you'd throw out that character even if
> > > they came with a good concept and background.
> >
> > No. I said I would boot a highly optimized character, which is
> > automatically a bad concept.
>
> Which means that you're booting out characters like Luke Skywalker,

Exactly what about Luke Skywalker, when introduced as a farm boy,
makes him a high optimized character?

> and saying that there are no IQ14, Magery3 mages in your world.

Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.

Brandon
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-28 19:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
> Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
>>and saying that there are no IQ14, Magery3 mages in your world.
>
> Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.

The only legitimate tool a GM has, to achieve rarity of
traits, is to raise the point cost of said traits.

If a trait is capable of existing within the game world and
within the species of the player's character (e.g. Humans
can't have wings, but pixies can), then any and all players
have the *right* to purchase that trait during character
creation.

(GURPS Magery is stupid anyway, in much the same way that
GURPS IQ is, or D&D hitpoints)

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Sea Wasp
2004-10-28 21:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> Brandon Cope wrote:
>
>> Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:<***@4ax.com>...
>>
>>> and saying that there are no IQ14, Magery3 mages in your world.
>>
>>
>> Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.
>
>
> The only legitimate tool a GM has, to achieve rarity of traits, is to
> raise the point cost of said traits.

No, a GM has infinite legitimate tools, all based on the fact that
it's his game, and he can use that glorious word "NO".

"No, I don't want anyone playing a space marine in my fantasy
setting. No, you can't have magery 3. No. Just NO."

Equally, they have infinite tools to GIVE stuff to you, based on
their ability to say "yes".


>
> If a trait is capable of existing within the game world and within the
> species of the player's character (e.g. Humans can't have wings, but
> pixies can), then any and all players have the *right* to purchase that
> trait during character creation.

Overall I agree with you here, but mainly on philosophical grounds.
Rulewise the GM can decide to use GM fiat, or percentile rolls (like
with D&D1e psionics chances) or any other mechanism they want to
enforce rarity.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Indiana Joe
2004-10-28 21:56:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>,
***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:

> Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.

Player characters are rare too.

--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
***@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Brandon Cope
2004-10-29 21:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Indiana Joe <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<indianajoe3-***@news-40.giganews.com>...
> In article <***@posting.google.com>,
> ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
>
> > Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.
>
> Player characters are rare too.

Which only means that M3 PCs are extremely rare.

Brandon
Doug Lampert
2004-10-30 04:39:56 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
> Indiana Joe <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<indianajoe3-***@news-40.giganews.com>...
> > In article <***@posting.google.com>,
> > ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> >
> > > Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.
> >
> > Player characters are rare too.
>
> Which only means that M3 PCs are extremely rare.

It only implies that if PC's are a random sample from the population.

Which is CLEARLY not the case in any given BTB GURPS campaign since a
random population sample would have a wide range of character point
totals and the PC's do not.

Mathematically it could just as well be that the two classes of rare
people are IDENTICAL, and that ALL PC's have magery 3.

DougL
Indiana Joe
2004-10-30 13:22:19 UTC
Permalink
***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> Indiana Joe <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> >
> > > Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.
> >
> > Player characters are rare too.
>
> Which only means that M3 PCs are extremely rare.

How many PCs (out of 3-6) would you let start with M3?

--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
***@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Brandon Cope
2004-10-30 19:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Indiana Joe <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<indianajoe3-***@news-40.giganews.com>...
> ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> > Indiana Joe <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.
> > >
> > > Player characters are rare too.
> >
> > Which only means that M3 PCs are extremely rare.
>
> How many PCs (out of 3-6) would you let start with M3?

In a typical 100-125 point campaign, perhaps one, if the character was
otherwise physically weak (for example, in the most recent campaign,
the only M3 mage was a cat).

However, as I have said, I allow magery to be bought up in play (with
the restriction that there has to be a very good in-game reason for
it). I also have reduced the difficulty of spells one category (M/VH
-> M/H, M/H -> M/A) and there are no longer any automatic cost or
speed reductions for having a certain level in a spell.

Brandon
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-30 22:26:08 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:22:19 -0400, Indiana Joe
<***@comcast.net> carved upon a tablet of ether:

> ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> > Indiana Joe <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > > ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.
> > >
> > > Player characters are rare too.
> >
> > Which only means that M3 PCs are extremely rare.
>
> How many PCs (out of 3-6) would you let start with M3?

I'd allow all to be Magery3 of the players wanted them to be, unless
the setting made this down-right impossible.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-28 23:18:05 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Oct 2004 12:47:18 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> > Which means that you're booting out characters like Luke Skywalker,
>
> Exactly what about Luke Skywalker, when introduced as a farm boy,
> makes him a high optimized character?

In GURPS he's almost certainly such. He's got lots of talent, but
isn't that skilled.

> > and saying that there are no IQ14, Magery3 mages in your world.
>
> Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.

But you said you'd not allow an IQ14, Magery3 PC, so you're saying
that PCs can't be as talented as NPCs.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Brandon Cope
2004-10-29 21:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 28 Oct 2004 12:47:18 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > > Which means that you're booting out characters like Luke Skywalker,
> >
> > Exactly what about Luke Skywalker, when introduced as a farm boy,
> > makes him a high optimized character?
>
> In GURPS he's almost certainly such. He's got lots of talent, but
> isn't that skilled.

Care to do a GURPS write-up of Skywalker to prove your case?

> > > and saying that there are no IQ14, Magery3 mages in your world.
> >
> > Very few, because M3 is suitably rare.
>
> But you said you'd not allow an IQ14, Magery3 PC, so you're saying
> that PCs can't be as talented as NPCs.

*Starting* PCs can't be as talented as *experienced* NPCs.

I allow Magery to be bought up in play.

Brandon
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-29 22:26:50 UTC
Permalink
On 29 Oct 2004 14:12:32 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> > But you said you'd not allow an IQ14, Magery3 PC, so you're saying
> > that PCs can't be as talented as NPCs.
>
> *Starting* PCs can't be as talented as *experienced* NPCs.
>
> I allow Magery to be bought up in play.

That does help.

--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-28 20:13:43 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>,
Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>The only legitimate tool a GM has, to achieve rarity of
>traits, is to raise the point cost of said traits.

How does this work?

If the price is unaffordable, the players will *never* take
the rare trait and you might as well have left it out.

If the price seems affordable, and one player is willing to do
it, others may be as well--which is presumably what you're
trying to avoid. I don't see why you mightn't end up with
a whole party with Rare Trait X, given that the pricing
structure is such that Rare Trait X is worth taking at all.

Player good taste may prevent this, but then you didn't need
the pricing structure in the first place.

I don't worry about rarity, myself. For many rare traits,
the possessors naturally clump together. It's not harder
to explain five midgets than one midget: they're a circus
troupe, or siblings, or movie actors on a little-people movie.
It's not harder to explain five people who read Ancient
Egyptian than one; it may even be easier. It's certainly
not harder to explain five mystical-martial-arts students
than one--clearly they had the same Secret Master.

A party where every PC has a *different* rare trait is more of
a worry, but that strikes me as the worst case for trying to
fix the problem by pricing. I tend to rely on player good
judgement. Occasionally we have PC parties consisting wholly
of freaks, but they have a certain charm of their own.

(As a PC of mine says, when asked why the PC party is composed
of freaks, "Our line of work is society's great dumping ground
for strange and troublesome people." I think that applies to
adventurers in a lot of settings.)

I wouldn't argue this with Peter, who has views on the matter
he's not going to change, but I see this principle in a lot
of game designs and I think it's dysfunctional. Making something
expensive is a poor way of saying "Don't do this" and an
even poorer way of saying "Only one Scooby per party, please"
if that's what you actually want.

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
sw
2004-10-28 21:24:42 UTC
Permalink
In article <clrjtn$ekr$***@gnus01.u.washington.edu>, Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> A party where every PC has a *different* rare trait is more of
> a worry, but that strikes me as the worst case for trying to
> fix the problem by pricing. I tend to rely on player good
> judgement. Occasionally we have PC parties consisting wholly
> of freaks, but they have a certain charm of their own.

The more someone's played, the more likely they seem to pick some off
the wall concept that requires concept munging or point tweaking to
eventually pull off. If you get a group of experienced players, you
eventually seem to get a party that sounds like the run-up to a bad joke.
("A tiefling, a minotaur and a half-drow walk into the bar...")

--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek
Rupert Boleyn
2004-10-28 23:20:52 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:24:42 +0000 (UTC), sw <***@eyrie.org> carved
upon a tablet of ether:

> The more someone's played, the more likely they seem to pick some off
> the wall concept that requires concept munging or point tweaking to
> eventually pull off. If you get a group of experienced players, you
> eventually seem to get a party that sounds like the run-up to a bad joke.
> ("A tiefling, a minotaur and a half-drow walk into the bar...")

I find this the mid-range. Players start with relatively conventional
tastes, move to bizarreness, and then come back to more 'normal'
characters. As a trend, that is - plenty of individual players don't
follow this pattern.


--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-29 02:14:45 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 21:24:42 +0000 (UTC), sw <***@eyrie.org> carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>>The more someone's played, the more likely they seem to pick some off
>>the wall concept that requires concept munging or point tweaking to
>>eventually pull off. If you get a group of experienced players, you
>>eventually seem to get a party that sounds like the run-up to a bad joke.
>>("A tiefling, a minotaur and a half-drow walk into the bar...")
>
> I find this the mid-range. Players start with relatively conventional

Are you sure this initial conventionality is due to taste,
as opposed to timidity?

If sitting in front of a group of strangers, people I've
never met physically before, and only one of whom I know
slightly from Usenet, I'd be very reluctant to ask to get to
play a character who was half Tiefling and half Minotaur.
(In fact, I'd be reluctant to ask for anything. That's why
I'm *very* loudly pro shopping lists).

> tastes, move to bizarreness, and then come back to more 'normal'
> characters. As a trend, that is - plenty of individual players don't
> follow this pattern.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-29 02:05:33 UTC
Permalink
sw wrote:
> The more someone's played, the more likely they seem to pick some off
> the wall concept that requires concept munging or point tweaking to
> eventually pull off. If you get a group of experienced players, you
> eventually seem to get a party that sounds like the run-up to a bad joke.
> ("A tiefling, a minotaur and a half-drow walk into the bar...")

I think this kind of massive species-variety is caused by
the chosen rules system not being good enough at making
Humans (or near-Humans like Elves and Dwarves) different
from each other.

Of course, almost all the character concepts I dream up,
which I intend to play as PCs, are off-the-wall concepts.
They fall within the range of Human variety, but they often
tickling the extremes here or there (requiring particular
real-world synergies, in order to function the same was I've
dreamed them up to, but which rarely occur in the rules set
chosen by the GM), so they do qualify as off-the-wall.


Also, I don't think all roleplayers end up going for
off-the-wall concepts with experience. I started formulating
a hypothesis, about a year ago (IIRC), that there are really
two distinct types of roleplayers, i.e. tendencies that tend
strongly to fall into one of two camps, preferences which
might seem to be unrelated but which in fact correlate quite
strongly.

I mean to write a more thorough article on the subject some
day (with a table to compare systems, trait by trait), but
here's a brief summary:

The old school type likes simple character sheets, with
simple, heavily *normalized* characters. Think AD&D, or
Warren Dew's system or Quest FRP, or probably even Chivalry
& Sorcery or Hârnmaster. Or Traveller (not GURPS, and I
don't know T20 well enough to comment). Often these systems
have very few attributes, and then some skills. Skills may
be narrow or broad (although they are usually broad, I
suspect), but there is no advantage/disadvantage system (or,
at best, a *very* primitive and simplistic one). This has
many side effects, including always making the PCs be middle
class, and being of average Apperance (all this barring GM
interference, of course). There is also a strong tendency
towards randomized character creation (usually only
attribute value generation, although sometimes species
choice is random too (MERP, although IIRC it was optional to
roll for it), and classic Traveller randomizes skill choice).

The new school type, which isn't really new at all except
compared to the old school type, likes system where the
mechanical aspects of the characters are much more
thoroughly described. There will usually be more attributes
(but not always. See GURPS), and there will be an extensive
advantage/disadvantage system. Characters also aren't
normalized. The system supports (or tries to support)
characters who are at the extreme low's and high's of
humanity (or elvenhood, or dwarfdom...), and there's a keen
respect, built into the system, for non-violent conflicts.
There are only three systems which fully fall into this
category: GURPS, Ars Magica and Sagatafl. All three have
extensive advantage/disadvantage systems. All three support
characters with extreme attributes. Compare Raistlin
Majere's pitiful INT of 17, barely enough to qualify him for
membership of the Mensa Society, with the Mythic
Intelligence (or Mythic Perception, or Mythic Quickness, or
Mythic Strength) offered by Ars Magica. Or the IQ 18 given
to Leonardo da Vinci in one of the GURPS Who's Who books. Or
the Intelligence 8, given to Gerbert of Aurillac, or the
Dexterity 8 given to Palnatoke, both under the Sagatafl
system in my Ærth historical fantasy setting, both
representing the maximum possible intelligence or dexterity
for a human being. In all three systems, characters can be
of very low or very high social class, and both GURPS and
Sagatafl provides adequately for variation in beauty (Ars
Magica has some support, but not enough). The tendency is
also very clear: Characters are created by a choice-driven
process, with dice playing little or no role prior to
game-start. And implicit intent of any new school system is
that you can take any real-world or fictional character, and
stat him or her up, and get *much* *closer* to what the
character is actually *like* than you could in, say, AD&D.

Another difference in tendency is that old school players
seem happy to just play what the dice tells them to. Not
talking about bad rolls, but an old school player will roll
the dice, and the dice might tell him that he is to play a
Ranger or a Mage or a Thief, and he'll cheerfully do that,
whereas a new school player comes to the table already
having an idea about what kind of character he'll play. Also
to some extent, although I don't know how strong it is, new
school players may tend towards often playing the same
general flavour of character, e.g. me always playing smart,
sneaky characters (mages or rogues or both).

There are some borderline systems too. Hero fails, due to
not respecting non-combat prowess (it all boils down to a
system being about finding out who will win in a fight).
D&D3, with all the options for playing wild creatures
(Tieflings and so forth) comes close. FUDGE lacks synergies,
but otherwise has the right philosophy (insofar as one can
put the "right" label on a philosophy that completely
rejects synergies). Even Brian Gleichman's Age of Heroes
reflects new school philosophy, in part, with the Options
Points system (or possibly the Background Points system),
which lets the player purchase advantages for his character
(a companion animal, possibly intelligent, or a magic item,
or a superior heirloom weapon. There's even a paragraph
suggesting that players may propose new advantages to the GM).

Interestingly, what I was trying to do with Quest FRP v2.1,
before I abandoned it to resume development of Sagatafl, was
also exactly that: I was trying to transform an old school
type system into a new school type system, by grafting onto
the basic (and very old school!) character creation rules an
advantage/disadvantage system. It didn't work, of course.
The framework couldn't support it.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
sw
2004-10-29 14:44:56 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, Peter Knutsen wrote:
> sw wrote:
>> The more someone's played, the more likely they seem to pick some off
>> the wall concept that requires concept munging or point tweaking to
>> eventually pull off. If you get a group of experienced players, you
>> eventually seem to get a party that sounds like the run-up to a bad joke.
>> ("A tiefling, a minotaur and a half-drow walk into the bar...")
>
> I think this kind of massive species-variety is caused by
> the chosen rules system not being good enough at making
> Humans (or near-Humans like Elves and Dwarves) different
> from each other.

It also seems to be a useful shorthand. Instantly, you've got a type to
play/play against. Sometimes people might call this lazy, but hey.
Similar to the "mutant origin" in comics. If your character's got some
demon in him, well, there's your origin right there, and things can
proceed where they will.

> Also, I don't think all roleplayers end up going for
> off-the-wall concepts with experience. I started formulating
> a hypothesis, about a year ago (IIRC), that there are really
> two distinct types of roleplayers, i.e. tendencies that tend
> strongly to fall into one of two camps, preferences which
> might seem to be unrelated but which in fact correlate quite
> strongly.

Well, yeah, that was an exaggeration. While in the 3.5 game I'm in,
everyone has tended towards ever odder characters (I'm the tiefling),
there's one player who seems perfectly happy to run paladins,
occasionally throwing in a cleric for variety.

[snip enormous system comparison]

I'm wondering where you fit games like Nobilis into that framework.

--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-30 01:09:16 UTC
Permalink
sw wrote:
> In article <***@uni-berlin.de>, Peter Knutsen wrote:
> [snip enormous system comparison]
>
> I'm wondering where you fit games like Nobilis into that framework.

I don't know anything about Nobilis, so I can't say, but you
can try to answer these questions about it:

1. Is character creation point-based (choice-based) or
dice-based (no choice). If it's dice with choice, like in
D&D3 (make some rolls, then chose where to put them), it's
in-between.

2. How powerful are starting characters? (This is the one
old school vs new school difference that I forgot to mention
in my previous post) Are we talking incompetent AD&D/D&D 1st
levellers, or are we talking highly competent GURPS 100
pointers?

3. Are the rules much about combat, or do they also devote a
bunch of pages to the resolution of non-violent conflicts?
Typically in new school systems there's a general skill roll
mechanic which is used both for combat and non-combat,
whereas old school systems have one rules set for combat and
another for skill use.

4. Are the characters normalized, regarding Appearance and
Social Status (and Wealth! That's another item, although
somewhat minor, which I forgot to mention in the previous
post), or does the character creation mechanics give the
players an option to purchase higher Status and Wealth (and
possibly Appearance), and also to "sell down Status and
Wealth (and Appearance), ending up at a "place" far
different from the typical character (e.g. immensely wealthy
or dirt poor)?

5. Is there a well-supported Advantage/Disadvantage system.
It doesn't have to be complex, like GURPS; FUDGE qualifies
perfectly as a new school system in this regard (although it
fails in others, ending up as a borderline case). But
everything really has to be choice-driven (this is where
Chivalry & Sorcery fails. Some of the Gifts/Advantages can
only be had if rolled randomly).

6. How extensive is the description of the game-mechanical
aspects of the character? You can, literally, fit an AD&D
character onto an index card, and you don't even have to
write using small letters. He's got six ability scores, a
THAC0, an AC, and a very few more stats, and that's *IT*. On
the other hand, a GURPS or an Ars Magica character takes up
a lot more space, especially because of the
advantages/disadvantages but possibly also due to having
more attributes (Ars Magica qualifies here, as does my
homebrew). How many square inches would you need to describe
the character game-mechanically? A few, or many?

7. Does the system allow for a *wide* range of attribute
values? I'm not sure if Nobilis is about Humans, so it's not
sufficient to just say that the characters are all
super-Human, and therefore yes it qualifies. Rather, the
interesting point is how different characters can be from
each other? Is it possible to create Nobilii who are (at
least - all three true new school systems can go
higher/lower than this!) in the top 99.99% or bottom 99.99%
percentile regarding such traits as Intelligence, Charisma,
Spiritual Purity, Dexterity or whatever (new school - again,
think GURPS IQ or DX 20, or Mythic Intelligence/ Quickness/
Presence from Ars Magica) or are the players confined to the
most normal 99% of the Nobilii population (think AD&D and
D&D, with the narrow 3-18 scale, where an 18 is neither very
rare nor spectacularly useful)?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Indiana Joe
2004-10-30 14:06:15 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>,
Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

You raise some interesting issues with these questions. There are also
some questions that you don't ask.

> [snipped 1]
> 2. How powerful are starting characters? (This is the one
> old school vs new school difference that I forgot to mention
> in my previous post) Are we talking incompetent AD&D/D&D 1st
> levellers, or are we talking highly competent GURPS 100
> pointers?

Does the system treat starting and experienced characters differently?

> [snipped 3-7]

8. Are there mechanics for expanding the list of character abilities
within a game? How many different character abilities can be described
using the core rules?

--
Joe Claffey | "Make no small plans."
***@comcast.net | -- Daniel Burnham
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-30 16:13:12 UTC
Permalink
Indiana Joe wrote:
> In article <***@uni-berlin.de>,
> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>
> You raise some interesting issues with these questions. There are also
> some questions that you don't ask.

Usually I just raise controversy :-)

My main intent with publishing this distinction is to make
people aware of the divide, because in my experience,
communication can't really take place between old schoolers
and new schoolers, because they carry wildly different
assumptions about what an RPG should be.

>>[snipped 1]
>>2. How powerful are starting characters? (This is the one
>>old school vs new school difference that I forgot to mention
>>in my previous post) Are we talking incompetent AD&D/D&D 1st
>>levellers, or are we talking highly competent GURPS 100
>>pointers?
>
> Does the system treat starting and experienced characters differently?

I'm just taking for granted that no modern system commits
this atrocity. You'll usually have to go back several
decades to find systems that do this.

>>[snipped 3-7]
>
> 8. Are there mechanics for expanding the list of character abilities
> within a game? How many different character abilities can be described

I'm not sure such mechanics is a good thing for a new school
type system. In fact it can be restrictive, because it
reinforces the assumption that all Advantages and
Disadvantages must have a game-mechanical effect, which in
turns rules out disads such as Distinctive Feature (which
GURPS, by the way, has problems with. Or rather, GURPS GMs
have problems with it).

Of course, if you invent a new advantage or disadvantage, it
might be a good idea to effectively make it some kind of
sub-attribute (Crowd Noticability for Distinctive Feature),
but you'll always end up with advantages and disadvantages
that are valid yet can't be made to work this way (look at
the horrible way in which GURPS treats Reputations: They
*have*, by divine mandate, to affect Reaction Rolls).

> using the core rules?

This, on the other hand, is a very good question. New school
systems are about modelling to concept, after all.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Sea Wasp
2004-10-30 17:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen wrote:
t raise controversy :-)
>
> My main intent with publishing this distinction is to make people aware
> of the divide, because in my experience, communication can't really take
> place between old schoolers and new schoolers, because they carry wildly
> different assumptions about what an RPG should be.

My experience is that there's no such thing as a divide. The stuff
you talk about as "new school" is stuff we were doing on our own two
months after we first started playing.

There's different PREFERENCES in gaming. Bradd likes to play with
some kind of troupe control of the game. I'm not sure how they manage
to do certain parts of it, but I'm starting to suspect that what's at
the core of the difference is that he may be playing for somewhat
different *reasons* than I do, which means that what he needs from his
GM isn't the same thing that I do.

There are people (like myself) who DETEST unified mechanic systems. I
WANT my combat mechanics to be different from my magic mechanics.
There are people who detest that, and want a single simple mechanic
describing everything.

There are those who think that point-based build systems are the
ultimate game system design. Some don't.

The silly mechanics differences you describe don't divide easily AT
ALL. Especially along "old" and "new", unless by "new" you mean twenty
years ago. All those mechanical variants were done AGES ago. Mostly by
gamers who decided to change something that annoyed them about
whatever game they were playing. My game had open-ended stats, skills,
design-your-own character, etc., before I graduated from high school
(in 1980). The Arduin Grimoire introduced a lot of them in the late 70s.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Sea Wasp
2004-10-30 17:30:41 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen wrote:

>
> 2. How powerful are starting characters? (This is the one old school vs
> new school difference that I forgot to mention in my previous post) Are
> we talking incompetent AD&D/D&D 1st levellers, or are we talking highly
> competent GURPS 100 pointers?

Power of starting characters? You know, starting characters have
varied all over the map since the earliest days of gaming.

>
> 3. Are the rules much about combat, or do they also devote a bunch of
> pages to the resolution of non-violent conflicts? Typically in new
> school systems there's a general skill roll mechanic which is used both
> for combat and non-combat, whereas old school systems have one rules set
> for combat and another for skill use.

Generally you're describing not old and new school, but diverse
versus unified mechanics. Which is neither old nor new, but preference
based. One reason I don't particularly like Champions (which, given
its age, strikes me as an odd thing to call "new school" is because
it's a unified mechanic)


>
> 4. Are the characters normalized, regarding Appearance and Social Status
> (and Wealth! That's another item, although somewhat minor, which I
> forgot to mention in the previous post), or does the character creation
> mechanics give the players an option to purchase higher Status and
> Wealth (and possibly Appearance), and also to "sell down Status and
> Wealth (and Appearance), ending up at a "place" far different from the
> typical character (e.g. immensely wealthy or dirt poor)?

Oh, sure, those are new school. Arduin Grimoire is positively brand
new. Not.


>
> 5. Is there a well-supported Advantage/Disadvantage system.


I laugh. And I say again, I laugh. What's your definition of new,
after 1980? I'm not sure but what I saw similar approaches BEFORE 1980.


>
> 6. How extensive is the description of the game-mechanical aspects of
> the character? You can, literally, fit an AD&D character onto an index
> card, and you don't even have to write using small letters. He's got six
> ability scores, a THAC0, an AC, and a very few more stats, and that's
> *IT*. On the other hand, a GURPS or an Ars Magica character takes up a
> lot more space, especially because of the advantages/disadvantages but
> possibly also due to having more attributes (Ars Magica qualifies here,
> as does my homebrew). How many square inches would you need to describe
> the character game-mechanically? A few, or many?

I could put an AMBER character onto a very, VERY small area: 4 stats,
and a few powers or items, all of which would be on an index card.

If you try to tell me AMBER is "old school" you are mad.


>
> 7. Does the system allow for a *wide* range of attribute values? I'm not
> sure if Nobilis is about Humans, so it's not sufficient to just say that
> the characters are all super-Human, and therefore yes it qualifies.

The "Law" books (Rolemaster) had unlimited stats long before your
"new school". Arduin Grimoire had unlimited stats. Try again.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-29 01:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Mary K. Kuhner wrote:
> Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>>The only legitimate tool a GM has, to achieve rarity of
>>traits, is to raise the point cost of said traits.
>
> How does this work?

Tolerably.

As opposed to the GM (me, or Brandon Cope) breathing down a
player's neck, trying to manipulate the player into not
taking a trait that is supposed to be rare in the game
world, yet fully capable of existing.

> If the price is unaffordable, the players will *never* take
> the rare trait and you might as well have left it out.
>
> If the price seems affordable, and one player is willing to do
> it, others may be as well--which is presumably what you're
> trying to avoid. I don't see why you mightn't end up with

I don't want to *avoid* the trait, I want it to be *rare*.

If I wanted to avoid the trait, I'd simply declare it
nonexistent in the campaign world, so that nobody can have
it (which, indeed, I've done on an infinite number of
occasions when it comes to my Ærth historical fantasy
campaign setting: No nuclear weapons. No antibiothics. No
computers. No space ships. No Kender...).

> a whole party with Rare Trait X, given that the pricing
> structure is such that Rare Trait X is worth taking at all.

On the other hand, it appears as if characters who have Rare
Trait X find the adventuring life extremely attractive. No
problem with me ;-)

> Player good taste may prevent this, but then you didn't need
> the pricing structure in the first place.
>
> I don't worry about rarity, myself. For many rare traits,
> the possessors naturally clump together. It's not harder
> to explain five midgets than one midget: they're a circus
> troupe, or siblings, or movie actors on a little-people movie.
> It's not harder to explain five people who read Ancient
> Egyptian than one; it may even be easier. It's certainly
> not harder to explain five mystical-martial-arts students
> than one--clearly they had the same Secret Master.
>
> A party where every PC has a *different* rare trait is more of
> a worry, but that strikes me as the worst case for trying to
> fix the problem by pricing. I tend to rely on player good
> judgement. Occasionally we have PC parties consisting wholly

Relying on player good judgement ends up putting too much
strain on the player. Uncomfortably much, for the player
himself.

What if Rupert *enjoys* playing IQ 14/Magery 3 characters?
You're putting a heavy burden on Rupert's shoulders,
effectively saying that not all his PCs should be IQ 14 with
Magery 3 (for the sake of simplicity, we will assume a
*normal* campaign, where Rupert plays one PC at a time, as
opposed to the kind of campaign you're into these days), yet
you refuse (I presume) to give Rupert an *objective*
proportion, such as allowing him to make half of his PCs IQ
14 and Magery 3.

(Even if you did give Rupert an objective proportion, I
wouldn't accept that either. In the end, any such limitation
is a sign that the underlying rules system is broken)

I can't imagine that being fun for Rupert. It certainly
would be immensely frustrating for me, causing me to leave
the campaign very quickly.

And the Brandon Cope solution, of breathing heavily down the
player's neck, is unacceptable too. So we're left with
economic measures, which also gives the player a powerful
sense of freedom: The GM gives the player a shopping list,
and a pool of points, and the message "do what you *want*, I
won't stop you, or complain. Feel free to ask me if you need
help".

The only expectation, resting on that player's shoulders, is
that he should create a character that he will find fun to
play, and which won't frustrate the other players (for clues
on this second bit, see Jeff's thread, although I don't
agree with everything in it), and who has some ambitions to
go and explore or change the world.

> of freaks, but they have a certain charm of their own.
>
> (As a PC of mine says, when asked why the PC party is composed
> of freaks, "Our line of work is society's great dumping ground
> for strange and troublesome people." I think that applies to
> adventurers in a lot of settings.)
>
> I wouldn't argue this with Peter, who has views on the matter
> he's not going to change, but I see this principle in a lot
> of game designs and I think it's dysfunctional. Making something
> expensive is a poor way of saying "Don't do this" and an

I'm never saying "don't do this" (except with space ships,
nukes, kender, antibiotics...). I'm just saying "don't do
this *every* time."

By making something more expensive, I encourage the player
to look elsewhere for other traits that might *also* be fun
to play (I like playing smart characters myself. Not
incidentally, Sagatafl offers many ways for a character to
be smart in. Many mechanically different flavours of smart.
It's a principle I try to apply everywhere, although
real-world mental traits is what I find the easiest to
identify).

Think of character creation as a creative process that takes
place affected by several forces or "winds". One such force
is the player's own desire. Another is the requirement, from
the GM or the group as a whole, of a basically functional
character (on Pyramid, one poster suggested that a good
requirement was a character who was capable of surviving
past the age of 5 - this would include, obviously, a lack of
tendency to seriously insult high-ranking nobles) who can
mesh with a group and become (at least to some extent) a
team member. The third force is then the economics of a
point-based character creation system.

I do not want, as a fourth force affecting the process, the
opinion of the GM, except as codified before-the-fact in
objective rules and a reasonably detailed world decsription.

> even poorer way of saying "Only one Scooby per party, please"
> if that's what you actually want.

Limiting the party to only one Scooby strikes me as
dysfunctional. If Scoobies must not occur in pairs, then
that can only be because the rules system is incompetently
designed, and any such limitation is then a kludge, a tacit
admission from the GM that, yes, the system is broken, but
he can't be bothered to actually put the work in to fix it,
he'll just apply a kludge. (Which is exactly what Brandon
Cope's crime is).

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Kevin Lowe
2004-10-29 06:31:25 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@uni-berlin.de>,
Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

> Mary K. Kuhner wrote:

> > even poorer way of saying "Only one Scooby per party, please"
> > if that's what you actually want.
>
> Limiting the party to only one Scooby strikes me as
> dysfunctional. If Scoobies must not occur in pairs, then
> that can only be because the rules system is incompetently
> designed, and any such limitation is then a kludge, a tacit
> admission from the GM that, yes, the system is broken, but
> he can't be bothered to actually put the work in to fix it,
> he'll just apply a kludge. (Which is exactly what Brandon
> Cope's crime is).

I think the one-Scooby rule isn't meant to either represent in-game
rarity or to prevent adverse mechanical consequences that arise if
Scoobys occur in pairs.

It's just that having to Scoobys is like having two Wise Old Mentors, or
two Gormless Young Hero-To-Be Types, or two of The Guy Who Is Cooler
Than The Hero. You're overloaded on a story element, and while this can
be worked around with sufficient effort and even be fun it does involve
work and foresight.

I'm not sure any chargen system is ever going to ensure that a party
works as a troupe though, so asking that a system somehow limit Scoobys
to one per party without coercing anyone is a big ask for a system.

The closest system I can think of to one that does this is Amber, where
the players bid against each other to see who is the most powerful in
each attribute. Conceivably the players could bid to see who gets to be
the Hero, the Mentor, the Love Interest, the Guy Who Is Cooler Than The
Hero and the Scooby.

Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-29 19:06:15 UTC
Permalink
In article <me-***@individual.net>,
Kevin Lowe <***@private.net> wrote:

>I think the one-Scooby rule isn't meant to either represent in-game
>rarity or to prevent adverse mechanical consequences that arise if
>Scoobys occur in pairs.

Yes, exactly.

I don't see any reason to try to make rare traits rare in PCs,
unless you mean your PC generation rules to produce all of your
NPCs as well, as Warren does. Good PCs generally have rare traits,
because it takes at least *some* degree of oddness to get mixed
up in the kind of stuff most games are about.

If the rare trait breaks the game mechanically, I don't want it,
period. I don't want a character who scants everything else to
buy this expensive game-busting thing! That's bad in two ways;
the character's likely to be too narrow, and then there's the
game-buster.

>It's just that having to Scoobys is like having two Wise Old Mentors, or
>two Gormless Young Hero-To-Be Types, or two of The Guy Who Is Cooler
>Than The Hero. You're overloaded on a story element, and while this can
>be worked around with sufficient effort and even be fun it does involve
>work and foresight.

The way I would put this is, if the PC party is composed entirely
of Scoobys none of the players are likely to have as much fun with
their Scooby as they thought they would. Part of the fun of playing
a really weird PC is contrasting him/her/it with someone more normal.

My PC Valerie is a telekinetic alien dog. A whole party of alien
dogs--even a whole party of critters each individually as odd as
an alien dog--wouldn't have been as interesting for me to play
Valerie in as her party of mostly humans.

Vikki, from the same party, is a Raised By Aliens character, as is
Valerie, but they are totally opposite takes on the idea. Valerie
can pass effortlessly for human (on the phone, for example) and
it takes knowing her really well to see that this is a mask. Vikki,
who genetically *is* human, is clueless about human behavior. But
two Vikkis would also have been less fun than having one.

>I'm not sure any chargen system is ever going to ensure that a party
>works as a troupe though, so asking that a system somehow limit Scoobys
>to one per party without coercing anyone is a big ask for a system.

I don't expect a system to do it. I use player negotiation,
sometimes nudged by the GM. "I think that's a lot of freaks in
one party. Would it be more fun if someone ran Fred, who is
shocked by all the freaks? Or can you set them up so each is
Fred to the others in one area of their lives?"

I guess what I'm asking--and it's no use asking Peter, because I
never do understand his answers, but let me ask in general:

Why make a rare trait expensive? What is the desired outcome in
terms of the distribution of PC traits? Why do you desire it?
(Assuming you do. I think I don't. I just want a balance of
Scooby and Fred, and to entirely avoid traits that don't work in
my games.)

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
Russell Impagliazzo
2004-10-29 21:09:03 UTC
Permalink
>
> I guess what I'm asking--and it's no use asking Peter, because I
> never do understand his answers, but let me ask in general:
>
> Why make a rare trait expensive? What is the desired outcome in
> terms of the distribution of PC traits? Why do you desire it?
> (Assuming you do. I think I don't. I just want a balance of
> Scooby and Fred, and to entirely avoid traits that don't work in
> my games.)
>
> Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com

One justification is that, to some extent, an ability becomes more
powerful in a world where it is rare, since others are less prepared to
cope with it. Consider having an invisibility cloak in a modern-world
game versus having one in a highly magical fantasy game. In a
modern-world setting, an invisible character would be hugely powerful,
since people aren't expecting invisible people to be eavesdropping or
sneaking into guarded areas. In a high-magic fantasy game, rich and
powerful people would all have installed protection against invisible
intruders (dogs, anti-magic fields, or detect magic alarms.)
Conversely, having a rifle in a fantasy game might make a character very
powerful, since it could shoot through metal armor better than an arrow.
But rifles are routine in a modern-world setting, and there are some
defenses such as Kevlar that counter them.
Mary K. Kuhner
2004-10-29 21:46:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <clubhf$i6h$***@news1.ucsd.edu>,
Russell Impagliazzo <***@cs.ucsd.edu> wrote:

>Mary Kuhner wrote:
>> Why make a rare trait expensive? What is the desired outcome in
>> terms of the distribution of PC traits? Why do you desire it?

>One justification is that, to some extent, an ability becomes more
>powerful in a world where it is rare, since others are less prepared to
>cope with it.

That's a good point which I hadn't thought of.

> Consider having an invisibility cloak in a modern-world
>game versus having one in a highly magical fantasy game. In a
>modern-world setting, an invisible character would be hugely powerful,
>since people aren't expecting invisible people to be eavesdropping or
>sneaking into guarded areas.

I've usually found this particular example, and its close cousins,
*so* powerful that I can't handle them as a GM. If a PC can do
something which the setting considers essentially impossible it
can give them astonishing amounts of power, and I get an aching
head trying to work out the consequences, not to mention provide
appropriate challenges. Usually the GM has to resort to having
all the real opponents be aware of the ability and somewhat able
to cope with it, and then it's not really rare in the context
of the actual adventures.

I would forbid such an ability unless I was prepared to have
the game center on it.

But yes, having an ability that is rare and therefore lacks
countermeasures is a good reason to price by rarity. Alternatively
you could price by effectiveness and consider the lack of
countermeasures in your world as an increase in effectiveness.
Teleport is inherently more powerful in a world with no
Teleport Wards than in one with lots and lots of them.

I wouldn't feel this way, though, about skill with an exotic
weapon (unless it bypassed normal parries or something like
that) or knowledge of an exotic language. (Sure, knowing
Navajo gave the WWII code-talkers an edge based on its rarity,
but that doesn't seem like a big enough effect to worry about.)
And membership in an exotic race seems to be as much a liability
as an asset. I guess it's not really rarity per se so much as
lack of countermeasures (which may include lack of the appropriate
Knowledge skills in other people in the setting).

Mary Kuhner ***@eskimo.com
Peter Knutsen
2004-10-26 22:34:47 UTC
Permalink
Brandon Cope wrote:
> Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
>>And if the rules reflect the world, and it's one in which curses and
>>polymorphs are easy to reverse it's not a good and viable character
>>concept.
>
> Then you change the rules, or come up with a reason why the PC is an

*Before* the fact? Wouldn't that be a very first, for you,
Mr. Ad Hoc?

> exception to the rules.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 02:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Peter Knutsen <***@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message news:<***@uni-berlin.de>...
> Brandon Cope wrote:
> > Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> >>And if the rules reflect the world, and it's one in which curses and
> >>polymorphs are easy to reverse it's not a good and viable character
> >>concept.
> >
> > Then you change the rules, or come up with a reason why the PC is an
>
> *Before* the fact?

Yup.

> Wouldn't that be a very first, for you, Mr. Ad Hoc?

Nope. In fact, I have a list of house rules for GURPS on my website,
which I point all new players to.

Brandon
Brandon Cope
2004-10-27 02:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
> On 25 Oct 2004 08:31:15 -0700, ***@yahoo.com (Brandon Cope) carved
> upon a tablet of ether:
>
> > Jeff Heikkinen <***@s.if> wrote in message news:<***@news.easynews.com>...
> > > Brandon Cope, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
> > > >
> > > > So don't allow it to be dispelled by accident.
> > >
> > > There are people who prefer to, you know, actually use the rules.
> >
> > The rules should never stand in the way of a good and viable character concept.
>
> And if the rules reflect the world, and it's one in which curses and
> polymorphs are easy to reverse it's not a good and viable character
> concept.

Sure it is. The fact that you are not willing to bend the setting to
allow an otherwise interesting and playable character tells me you
have a far different GMing style than I do -- you put the setting
before the characters and I put the characters before the setting.

Brandon
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...