Character death
Mary K. Kuhner
dangers are real and the GM is not babying them along.
Characters need to survive long enough to make them satisfying and
interesting to play.
No two groups agree on "often enough" or "long enough", so it's pretty
hard to make any generalizations about this. The only thing I can say
is that the game works better if GM and players are roughly in
agreement; oh, and it's helpful to have methods to convince the players
that character death is a real possibility, other than actually killing
characters.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
--
I do not receive posts from the following systems because they tolerate
abuse of Usenet: interramp.com psi.com scruz.net
If you wish me to see your message anyway please use email.
Thaos
to be out on a anti character campane. Of course it depends on the
system. In a game like Immortal death is unlikely. Of course in
Paranoia, well six deaths are not that likely but then again neather are
they entirely imposible. Any thoughts?
Brian Henderson
You are right, it does depend on the system. In Paranoia, you expect
to die. Heck, you *WANT* to die as colorfully and interestingly as
possible. Outside of a game like that, I would think that the more
realistic the system, the more possible it should be to have a
character die, simply because the world can be a deadly place.
Personally, I've killed hundreds of characters over the years, but I
don't think I've ever done it unless they deserved it (ie. they did
something that they could have and should have avoided), and I don't
think anyone has ever accused me of being unfair about it.
I think that if you are in a realistic game and characters cannot die,
the game becomes pretty pointless.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FFFFFF N N OOO RRRR DDDD
% Brian Henderson %% % F NN N O O R R D D
% Internet: BHen...@kirk.microsys.net % FFF N N N O O RRRR D D
% BHen...@microsys.net % F N NN O O R R D D
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% F N N OOO R R DDDD
Stay Alert - Trust No One - Keep Your Laser Handy!
"Order the fries, Earthling!"
A Halliwell
: Characters need to die often enough to convince the players that the
: dangers are real and the GM is not babying them along.
: Characters need to survive long enough to make them satisfying and
: interesting to play.
The best rule of thumb is:-
Did the party make a mistake that SHOULD kill them!
Put in the dangers you want, but make sure there are some things that only a
FOOL would fall into. Eventually, one of the party will.
Sometimes a character will put his foot in it and anger a powerful NPC.
You don't have to justify character death, but dying of stupidity easy one
of the most satifying ways of doing it. That way it's entirely thier fault
and you don't need to feel hastled by them.
: No two groups agree on "often enough" or "long enough", so it's pretty
: hard to make any generalizations about this. The only thing I can say
: is that the game works better if GM and players are roughly in
: agreement; oh, and it's helpful to have methods to convince the players
: that character death is a real possibility, other than actually killing
: characters.
: Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
: --
: I do not receive posts from the following systems because they tolerate
: abuse of Usenet: interramp.com psi.com scruz.net
: If you wish me to see your message anyway please use email.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crackin |
|u5...@cc.keele.ac.uk |the ground beneath a giant bolder, which you can't |
| |move, with no hope of rescue. |
|Andrew Halliwell |Consider how lucky you are that life has been good |
|Principal in:- |to you so far... |
|Comp Sci & Visual Arts | -The BOOK, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey C Grabowski
>Just a thought. I have a tendancy to not kill characters.
>Any thoughts?
There are, to me, three main reasons for a chracter to die. Note
please that I'm pretty reluctant to kill characters. I maim them instead.
1) The character has done something stupid - As a rule, before you kill
someone, they should have done something that they had good warning would
quite possibly be lethal. Stephanie Iskatwitch's 'three decision points
and an out' from IF #3 is a good way to judge this. If warned, and given
three chances to quit, the character persists, it is valid to put them in
a truly lethal situation. Even then, there isn't such a thing as certain
death.
Warning in this context means a real warning. "If you' just
checked the bushes 300 yards away you'd have found the 'ACHTUNG! MINEN!'
(Attention! Landmines!) sign" is probabally not valid.
Three decision points means that the character gets a few chances
to back away. Rather than 'you go into the house?' followed by 'Somone
beind the door shoots you! You're dead!' isn't good. Give the char at
least three decision points or skill checks. If possible, make evident
the danger of what they're doing.
2) The player wants the character to die - Right, I don't think I need to
explain this, but don't just try to read those little signs. If the
warrior makes a stand at the gates of the enemy citadel so their friends
can escape (an RQ anecdote propoerly attributed to someone I forget), then
you can assume, if they've already fought the bad ghuys, they know this
means death (again, see the 'decision points', above). Don't just assume
that 'Bob is getting a little listless with Figaro the Magnificent, maybe
he wants a new character'.
3) The character has done something to set in-game wheels in motion that
may lead to their death - This is _almost_ 1, but deerves some
explanation. This means that actions that are reactions to a player's
previous mistakes can catch up to them. The obvious is starting a
bar-brawl, drawing a broadsword and hacking your way through the crowd.
Your death on the gallows is to be expected afterwards.
Less obvious is the case of NPCs. As an example, the characters
in my Everway game last night bumped off one of their seven long-time foes
in a pretty nasty fashion (someone hit them from behind with a sword that
was a Relic of Bygone Heros while they were in a sorcerous duel with
another PC). The game, which is mainly focused around nearly-psychotic
revenge killings, some executed by the people (dragons, actually) in
question, and maily tells the story of how past misdeeds have a pricetag
attached in the future, may now turn into a game of cat and mouse, while
six or so angered dragons try to avenge their murdered siblings.
Sometimes, as, for instance, with these dragons, the NPCs aren't
going to give the players every fair chance they can. That doesn't mean
that the stratospherically powerful arch-Mage should incinerate the
players for smirking, but sometimes the GM playing fair can play hell
with the NPCs. I don't _ususally_ put NPCs into my games that can
instatly kill players unless those NPCs have huge neon warning signs
attached. Still, if the players offend powerful people sufficiently, they
can find their lives transformed into a living hell, or murder plots
hatched with startling efficiency, provided the NPCs are intelligent and
so inclined. This is one situation where the final results of an action
may play out into things like ambuscade and assassination. Still, I
assume the palyers are heros, and act accordingly, trying to give them a
chance.
Really, it all boils down to 'give them a chance'. Lethal traps
might be fun for some people, but they rapidly pale when your characters
are being thrown through the oh-so-clever meatgrinders. I will agree
withMary that there can be better ways to alert the players to the
possibility of death without bumping one off. Anyway, I'm afraid I've
been a bit incoherent in part 3, and am just rambling, so I'll end here.
G.
--
|Geoffrey C. Grabowski|gcg...@pitt.edu|Undergrad, U.Pittsburgh|Swing Heil!|
[O]
[O] cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not
[O] as they ought to be.
Thaos
I screwed up and whatever is after them is to powerfull) i'll save your
but but if its your fault (stupid mistake) your dead.
James
> I think that if you are in a realistic game and characters cannot die,
> the game becomes pretty pointless.
Your missing one element in the equation: the scale of the danger. In a
realistic game, if the PC deal with life and death situation constantly,
then they can and should expect a short life. To have longer living PCs in
a realistic world, you need to deal with less dangerous situations (greater
use of unarmed combat, more problem solving). To have both really dangerous
situations and longer lasting PCs, you need to relax on the realism.
Short lived PCs seem pointless to me, but that's another matter. POint is
you can't have your cake and eat it.
Regards,
-- James --
Christopher Beattie
> Just a thought. I have a tendancy to not kill characters. Other DM seem
> to be out on a anti character campane. Of course it depends on the
> system. In a game like Immortal death is unlikely. Of course in
> Paranoia, well six deaths are not that likely but then again neather are
> they entirely imposible. Any thoughts?
The best quote was from from a seminar I attended at a Gen Con a couple of
years ago from (Mea Maxima Culpa I forgot his name) one of the creators of
Amber ... "I don't kill my characters ... I'm too cerwel ... Death is too
easy for them."
I think I agree. Killing characters is something I don't do normally. Now
I have had them go in over their heads, but usuially they get saved at the
last moment by someone or something that expects something in return for
their actions. Now this doesn't mean I will go saving them even when they
do something stupid, but rather that you really need to do something stupid
as a player in my campaigns to die. Now NPC's on the other hand, might
die quite often, slowly comming closer and closer to the players. (Parinoia
is such a lovely thing in the hands of a DM isn't it?)
| _____ |Christopher Beattie |Tantalus Incorporated|
| ___ |[]|_n_n_I_c |Tantalus @ Key West | P.O. Box 2310|
| |___||__|###|____)|Development Division| Key West, FL 33045|
| O-O--O-O+++--O-O |chr...@mpgn.com |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| Opinions expressed here belong to me! | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
James
writes:
> Thanks thats all true. I have told people if its my fault (in other words
> I screwed up and whatever is after them is to powerfull) i'll save your
> but but if its your fault (stupid mistake) your dead.
>
walking into a trap, but the PC, who was never very bright and is
blissfully unaware he is in a RPG, would have to walk striaght onto his
death. That doesn't sound right to me.
-- James --
Jeff Stehman
>Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
>the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against 1st
>level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
>opponents to the party's relative strength.
Not a safe assumption with me. Dragons tend to live in where novice
characters wouldn't be likely to reach, but if they could, they'd meet
them. I frequently let PCs jump in *way* over their heads. Evolution,
that which does not kill us, etc. Not only does it make a game world
more consistant, but it quickly gets rid of some of baggage regarding
what it means to "win" new players tend to bring to my table.
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
URL for Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce: http://www.southwind.net/ict/
James
(Brian Henderson) writes:
>
> James <ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article: <4a53g0$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> th...@aol.com (Thaos)
> >writes:
> >What if you are playing a stupid character? The player might know he is
> >walking into a trap, but the PC, who was never very bright and is
> >blissfully unaware he is in a RPG, would have to walk striaght onto his
> >death. That doesn't sound right to me.
>
> Why not? Sounds perfectly like reality to me. Life isn't fair, why
> should a game be (within reason, of course)?
>
There is that 'R' word again. I just hate it when people hide behind
'reaslism' to defend their prefered style of play....<grumble, grumble>...
Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against 1st
level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
opponents to the party's relative strength. This is not so much an issue of
realism as much a concession to fairness and playability. Once this is done
if the party fights well they win, if they do poorly, tough.
So how do you go about gauging a party's strength? You can look at their
level, points etc.. but why stop there ? Why not look at the personalities
of the PCs. A specific party might be highly ineffective in dangerous
situations because the leader is too dumb, proud or brave. The reverse is
also true. I've seen some clever low level characters do amazing things.
So to keep the balance of the encounter you would need to take into account
not just the objective level of the party to be effective the GM but also
the 'subjective' level as defined by the PCs personality.
Now I can see how in certain games you wouldn't want a stupid or otherwise
incompetent characters in the party. A game with a tense unforgiving
atmosphere in which the party faces many tough challenges requires competent
PCs. In such a game I suggest the GM tells the players upfront that the PCs
need to have certain qualities and carefully vet any type of disadvantage
they may have selected. Of course you pay a price. The range and richness of
characterization in party will be reduced, but I understand this is not
everybody's top priority.
Regards,
-- James --
Brian Henderson
>In article: <4a53g0$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> th...@aol.com (Thaos)
>writes:
>> Thanks thats all true. I have told people if its my fault (in other words
>> I screwed up and whatever is after them is to powerfull) i'll save your
>> but but if its your fault (stupid mistake) your dead.
>>
>That if you are playing a stupid character? The player might know he is
>walking into a trap, but the PC, who was never very bright and is
>blissfully unaware he is in a RPG, would have to walk striaght onto his
>death. That doesn't sound right to me.
Why not? Sounds perfectly like reality to me. Life isn't fair, why
should a game be (within reason, of course)?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Brian Henderson == Internet: BHen...@kirk.microsys.net ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== BHen...@microsys.net ==
+ Furry Fan, Babylon 5, == ==
+ MST3K, Atheist, Skeptic, ==========================================
+ Sliders, RPG Gamer, INWO, == I'm not saying what I'm thinking, so ==
+ Herpetophile, Gargoyles == I don't think anyone agrees with me! ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
Mary K. Kuhner
>Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
>the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against 1st
>level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
>opponents to the party's relative strength. This is not so much an issue of
>realism as much a concession to fairness and playability. Once this is done
>if the party fights well they win, if they do poorly, tough.
> -- James --
Alternatively, you might be presenting a world with challenges of a
variety of levels, and allowing the PCs to choose what they will pursue.
If they do, and they make a stupid choice, the GM may really have to sit
on her hands and let them die (or else sacrifice both world
background verisimilitude and the sense of danger). I've seen cases where
protecting a PC who is deliberately played as stupid from the consequences
of his stupidity ruins destroys the character conception. After all, if
the player is being sensible, she will realize that a stupid
character is in danger from his stupidity. If that danger never
materializes, the game can start feeling meaningless and disconnected.
I ran a party of fairly ordinary Shadowrunners who tackled a
multinational corporation. (Not a smart move, but they were very highly
motivated.) The GM and I sweat a lot to find some way that this could
work out as an interesting game, but we felt constrained not to simply
decree it survivable. How could I believe in Paradisio if he depicted it
as a pushover? Doesn't make sense.
Different people draw the fairness/playability versus verisimilitude
line in *very* different places.
In any case, cycling back to your original point--I don't feel
comfortable about saying "I'll only kill the PCs if they do something
stupid," unless "something stupid" is extended to mean getting involved
with an overly bad situation in the first place. If I, as GM, push them
into a situation, I do feel a responsibility to make it survivable. If
they freely choose to tackle the sahuagin underwater fortress despite
clear evidence it's too much, they should die. Clever play may save
them, or it may not. I won't insure that even cleverness will be enough.
Wayne J. Rasmussen
: There is that 'R' word again. I just hate it when people hide behind
: Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
: the relative strength of the party?
You can assume that, but you would be wrong. Perhaps DEAD wrong.
Sometimes a world history presents "opportunities" which characters may
best leave along util they are more powerful. Regardless of their level,
the world history still exists.
: That you don't pit dragons against 1st level characters?
Dragons exists my the world, they don't appear when a party reaches such
and such level. If a party hears rumors or grows up hearing legends of an
ancient red dragon existing in a nearby mountain range they have a choice
to make. If they decide as first level characters that they want to go out
and TRY to kill the ancient red dragon why should I stop them. They may
get warnings depending on which NPCs they meet. Is death the only
outcome for them, no. But death is very likely.
: You probably try to match the number and quality of opponents to the
: party's relative strength.
Generally true, but not always.
: This is not so much an issue of realism as much a concession to fairness
: and playability. Once this is done if the party fights well they win,
: if they do poorly, tough.
I think the term fairness reeks with too much "PC" for my taste. :)
A Lapalme
> James <ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
>>level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
>
> characters wouldn't be likely to reach, but if they could, they'd meet
> them. I frequently let PCs jump in *way* over their heads. Evolution,
> that which does not kill us, etc. Not only does it make a game world
> more consistant, but it quickly gets rid of some of baggage regarding
> what it means to "win" new players tend to bring to my table.
>
And, if not, why not?
Alain
A Lapalme
> I think the term fairness reeks with too much "PC" for my taste. :)
>
something is PC doesn't mean it's bad, you know).
Alain
Jeff Stehman
>>
>OK. But, would you throw a dragon at them if they didn't go look for it?
>And, if not, why not?
There's not much I do throw at them. The world is in motion, they're
moving through it. They encounter what they encounter. What little
I do throw at them generally has to do with the plots of men, not
monsters. Dragons don't live in high or moderate traffic areas.
Novices moving through low traffic areas would be unlikely to survive
long enough to reach a dragon. (I've had several gaming worlds, but
they all have the same basic characteristics. Had several dragons in
these worlds, but only one was ever encountered-- unintentionally.)
I'm not always so polite as to put the the big nasties in distant
lands, though. In the current land the pcs are invaders, conquering
orc lands and claiming lordship over the humans there. Right across
the river from where they live is something very unpleasant that
would chew them up and spit them out if they ever bother it. We'll
see what happens. The place is obviously haunted and so far they've
steered clear.
Heck, I have a pc who has a demi-liche living in his cellars. Not a
real pleasant thought, be he's come to terms with it. If there was
ever conflict, my pc would be dead, period. No chance. I was
pleasantly surprised at this little turn of events, 'cause the gm is
infamous for his "you must be challenged" attitude. He's not the
kind to throw something at you that so completely outclasses you.
Likewise he's not the kind to throw something at you that you can
shrug off, but he's done that recently, too. Perhaps there's hope
for him yet.
James
>
> >In article: <c97cb$02df...@kirk.microsys.net>
BHen...@kirk.microsys.net
>
> >(Brian Henderson) writes:
> >> should a game be (within reason, of course)?
> >>
> >'reaslism' to defend their prefered style of play....<grumble,
grumble>...
>
>
> using reason assumes adherence to REALISM? :-)
>
Actually is was refering to the 'sounds perfectly like reality' portion of
the phrase. This is a pet hate for me, so I beg your indulgence if I
overreact a little. The reason why I dislike the term realism in the
context of RPGs so much is that despite its meaning is very vague it still
carries so much weight. If I can make an analogy, its like when laymen
accuse scientists of 'playing God'. What does that mean? Who said playing
God was a bad thing? (more grumbles...).
You may prefer to run games in a harsh, unforgiving world. That's fine, I've
enjoyed some games like that also. You can also say that in this aspect the
game becomes more realistic than its cinematic counterpart. But point is
that your making your choice according to what is more enjoyable. The fact
that it is also more realistic is a incidental ( well nort
entirely). There are a number of other changes you could apply to the game
to make it more realistic, but if those detract from the enjoyment of the
game you would ignore them. Thus we do not often see our heroes doing their
laundry, getting seriously injured in a purely accidental car crash or
goiung to the company Christmas party ( unless it is a horror game).
>
> >Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
>
> >the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against
1st
>
> >level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
> >opponents to the party's relative strength. This is not so much an issue
> of
> >realism as much a concession to fairness and playability. Once this is
> done
> >if the party fights well they win, if they do poorly, tough.
>
> Just a question: What if you DO "pit" dragons against 1st level
> characters?
> Is it not a valid assumption that if they are to survive to be senior
> citizen heros
> that they should learn when to "RUN AWAY"? This "balancing the battle"
> thing has always bugged me. If a dragon is going to attack a town, it is
> going to
> attack, not wait till heros of an adequate level to challenge it are
around
> (unless
> it *is* just bored and looking for a challenge). I don't like the concept
> of
> if "fought well, the party will win every battle". If this is so, why
> WOULDN't they
> readily and willingly enter EVERY battle that presents itself? To me,
> stupidity,
> (and therefore justified PC deaths) includes taking on more than you can
> handle.
> Most battlefields are littered with "heroes" with this flaw, though we
> usually call
> them KIA's.
>
The nice thing about fear is that is very instinctive and doesn't require
much intelligence. Even my dumbest character would run at the sight of a
dragon. The difference is he may not be able to see the tell-tale signs in
time. What the GM may consider a fair warning for a smart PC isn't going to
work for a dim witted PC. In a harsh world that means the dumb PC is dragon
chow - natural selection in action.
I'm uncomfortable with this survival of the fittest sort of game because it
reduces the range of characters I can play. Two of my favorite characters
were a little dim. They weren't just parodies. They had lots of other
qualities and hidden depths that I found really endearing. Characters like
these are the reason I roleplay. If the require a gentler world to exist in
, so be it.
[snip]
> I guess I consider your suggestions in the camp of the "Plotting"
> folks,
> and boardering on heavy-handed fate manipulation if you ensure that the
PCs
>
> SHOULD always win.
>
> Comments?
>
> Chris (I hardly EVER win) Gandy
>
Actually its not about plot as it is about playing characters. We touched a
similar topic in the 'Dice denying Character thread' recently. The example
there was of a competent character whose character concept could be
compromised by unlucky dice rolls. It not a question of plotting but one of
putting character first. Then again plot is character - sorry I couldn't
resist :-)
Regards,
-- James --
James
writes:
> Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
> Path:
jpb-s.demon.co.uk!news.demon.co.uk!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!usenet.ee
l.ufl.edu!gatech2!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!wj
r
> From: w...@netcom.com (Wayne J. Rasmussen)
> Subject: Re: Character death
> Message-ID: <wjrDJD...@netcom.com>
> : That you don't pit dragons against 1st level characters?
> Dragons exists my the world, they don't appear when a party reaches such
> and such level. If a party hears rumors or grows up hearing legends of an
> ancient red dragon existing in a nearby mountain range they have a choice
> to make. If they decide as first level characters that they want to go out
> and TRY to kill the ancient red dragon why should I stop them. They may
> get warnings depending on which NPCs they meet. Is death the only
> outcome for them, no. But death is very likely.
>
Ok I admit, the example using dragons was a particularly poor choice The
image dragons evoke usually involves (stupid) adventurers seeking the the
dragon's lair and not vice versa. And you are correct in saying that its not
the GMs job to stop the players from trying (that's the dragons job).
> : You probably try to match the number and quality of opponents to the
> : party's relative strength.
> Generally true, but not always.
Hey, give me a break here, I did say probably :-)
>
> : This is not so much an issue of realism as much a concession to fairness
> : and playability. Once this is done if the party fights well they win,
> : if they do poorly, tough.
> I think the term fairness reeks with too much "PC" for my taste. :)
Che? That didn't make much sense to me.
Kind regards,
-- James --
Chris Gandy
<ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>' wrote:
>In article: <c97cb$02df...@kirk.microsys.net> BHen...@kirk.microsys.net
>(Brian Henderson) writes:
>>
>> >In article: <4a53g0$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> th...@aol.com (Thaos)
>> >writes:
>> >walking into a trap, but the PC, who was never very bright and is
>> >blissfully unaware he is in a RPG, would have to walk striaght onto his
>> >death. That doesn't sound right to me.
>>
>> should a game be (within reason, of course)?
>>
>There is that 'R' word again. I just hate it when people hide behind
>'reaslism' to defend their prefered style of play....<grumble, grumble>...
Hmmmmm, the only "R" word he used was REASON. Does that mean that
using reason assumes adherence to REALISM? :-)
>Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
>the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against 1st
>level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
>opponents to the party's relative strength. This is not so much an issue
of
>realism as much a concession to fairness and playability. Once this is
done
>if the party fights well they win, if they do poorly, tough.
Just a question: What if you DO "pit" dragons against 1st level
characters?
Is it not a valid assumption that if they are to survive to be senior
citizen heros
that they should learn when to "RUN AWAY"? This "balancing the battle"
thing has always bugged me. If a dragon is going to attack a town, it is
going to
attack, not wait till heros of an adequate level to challenge it are around
(unless
it *is* just bored and looking for a challenge). I don't like the concept
of
if "fought well, the party will win every battle". If this is so, why
WOULDN't they
readily and willingly enter EVERY battle that presents itself? To me,
stupidity,
(and therefore justified PC deaths) includes taking on more than you can
handle.
Most battlefields are littered with "heroes" with this flaw, though we
usually call
them KIA's.
>So how do you go about gauging a party's strength? You can look at their
>level, points etc.. but why stop there ? Why not look at the personalities
>of the PCs. A specific party might be highly ineffective in dangerous
>situations because the leader is too dumb, proud or brave. The reverse is
>also true. I've seen some clever low level characters do amazing things.
Exactly, but I would also expect characters who are not so clever to
DIE
TRYING. To me, THAT is what being a hero is about, knowing when guile,
wit, strength of limb or whatever talent they have is enough to turn the
day,
and on the days that it is not, to plan for another time. (Or, be prepared
for a
new title instead of hero: martyr or fool - you decide which).
David A Bonar
Just a friendly warning, I don't really want to get into a
debate over terms but James has managed to hit one of my pet peeves while
talking about one of his.
James (ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: gan...@usa.pipeline.com(Chris Gandy) writes:
: Actually is was refering to the 'sounds perfectly like reality' portion of
: the phrase. This is a pet hate for me, so I beg your indulgence if I
: overreact a little. The reason why I dislike the term realism in the
: context of RPGs so much is that despite its meaning is very vague it still
: carries so much weight.
: You may prefer to run games in a harsh, unforgiving world. That's fine, I've
: enjoyed some games like that also. You can also say that in this aspect the
: game becomes more realistic than its cinematic counterpart. But point is
: that your making your choice according to what is more enjoyable. The fact
: that it is also more realistic is a incidental ( well nort
: entirely). There are a number of other changes you could apply to the game
: to make it more realistic, but if those detract from the enjoyment of the
: game you would ignore them. Thus we do not often see our heroes doing their
: laundry, getting seriously injured in a purely accidental car crash or
: goiung to the company Christmas party ( unless it is a horror game).
Why is it that everyone equates realitic with playing through all
events no matter how mundane? Realism (or its lack) and pacing are two
very different issues.
Dave
Scott A. H. Ruggels
Well In my case, I don't let terminally stupid characters in my game!
Stupidity kills, and inattentiveness, but less so. The players and
characters find their own level of danger in most cases, and I do not
force balance all that much, becaus I usually allow an out, for the PC's
to run away, If they are brave and foolhardy, then we will grind it out
to the bitter end. because sometimes a player wants to know HOW the
character died. (I also don't let in introspective intoverted
characters, as they , while not stupid, provide no entertainment for
this GM to run for.).
Scott
ekb
> >the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against 1st
> >level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
> >opponents to the party's relative strength. This is not so much an issue of
> >realism as much a concession to fairness and playability. Once this is done
> >if the party fights well they win, if they do poorly, tough.
>
>
> Alternatively, you might be presenting a world with challenges of a
> variety of levels, and allowing the PCs to choose what they will pursue.
> If they do, and they make a stupid choice, the GM may really have to sit
> on her hands and let them die (or else sacrifice both world
> background verisimilitude and the sense of danger). I've seen cases where
> protecting a PC who is deliberately played as stupid from the consequences
> of his stupidity ruins destroys the character conception. After all, if
> the player is being sensible, she will realize that a stupid
> character is in danger from his stupidity. If that danger never
> materializes, the game can start feeling meaningless and disconnected.
There's also a playstyle question here: Does the GM's style tend more
toward 'static' challenges that the PC's must seek out, or toward
challenges that seek out the PC's? In the former case, PC's can always
survive even the most grossly powerful opponents by simply not
challenging them. In the latter case, there's much more call on the GM to
fudge matters so that the PC's don't get overwhelmed (as you do point
out below).
> I ran a party of fairly ordinary Shadowrunners who tackled a
> multinational corporation. (Not a smart move, but they were very highly
> motivated.) The GM and I sweat a lot to find some way that this could
> work out as an interesting game, but we felt constrained not to simply
> decree it survivable. How could I believe in Paradisio if he depicted it
> as a pushover? Doesn't make sense.
>
> Different people draw the fairness/playability versus verisimilitude
> line in *very* different places.
Yup. And I agree that verisimilitude *is* an important consideration.
> In any case, cycling back to your original point--I don't feel
> comfortable about saying "I'll only kill the PCs if they do something
> stupid," unless "something stupid" is extended to mean getting involved
> with an overly bad situation in the first place. If I, as GM, push them
> into a situation, I do feel a responsibility to make it survivable. If
> they freely choose to tackle the sahuagin underwater fortress despite
> clear evidence it's too much, they should die. Clever play may save
> them, or it may not. I won't insure that even cleverness will be enough.
It sounds like your style is more toward the 'PC's have to seek out
trouble' end - and you do admit to a need to take 'playability' into
account when you, as GM, has trouble seek out the PC's. James, OTOH,
sounds like the sort that has trouble seek out the PC's - a style that
makes fudging opponent strengths more necessary and common.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Brian Henderson
>In article: <c97cb$02df...@kirk.microsys.net> BHen...@kirk.microsys.net
>(Brian Henderson) writes:
>> James <ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >In article: <4a53g0$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> th...@aol.com (Thaos)
>> >writes:
>> >What if you are playing a stupid character? The player might know he is
>> >walking into a trap, but the PC, who was never very bright and is
>> >blissfully unaware he is in a RPG, would have to walk striaght onto his
>> >death. That doesn't sound right to me.
>>
>> Why not? Sounds perfectly like reality to me. Life isn't fair, why
>> should a game be (within reason, of course)?
>>
>There is that 'R' word again. I just hate it when people hide behind
>'reaslism' to defend their prefered style of play....<grumble, grumble>...
It isn't a matter of hiding behind "realism", it is a matter of
calling it like it is. I think you'll understand this better as we go
on.
>Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
>the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against 1st
>level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
>opponents to the party's relative strength. This is not so much an issue of
>realism as much a concession to fairness and playability. Once this is done
>if the party fights well they win, if they do poorly, tough.
Well, I don't play D&D or fantasy games, but just to use your analogy,
I don't purposely throw dragons at first-level characters. That
doesn't mean that dragons and other such menaces cease to exist in the
game universe until the PCs can handle them. If a PC goes out of his
way to piss off a dragon, that dragon is going to stomp the crap out
of the PC. It would be foolish IMO to do otherwise.
Other than that, no, I don't match the opponents to the strength of
the party, I match the opponents to the situation behind the game. If
the first level party gets the regional Assassin's Guild mad at them,
that Guild isn't going to send 1-2 low-level assassins after the PCs,
those PCs are going to get deluged by high-level, very competent, very
deadly assassins sworn to kill them. In other words, the PCs are
going to have little if any chance to survive. The lesson here is,
don't piss off the Assassin's Guild.
>So how do you go about gauging a party's strength? You can look at their
>level, points etc.. but why stop there ? Why not look at the personalities
>of the PCs. A specific party might be highly ineffective in dangerous
>situations because the leader is too dumb, proud or brave. The reverse is
>also true. I've seen some clever low level characters do amazing things.
Let's look at reality. I know you don't like the word, but let's do
it anyhow. Does your own personality affect the quality of people
that you meet during the day? The idiot bank teller is going to be at
the bank whether you are there or not. Joe Blow Postal Worker with a
Shotgun is going down to the post office no matter what your
personality is. The world doesn't care what you do or who you are.
The world just is. It is independent of your character. I've seen so
many people who are tailoring the world to match the characters when,
IMO, the opposite should be true. You do not succeed in life because
the world changes itself to your specifications. You succeed because
you take advantage of situations which you encounter.
>So to keep the balance of the encounter you would need to take into account
>not just the objective level of the party to be effective the GM but also
>the 'subjective' level as defined by the PCs personality.
Encounters don't necessarily need to be balanced. Going back to the
D&D example, there are certainly going to be some situations where
20th level characters will get to bash on orcs and goblins and others
where ancient red dragons will get to bash on 1st level characters.
Certainly, these encounters should occur in relation to the actions of
the PCs as well as the overall situation of the world, but if a party
of low-level characters wants to ignore all the charcoal-covered signs
that say "Beware, Red Dragon", so be it.
>Now I can see how in certain games you wouldn't want a stupid or otherwise
>incompetent characters in the party. A game with a tense unforgiving
>atmosphere in which the party faces many tough challenges requires competent
>PCs. In such a game I suggest the GM tells the players upfront that the PCs
>need to have certain qualities and carefully vet any type of disadvantage
>they may have selected. Of course you pay a price. The range and richness of
>characterization in party will be reduced, but I understand this is not
>everybody's top priority.
It isn't even so much that "stupid" characters are necessarily bad, it
is the fact that many characters are thrust into situations where they
would never end up had they been given a choice. Sure, Irving the
Accountant might be an enjoyable character in certain situations, but
I think it stretches the credibility line to the breaking point to
throw Irving into a game that starts with "You stand looking down the
gullet of an ancient red dragon who has just awoken in a very bad
mood. What do you do?"
If my players bring me four characters: a cultural anthropologist, a
newspaper reporter, a high school student and a computer programmer,
this party is *NOT* going to go off hunting dragons. Not a chance in
the world.
Kevin R. Hardwick
On 11 Dec 1995, David A Bonar wrote:
> Why is it that everyone equates realitic with playing through all
> events no matter how mundane? Realism (or its lack) and pacing are two
> very different issues.
Hear hear!
David is absolutely right--pacing is a completely separate issue.
Best,
Kevin
Michael Lindeman
David A Bonar <dbo...@tiger4.ocs.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> Just a friendly warning, I don't really want to get into a
>debate over terms but James has managed to hit one of my pet peeves while
>talking about one of his.
>
>
>events no matter how mundane? Realism (or its lack) and pacing are two
>very different issues.
In my opinion realism is close to impossible in a RPG that strives
to be playable and interesting for the players. I say this not because
realism is not exciting, but simply that if you go by real life, it is
all too often very deadly.
You just defeated the subaltern of the evil overlord of the land.
The subaltern was an even match for you, and it was a hard fought battle
to bring him down. Yet realism would most often have you being squashed
like a bug by the evil overlord. Even if he isn't that upset over losing
his subaltern, he is going to be annoyed at the threat to his authority.
Such people do not send the party of people to kill you that will be a fair
fight. They have someone put a bomb in your car, they do it very well (no,
you don't here beeping at the last second), and you die. In reality, it
is not realistic for people to survive against the incredible resources of
a huge organization. So you either have your players picking off Jimmy the
small time thief, or you have them with huge organization allies, in
which case they will still be killed often as pawns in a larger struggle.
--
-Michael Lindeman is: mtli...@midway.uchicago.edu
James
eventually:-). You are right though. If that is the type of game you want to
run, you shouldn't allow inappropriate characters.
Regards,
-- James --
James
> Why is it that everyone equates realitic with playing through all
> events no matter how mundane? Realism (or its lack) and pacing are two
> very different issues.
>
Different but releated I suspect. Take the old quote about flying. I don't
remember exactly but it goes something like flying it one hour of utter
boredom and 1 minute of absolute terror. If we were only to represent in
our game the 1 minute, we'd end up with an extremely distorted picture of
flying.
Personally I think that's fine. I'd only play out the 1 minute of terror in
my games. But I don't see realism as a virtue in games.
I suspect there is a formal link between pacing and realism. But why
listen to me. With all the Drama students and professionals in this group,
someone ought to be able to give a better answer to this. Any takers?
-- James --
James
> So you either have your players picking off Jimmy the
> small time thief
I'm broadly in agreement here. I'd just invite you not to dismiss Jimmy so
lightly. Not everything needs to big a big budget Hollywood production. It
is sometimes easier to understand and believe the motives of a small time
theif rather than a worlrd ravager.
Regards,
-- James --
Frank Pitt
>
>James <ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Let's talk through this. Can I assume you arrange encounters according to
>>the relative strength of the party? That you don't pit dragons against 1st
>>level characters? You probably try to match the number and quality of
>>opponents to the party's relative strength.
>
>characters wouldn't be likely to reach, but if they could, they'd meet
>them.
I do it the other way. Any dragon is likley to be quite capable of
surviving wherever the hell it wants. It doesn't need to be in an out
of the way place.
I just assume that even the most evil of creatures can have a
(perhaps warped) sense of humour.
Why kill them when they're not a threat ?
Toy with them, humiliate them and let them escape. And let them _know_.
Good way of developing "character".
I had a dragon that used to polymorph to human form and then actively
assist parties that were plotting it's downfall...
>I frequently let PCs jump in *way* over their heads. Evolution,
>that which does not kill us, etc. Not only does it make a game world
>more consistant, but it quickly gets rid of some of baggage regarding
>what it means to "win" new players tend to bring to my table.
Yes, they quickly learn when it's prudent to run.
I tend to tell players straight out, "you will likely die if you do X "
Then let them die if the fates so decree.
Frankie
David A Bonar
: krhr...@wam.umd.edu "Kevin R. Hardwick" writes:
: > On 11 Dec 1995, David A Bonar wrote:
: > > Why is it that everyone equates realitic with playing through all
: > > events no matter how mundane? Realism (or its lack) and pacing are two
: > > very different issues.
: > Hear hear! David is absolutely right--pacing is a completely separate issue.
: Oh, dear. Yes, David *is* right, but I feel compelled to disagree with him
: (looks wretchedly guilty).
[minor quibble; I consider everyone here to be friends, please
call me Dave]
: Realism, to me, is not about accuracy but about being convincing. A game
: in which the artillery rules require the players to plot parabolic curves
: but the characters are two-dimensional cartoon stereotypes with no
: motives or feelings is, to me, unrealistic; a game in which the people of
: a community interact convincingly, are presented convincingly to the players
: and have jobs that are part of a plausible economy, but a combat manoeuvre
: is represented by a very simple die roll, *is* realistic.
I agree so far with one qualification. To me realism also
includes an accuracy of results. Having combat maneuvres (or other
detailed actions) abstracted into a since roll (or other task resolution)
is fine assuming that the outcomes are also convincing.
: For me, realism is in the details of the people and their setting. Those
: details emerge in... well... the details, the small, mundane matters which
: are played through nevertheless.
Sure. I can understand that and actually agree with it.
: So, David, while I don't *equate* realism with playing through mundane events,
: I do think that playing through such events does (at least in appropriate
: contexts) enhance realism.
Yes it does. But playing through all of the mundane events isn't
needed (at least in my opinion) to achieve the convincing feel. If the
characters board a plane for a 3 hour flight I'm probably not going to
play out the entire flight even in a game where I am attempting for
a realistic feeling. On the other hand I almost certainly will spend some
time on the mundane aspects of the flight. This is in contrast to
a more traditional pulp/action style of game where I'd just gloss
over the flight and move straight to the next scene.
Dave
Jeff Stehman
>Realism vs. "fairness". Well I tend to run under tha basic assumtion
>that "Stupidity Kills", but I have a couple of caveats. I posted
>something in the summer regarding snipers. My rules about snipers
>basically, and baldly state there are differences between P.C.'s and
>N.P.C.s reading a couple of Sniper manuals, and Carlos Hathcocks
>biography convinced me that a trained sniper is very deadly, and in a
>some cases results in "instant death-No save" under a lot of
>circumstances. But I do not handle it exactly this way in a game, simply
>out of consideration to the players.
That's the nice part about sticking to swords and sorcery-- it's just
short of impossible for a crossbow sniper to reach Hathcock's level of
deadliness, and certainly not at a 1000 yards.
I have, however, unleashed snipers on my pcs. In one solo game I even
went so far as predetermine the pc was going to get hit (although since
I pretty much planted the bolt in his back myself, I wasn't going to
let the shot kill him). Since under the rules it was not particularly
easy to one-shot-one-kill someone, I rolled it to see what happened.
Damned if it wasn't a good shot-- not immediately lethal but pretty
serious. I let it stand and the scene actually worked out better than
I had hoped.
Again, because I had all but forced that scene upon the player, it
would have taken a major mistake on the pc's part for him to die.
Severe hardship is another matter.
I have, with a player's permission, killed a pc off stage out of hand.
The other pcs just heard rumors of it. Then an npc was murdered.
Then there was a failed (but serious) attempt on another pcs life.
Those were grim times for the characters, but it had the desired
effect (both mine and the antagonist's).
Then there was the time a pc assassin infiltrated our company and
eventually made a try for my character (who appeared to be the weakest
and thus a good first target). Interesting situation. Only one pc
was going to walk away from it. I know a lot of gms won't allow that
kind of situation, but I'm glad mine did. It was very realistic given
the context and made for a challenging (if short-- heh :-) fight.
Scott A. H. Ruggels
>In article <Pine.ULT.3.91.95121...@rac1.wam.umd.edu>
> krhr...@wam.umd.edu "Kevin R. Hardwick" writes:
>
>> On 11 Dec 1995, David A Bonar wrote:
>>
>> > Why is it that everyone equates realitic with playing through all
>> > events no matter how mundane? Realism (or its lack) and pacing are two
>> > very different issues.
>>
>> Hear hear! David is absolutely right--pacing is a completely separate issue.
>
>Oh, dear. Yes, David *is* right, but I feel compelled to disagree with him
>(looks wretchedly guilty).
>
>in which the artillery rules require the players to plot parabolic curves
>but the characters are two-dimensional cartoon stereotypes with no
>motives or feelings is, to me, unrealistic; a game in which the people of
>a community interact convincingly, are presented convincingly to the players
>and have jobs that are part of a plausible economy, but a combat manoeuvre
>is represented by a very simple die roll, *is* realistic.
>
>Scott, for instance, would be convinced by very different things than me.
>Hence my wretched guilty look.
No need to feel guilty. I agree with your assessment of realism being in the details. The best realism is achieved in Military simul=
ators, but as such the cope of the simulationis limited, and it measures YOUR response, not that of a fictitious character you creat=
ed. But the simulaters, being realtime, have the advantage of "perfect" pacing. All of the resolutions are achieved real time, and i=
nvisibly, the results are displayed to your P.O.V. And the tactile feedback helps sell the illusion as well.
But for those with less than government budgets, ahave to get by with less, and the goals of the process are slightly different.
Now you would notivce a person behaving oddly. I might gloss it over, but I would notice other details. Realism is verymuch based on=
P.O.V. Now plotting Parabolic curves might be realistic for a game using early artillery, but to do modern artillery, someone coul=
d write up a ballistic calculation program on their P.C. that duplicated the look and feel of a modern SP Gun.
A WW@ re-enactment, on the surface look realistic, and can become quite "immersive", (Snorting diesel halftracks moving fitfully on =
muddy roads, while drab and furtive clumps of soldiers move in the lee side keeping a slow but steady pace obliquely towards the en=
emy) but the participants haven't been in the field for weeks, they are not plagued with lice, The bullets aren't real and most impo=
rtantly, they can go home if they are not enjoying themselves. To make these activities work, one has to make that "immaginative rol=
eplaying" leap, to make that activity real.
>
>For me, realism is in the details of the people and their setting. Those
>details emerge in... well... the details, the small, mundane matters which
>are played through nevertheless.
>
>I will also add that playing through events in detail is not quite the
>same as pacing. You could have a fast-moving but still fanatically detailed
>game, though it's certainly true that the games I'm thinking of tend to
>be quite slowly paced.
Then there is a tollerance factor. How much can the other players take, if one continues to gossip with Mrs. Murphy over tha back fe=
nce, especially if they think an asteroid will strike the earth soon in the game? Pacing and realism, are alomost exclusive to each=
other. Roleplaying the long hours in the saddle out in the wilderness is time wasting, especially if you game on a "schoolnight" an=
d can only afford 3 or 4 hours once a week to game.
>
>So, David, while I don't *equate* realism with playing through mundane events,
>I do think that playing through such events does (at least in appropriate
>contexts) enhance realism.
Good notes, but it should be noted that a successful game must be a "consensus reality"
Scott
Scott A. H. Ruggels
that "Stupidity Kills", but I have a couple of caveats. I posted
something in the summer regarding snipers. My rules about snipers
basically, and baldly state there are differences between P.C.'s and
N.P.C.s reading a couple of Sniper manuals, and Carlos Hathcocks
biography convinced me that a trained sniper is very deadly, and in a
some cases results in "instant death-No save" under a lot of
circumstances. But I do not handle it exactly this way in a game, simply
out of consideration to the players.
If a P.C. Sniper takes the appropriate steps and lines up a shot on a
powerful N.P.C. He rolls his "to hit" the gun recoils in his grip, and
assuming he makes his rolls correctly, he sees the N.P.C.'s chest puff
a red and shortlived red mist, and the N.P.C. collapses to the ground.
If an N.P.C. Sniper decides to shoot a P.C. He makes the rolls and
fires, but the first shot always misses, and hits an innocent bystander,
or the glass in front of them. Then the P.C.'s know someone is shooting
at them and can take appropriate actions to reduce the chances of being
hit again.
In my games, there is never an instance of "Instant Death--No Save".
PC's willalways get the last roll. and that is my one strong concession
that may contradict the simulationist approach to gaming I take. But
then again, I tend to roll damage rolls in the open and I tend not to
"fudge" rolls. This is what I consider fair to the players.
The example of carbombs tends not to come up. P.C's rarely think of
them, and i am loath to use them on the P.C.'s
Scott
Scott A. H. Ruggels
James
Message-ID: <501714...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, Dec 13, 1995 23.49.56
Organization: None
Reply-To: ja...@jpb-s.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Newswin Alpha 0.7
Lines: 15
X-SMTP-Posting-Host: jpb-s.demon.co.uk [Thu, 14 Dec 95 8:01:04 GMT]
In article: <4anbof$m...@badger.3do.com> "Scott A. H. Ruggels"
<scott....@3do.com> writes:
> Good notes, but it should be noted that a successful game must be a
"consensus reality"
That's been my point all the time. You portray in detail in your game that
which you find enjoyable. You allow for leathal combat not so much because
it is realistic but because it can make the game more exciting. You
disallow snipers, realistic as they may be, they do not make the game more
enjoyable. Realism is not a virtue in its own right. Mumph!
-- James --
AK. Winkel
characters dying is that they loose all the advances their character had
made and return to the basic profile and end up as the prime candidate for
the next character death. The only way around this would be to let their
new character be as good as their old one; but there should be some penalty
for being stupid enough to get yourself killed, except that penalty should
not be dying again and again and...
Alex W.
Thaos
mach for the others in the party. I usualy let them start out on about
the same leval though minus all the coll equipment they had thus far
equmuated. I remember one campane that I was certain at least one of the
characters was going to die. All of them where strange creatures.
Scorpion Centaur, demon, dopleganger, some others. I let them choose
whatever they wanted and the party turned out to be quite powerfull. They
had a run in with a group that was more powerfull than them bye sheer
numbers, this group did not kill them but dumped them on an iland. They
managed to escape the island and I had thought they would simply go on
there way. To my suprise they decided to assault the mountan fortress
(actualy only one of, but it was the only one they knw about) of the guys
who had atacked them. I was sure they where toast. After a series that
included a couple of them geting put in cells, and a couple never entering
the complex, they decided it was to much for them. The conclusion was
when one of them who had whent inside jumped of a platform of the complex.
He fell a good distance (I forget how far exactly) the chances of him
surviveing I recal where not good. I roled a d100 and managed to come up
with a 1. He didnt even suffer a scrach. I have to admit that was a bit
disapointing. The point is even when te characters are stupid. Dumb luck
manages to save them.
Josh
Frank Pitt
>
>There is the problem that if a character dies his knew one will not be a
>mach for the others in the party. I usualy let them start out on about
>the same leval though minus all the coll equipment they had thus far
>equmuated.
This is only a problem for munchkins and power-gamers,
(and those that continue to use out-dated level-based game systems )
Sorry, but I have not found being a "match" for
the other players in terms of power and "level" a problem since
I left puberty almost twenty years ago.
Frankie
Lap V. Chung
Thaos writes:
>>There is the problem that if a character dies his knew one will not be a
>>mach for the others in the party. I usualy let them start out on about
>>the same leval though minus all the coll equipment they had thus far
>>equmuated.
Frankie responds:
>This is only a problem for munchkins and power-gamers,
>(and those that continue to use out-dated level-based game systems )
>Sorry, but I have not found being a "match" for
>the other players in terms of power and "level" a problem since
>I left puberty almost twenty years ago.
>Frankie
Well,
When you're playing in a game that's hack'n slash-esk the power of
incoming characters is important. There's nothing wrong with playing hack'n
slash, some people enjoy it and that's all that really matters.
That was a problem with my old AD&D game. At the early levels we
just said start at 0 XP, but when the other party members reached 5th or 6th
level, things got out hand in our combats. We had 1st level samurai's taking
on a squadron of about 4 Frost Giants. I admired the samurai's sense of
roleplaying bravery, but let me tell you it was a messy stain on the battle
map.
We then adopted a system where incoming characters recieved 10% less
than the person with the lowest XP total. That was fine until characters
reached really high levels. At around 10th and 11th levels 10% didn't mean
much, so incoming characters tended to be just as powerful as current
characters.
You might think that that's the idea, but first off it was unfair to
the surviving characters since they worked real hard to achieve that power
level. Secondly my players tended to want to try out new characters, and
since incoming characters were pretty powerfull they easily "retired"
current characters for new "test" characters. This resulted in a very
mutable roster of party members which was not condusive to the game at all.
Now we adopted the 10% less than the lowest XP, or 200,000 XP which
ever is lowest. I think it's working out better. Hope I helped.
.---. .-----------------
/ \ __ / ----------
/ / \( )/ ------ SNOWMAN
////// ' \/ ` ----
//// / // : : ---
// / / /` '-- -=<<\
// //..\\ >\
-=<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<UU<<<<UU<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<||((*))#########]*
'//||\\` >/
''`` -=<</
Mary K. Kuhner
> We then adopted a system where incoming characters recieved 10% less
>than the person with the lowest XP total. That was fine until characters
>reached really high levels. At around 10th and 11th levels 10% didn't mean
>much, so incoming characters tended to be just as powerful as current
>characters.
We dealt with the same problem by making new characters one level
lower than the lowest of the old ones, and not fussing with EXP (which
have a very strange distribution anyway). For multi-class they would be
two levels lower, in all classes, or as near to that as the EXP
structure made possible. Seemed to work.
A non-EXP based solution would be to emphasize rewards other than level:
magic items, titles and ranks, contacts, allies, knowledge, wealth, etc.
This way you could start new characters at the same level as old ones,
but they would still not be "just as good".
I disagree with the poster who said it doesn't matter. From the GM's
point of view, a party of roughly equivalent abilities is much easier
(in most circumstances) to run for, especially if you are concerned
about equality of spotlight time among players, or worried about
character death.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
--
I do not receive posts from the following systems because they tolerate
abuse of Usenet: interramp.com psi.com scruz.net
If you wish me to see your message anyway please use email.
Reimer Behrends
: I disagree with the poster who said it doesn't matter. From the GM's
: point of view, a party of roughly equivalent abilities is much easier
: (in most circumstances) to run for, especially if you are concerned
: about equality of spotlight time among players, or worried about
: character death.
Hmm. Interesting (hopefully) evidence to the contrary: A while ago,
when creating level-1-characters in one of those class-and-level-baed
systems, I decided to create a character who is best described as a
wimp. A nice wimp, but a wimp all the same. A priest-type character, of
course ( :-) ), who suprisingly _does_ have some nominal weapon
abilities (well, serving an Artemis-like hunting goddess, that was more
or less mandatory), but is basically a pacifist and not exactly
renowned for bravery, either. Oh yes, and he's fairly naive, believing
that nobody is really evil and whatnot.
Now guess who had to take care not to monopolize spotlight time. :-)
Reimer Behrends
Mary K. Kuhner
>Hmm. Interesting (hopefully) evidence to the contrary: A while ago,
>when creating level-1-characters in one of those class-and-level-baed
>systems, I decided to create a character who is best described as a
>wimp. A nice wimp, but a wimp all the same. A priest-type character, of
>course ( :-) ), who suprisingly _does_ have some nominal weapon
>abilities (well, serving an Artemis-like hunting goddess, that was more
>or less mandatory), but is basically a pacifist and not exactly
>renowned for bravery, either.
It really depends on what the group is doing. I've seen what you
describe, especially if the other players are mellow. I've also seen
campaigns ruined by the OOC contortions required to justify including
someone like this in what the group is doing (rather than protecting him,
which would be many combat types' first impulse--no noncoms in combat!)
And I've seen others damaged by the contortions required to keep the
character from dying. This is worse in some game systems, and some
scenarios, than others.
In a Warhammer game we found that there were essentially no opponents who
could hurt one character at *all* who wouldn't kill another character in
a single blow. This puts a nasty strain on the GM if she doesn't want to
kill the weaker characters or bore the stronger ones. The less combat,
of course, the less this is a problem.
I've had good results both ways, but I would still prefer to keep ability
levels roughly equal unless there was a reason to do otherwise.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
--
I do not receive posts from the following systems because they tolerate
abuse of Usenet: interramp.com scruz.net
Systems which have cleaned up their act: prodigy.com psi.net
Geoffrey C Grabowski
Mary K. Kuhner <mkku...@phylo.genetics.washington.edu> wrote:
>I disagree with the poster who said it doesn't matter. From the GM's
>point of view, a party of roughly equivalent abilities is much easier
>(in most circumstances) to run for, especially if you are concerned
>about equality of spotlight time among players, or worried about
>character death.
I agree. Frank was, I think, just knee-jerking. This is a
well-known problem, and is one of the reasons that the Justic League type
superhero titles have problems. If one character is Superman, Aquaman is
going to have some trouble being anything but a nuisance underfoot.
Equivalency of power is a real issue of character death, and
needs to be thought out. I wish that working characters into a game was
addressed more often from a design perspective. Now that I've more or
less resolved to pull out the chocks and design my own system, I'm
thinking about it, and a lot of often-overlooked issues, pretty hard.
Games seem to spend an awful lot of time talking about conveying mood and
very little about the nuts and bolts issues of actually running, and how
to deal with these sorts of eventualities.
I think if equivalency of power is the _only_ issue in character
death, you might want to evaluate your campaign for muchkinism factor,
but it isn't something to just be completely neglected, as Frank seems to
think. Right now new players are going to have a tough time entering my
Everway game for this reason, and it bugs me.
>Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu
G.
--
|Geoffrey C. Grabowski|gcg...@pitt.edu|Undergrad, U.Pittsburgh|Swing Heil!|
[O]
[O] cynic, n. A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not
[O] as they ought to be.
Frank Pitt
> When you're playing in a game that's hack'n slash-esk the power of
>incoming characters is important. There's nothing wrong with playing hack'n
>slash, some people enjoy it and that's all that really matters.
But one still doesn't have to use ridiculous game systems that
by themselves make the "power" of incoming characters important.
Or if one does have to use the system, one doesn't have to
submit to it's tyrrany.
I've played hack'n'slash RQ games, hack'n'slash Traveller games,
etc, etc, and yes, they can be fun, but problems with power levels
didn't exist, because the game systems don't cause that problem.
It's only this ridiculous concept of tying the ability to take damage
to "level" that is the problem.
And then only when the players and GM _make_ it a problem.
I've played D&D games where the weakest character in the party had
everybody else scared of him by some careful legardemaine,
and have GM'd games where a small group of orcs has beaten off
a party of 7th lvl+ characters.
> You might think that that's the idea, but first off it was unfair to
>the surviving characters since they worked real hard to achieve that power
>level. Secondly my players tended to want to try out new characters, and
>since incoming characters were pretty powerfull they easily "retired"
>current characters for new "test" characters. This resulted in a very
>mutable roster of party members which was not condusive to the game at all.
>
> Now we adopted the 10% less than the lowest XP, or 200,000 XP which
>ever is lowest. I think it's working out better. Hope I helped.
While I agree that your suggestion is a good one for those who are trapped
in munchkin mode, I think it also quite nicely illustrates my point.
Why do you need this measure to introduce a new charcter ?
It's because you are measuring your own achievement by these "experience
points" which have obviously gained meaning outside the game.
That's the whole point I was making, it's only when players are competing
against each other for power that this is ever a problem,
and then only in a game system such as D&D which encourages this paradigm
by making "experience" a direct measure of "survivability"
If players are not competing against each other, then there's no problem
in the GM awarding as many of experience points as required for the player
to make the character they want, and the GM can also play the game in such a
way that the artificiality of the level system does not intrude on the
game.
I once played in a mediaeval game that used D&D rules, but where I never
even knew what level I was, it was irrelevant to playing the game.
(Yes I'm sure I could have figured it out by examining the die rolls
and comparig the succesful ones to the charts, but I didn't bother)
Yes, for certain limited types of games, it is a problem, but is a problem
that is inherent to that style and game system. The easiest way to fix
the problem is to changing the game system or to ignore the parts of the
system that cause the problem.
Frankie