Is it plot? (Gathering related) [Long]
Mr M.I. Pennington
I was recently accused of no longer endeavoring to clog up people's
news feeders with my recent short post about the Gargoyles plot at the
Gathering. So just for H. hare are some much longer rantings about
the very nature of plot as I see it.
To me the essence of role-playing is in the actions of the players. Or at
the very least this is what differentiates role-playing from story-telling.
The action of the game must revolve in some crucial way around the choices
of the players. This means that the actions of the players affect what
occurrs in the world their characters live in. The outcome of events is
dictated by the actions of the players and not by any predetermined
plan.
Why must the eventualities of a plot be determined by the actions of the
players? Consider a game where you remove all free will from your players.
Instead of allowing each player to determine what his character does, they
are simply told and requested to play through the script they have been
given. What would occurr would simply be a scene from amateur theatre. It
would in effect be a story told by the director and acted by the players.
It is the free will of the players then, that differentiates lrp from
story-telling. But free will is inextricably linked with fate. Suppose
you are travelling a path in the woods, which splits into two. Each path
is of the same length and covers the same terrain and will take you to
the same destination. If I cannot see the other end then I may mistakenly
believe that I have a choice, that I can choose one path or the other, but
it can be seen that in fact I have no choices and thus no free will. There
is the appearance of free will but nothing more. I am merely a character
in a story, with no more command of the direction in which I travel
than the trees of the wood through which I walk.
A ref in lrp (plotwriter/ref/event organisor/whatever), has the power to
dictate whatever occurrs. Just like a real God, with that omnipotence
comes an awesome amount of responsibility not to take away the free will
of the players. If we as refs decide in advance that one event will lead
inexorably to another, then we have removed the free will of players. The
player may chose how his character reacts, what he says, what he does, but
we already know that whatever choice he makes, nothing will affect what
now occurrs. He is the character in the wood, with a million paths from
which to chose, each identical path leading to the same destination.
Of course there are some perverse decisions that a character may take that
will always have some effect. He can draw his sword and kill himself and
thus remove himself from the story. Our traveller in the wood can refuse
to go on, or turn around and go back. However such solutions are almost
invariably by their nature contrary. In effect we all have one inviolable
aspect of free choice and that is to refuse to take part. I do not feel that
the right not to take part can really be considered an example of free will.
Role-playing then, if it is to be true role-playing and not mere
story-telling CANNOT proceed from one event to another according to an
authors plan. Such a course implicitly denies the free choice of the
participants, which is an essential defining aspect of role-playing.
Instead each event must arise as a result of the participants actions,
only then can it be said to be role-playing.
Unfortunately this seems at first to be incompatible with the demands
of plot writing. We write plot by defining a series of events that will
happen in the world, and so in a single stroke we make role-playing
impossible.
The ultimate solution to this contradiction is to write plot in some way that
does NOT consist of a series of events. As a plot writer in a role-playing
game, you can write a single event or scene, but you cannot write the
outcome of that scene. You cannot write what happens next, you cannot
write the next encounter, because if you do, it becomes story-telling
and not role-playing. Instead you must allow the players to respond to what
occurrs and the plot, the following scenes and events can then be written
based upon their actions.
The problem with this approach is that it is utterly impractical. If we
assume (taken for instence a classic LRP linear) that you had chose to
call a time out after each encounter while you wrote the next one, a 2 hour
linear would quickly stretch into days. A bit like an American football
match really... :)
There is one solution that I beleive falls somewhere between story-telling
and role-playing and that is where the plot author plans each scene and
determines a set of outcomes. Now our traveller in the woods has two
paths to chose from, and finally, his choice will make a difference. He
stands in scene A and may take path 1 to scene B or path 2 to scene C.
Each scene is planned and waiting for his choice.
Without meaning to denigrate the worth of this solution, I would argue
that it IS a half-way house between role-playing and story-telling. It is
in effect like the fighting-fantasy books, typified by Warlock on Firetop
Mountain. A passage describes a scene to the author and he is then given
a number of choices to choose from, each taking him to a new passage in
the book. Undeniably the author now has a shadow of free will, he can
indeed make choices that affect his character.
For the sake of brevity I won't explain why I feel that such an approach
while worthwhile is ultimately limited. I will stick to the simple analogy
of fighting fantasy books and instead point out the feeling that such books
engender for many of those of us accustomed to the fun of "true roleplaying."
You can also compare it to a computer role-playing game, where several
eventualities have been thought of by the authors and coded into the game,
some of which allow you to complete it. Again I think the analogy is enough
to describe the vague feeling that comes with such games, that they are
not true-role-playing. Of course such games/books also suffer by having
no social interaction, another fundamental part of role-playing, but I
still feel merely in limitations of the choices themselves, they deny true
free will.
For me the solution is to use NPCs. If I am writing a plot I create a set
of NPCs for that plot and determine their aspirations and abilities. Using
these characters I can create a set of plans that are no more set in stone
than the plans of the real players. The advantage of this mechanism is that
while I truely have no idea what the next scene or event in a `plotline'
might be, I can use the characters I have created to respond to the players
actions, just as they are responding to mine. The aims and the plans of
the NPCs create a scene, further scenes develop naturally from the interaction
between players and NPCs.
Of course this approach is really just a mental tool to try and liberate
the mind from writing a pre-conceived list of events. Realistically you are
still required to write the next second of plot immediately after the previous
second has occurred, but the background of the NPCs provides the basis
on which you can write that plot fluidly and quickly. (Can you imagine
a player calling a time out while he tried to decide what he thought his
character was going to do next?). The plot moves forward and it's direction
is now a composite formed from the desires and actions of the PCs and NPCs
alike.
Implicit in this is that you must judge in some unbiased way the influence
of the PCs upon the plans and actions of the NPCs. If you have some
pre-conceived notion of what will "work" and what will not "work" then you
have simply returned to the old scheme of planning one scene or another
by another route. Acting as an impartial judge is very difficult if not
theoretically impossible, but something near enough to function can be
acheived with practice. I find it helps to try and avoid thinking of
ANY solutions to the problems presented by the NPCs, since this seems to
invariably lead to a bias in judgement towards such pre-conceived solutions.
Its been pointed out to me before now, that such a style of plot writing,
where you assiduously avoid trying to work out any solution may put the
players in a predicament where there are no solutions. My response is that
I've twice in 5 years put a group of players in a situtation where I "knew"
as a ref that there was absolutely no way for them to find a solution. Both
times they whipped the NPCs butts and came out triumphant though their own
ingenuity, to my utter, utter astonishment and their obvious delight.
Of course you want to avoid where possible "unwinnable" scenarios.
This usually entails nothing more than ensuring that the NPCs you
use do not posess abilities that vastly outstrip the players. Otherwise
it becomes impossible to use them realistically against the players.
Usually if the NPCs are playing by the same rules that the PCs are using
this is not a problem. Otherwise the PCs will indeed find themselves
continually in situations where they are totally powerless to affect
proceedings. Having free-will is fine, but it is utterly infuriating to
have free-will and be as weak as a 3 day old baby...
I've used this approach with I feel a fair success in TT for several years.
Of course it is immesurably easier to utilise in TT than in LRP. A TT ref
traditionally plays all the NPCs themselves and can create a new scene with
nothing more than a few sentences. In LRP we must trust our NPCs to other's
hands, we need costumes, decorations and many scenes may take days to
construct or be utterly impossible. We are then left with two stark and
unappealing choices, to compromise the free will of the players, or to
compromise the physical representation of the scene.
However LRP has some advantages over TT as well. In a situation where a
large number of players are involved, the actions of some PCs may quickly
become as important and significant as those of the NPCS, especially if
the refs are careful to attatch equal importance to their actions. If
the NPCs aims and intentions are deliberately designed to promote situations
where the PCs actions are central to the ensuing drama, this becomes even
more so, in a way that is not possible in TT. Pitting a group of 5 players
round a table against each other rarely works well, but putting groups of
20 or more players against each other in a game of 100s does. The key here
is to ensure that their actions are seen to be the focus of what ensures
rather than an adjoint to it. Otherwise a game can risk degenerating into
a situation where NPCs interact with NPCs in central plot and PCs with
PCs in peripheral plot. In effect what you are trying to do is turn the PCs
into NPCs, which, when it works well produces IMO a remarkable effect on
the game.
I see plot then not as a series of events which will occur, where the end
is already mapped out, but as the description of the personalities and aims
of a set of dynamic NPCs. Fundamental to this `plot' is that neither I
nor any other single person can say what will occur, although any one ref
or player can hypothesise on what might occur. Of course this isn't the
only kind of plot, it's simply what I call plot, and of course a great many
people disagree with me, a good many of whom write plot from a completely
different standpoint and who I respect. I think ultimately we all write
the kind of plot we'd want to play in (one of the great ironies of LRP for
me), but for me true role-playing plot accepts that the free-will of the
players is sacrosanct. I believe the Gargoyle plot was designed to
enshrine the free will of players in it's very core and I wouldn't be
anything to do with it if I didn't.
Hobbes
Rich Caller
Large chunks of Matts post gratuitously snipped.... I've clipped the bits I
agree with and have little to add to.
>A ref in lrp (plotwriter/ref/event organisor/whatever), has the power to
>dictate whatever occurrs.
To a certain extent yes, a game will usually disappoint if a
referee/plotwriter strays to far from the rules that he has created. A lot of
players, usually those who have seen better, will not accept blatent cheating
on the part of the plot team
>Unfortunately this seems at first to be incompatible with the demands
>of plot writing. We write plot by defining a series of events that will
>happen in the world, and so in a single stroke we make role-playing
>impossible.
>There is one solution that I beleive falls somewhere between story-telling
>and role-playing and that is where the plot author plans each scene and
>determines a set of outcomes. Now our traveller in the woods has two
>paths to chose from, and finally, his choice will make a difference. He
>stands in scene A and may take path 1 to scene B or path 2 to scene C.
>Each scene is planned and waiting for his choice.
>For me the solution is to use NPCs.
Quite, the problem occurs here when you are attempting to run adventure style
events within a framework of free will. I find that a combination of the two
above techniques works well. Firstly you have a plan of where the characters
will probably go next, what the NPCs will probably do next and use this to
form the framework of an adventure. But the NPCs actions are not determined
entirely by the plot writer, they act in a combination of the intent of the
plot writer and the role-playing of the NPC. This requires that you trust all
your NPCs not to do anything blatently out of character but this is thankfully
rare amoung regular lrpers who are willing to take the responsibility of
playing NPCs. The problem that usually arises here is that the person playing
the NPC is unwilling to do thiungs without checking with the plot writer but a
few repeats of 'just play the character' or a few ideas, never a solid do this
often helps. This approach also helps when you reach the critical juncture
where players and NPCs are interchangable and hard to distinguish between.
What we are really trying to create with LRP is interaction between players,
NPCs, plot, whatever and NPCs and plot are really only tools to create that
interaction.
>Of course this approach is really just a mental tool to try and liberate
>the mind from writing a pre-conceived list of events. Realistically you are
>still required to write the next second of plot immediately after the previous
>second has occurred, but the background of the NPCs provides the basis
>on which you can write that plot fluidly and quickly.
IMO the real skill of plot writing is not the conjouring of exiting
adventures, the creation of interesting characters etc. its the ability to
wing it when things have gone in a completely unexpected direction. If you
can do this and the players do not notice, then you're getting good at it :-)
>Implicit in this is that you must judge in some unbiased way the influence
>of the PCs upon the plans and actions of the NPCs. If you have some
>pre-conceived notion of what will "work" and what will not "work" then you
>have simply returned to the old scheme of planning one scene or another
>by another route.
I don't really like the concepts of work and not work, I find it easiest to
have some idea of the concequences of very broadly painted courses of action,
eg. hostile vs friendly to oversimplify a lot. All decisions usually have
more than one concequence, thats what makes them interesting .....
>Usually if the NPCs are playing by the same rules that the PCs are using
>this is not a problem.
Quite, and as an adjunct to this one of the worst things in LRP is unstatted
NPCs that can not be killed/affected until the plot writer wants them to. But
I'm not going to comment on this to much it would give away to much about NPCs
at SoS....
>Otherwise a game can risk degenerating into
>a situation where NPCs interact with NPCs in central plot
The first and easiest way round this is to give strong suggestions to as many
of your NPCs as possible that the easiest way for them to communicate with
each other is by using the PCs.....
> In effect what you are trying to do is turn the PCs
>into NPCs, which, when it works well produces IMO a remarkable effect on
>the game.
Exactly, the place where your PCs should be is the centre of things, not stuck
on the outskirts watching the plot played out by NPCs.
> I believe the Gargoyle plot was designed to
>enshrine the free will of players in it's very core and I wouldn't be
>anything to do with it if I didn't.
IMO it looks like good plot simply because people are getting worked up about
it IC for all sorts of reasons already.
> Hobbes
-----**** Song of Steel LRP at http://www.netlrp.uk.com/sos/ ****-----
------ Rich Caller - http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~richc ------
Marcus Hill
Rich Caller wrote:
> Matt said:
> >A ref in lrp (plotwriter/ref/event organisor/whatever), has the power to
> >dictate whatever occurrs.
>
> To a certain extent yes, a game will usually disappoint if a
> referee/plotwriter strays to far from the rules that he has created. A lot of
> players, usually those who have seen better, will not accept blatent cheating
> on the part of the plot team
>
Indeed. Nothing is more annoying than a blatant flange.
> This requires that you trust all
> your NPCs not to do anything blatently out of character but this is thankfully
> rare amoung regular lrpers who are willing to take the responsibility of
> playing NPCs. The problem that usually arises here is that the person playing
> the NPC is unwilling to do thiungs without checking with the plot writer but a
> few repeats of 'just play the character' or a few ideas, never a solid do this
> often helps.
I've noticed that with some of the SoS NPCs who are now going around
making very plot critical decisions off their own bats (I'm
especially thinking here of Chris playing Danar Veck - a Baron,
for those non-SoS folk interested, of considerable influence)
> This approach also helps when you reach the critical juncture
> where players and NPCs are interchangable and hard to distinguish between.
>
Which reminds me that Matt was asking me who were the PCs and who
were NPCs at the tavern at the last SoS meet - it's difficult
for a newcomer to tell who are the NPCs and who are the PCs (especially
when you're dealing with PC nobles) - which is as it should be.
> IMO the real skill of plot writing is not the conjouring of exiting
> adventures, the creation of interesting characters etc. its the ability to
> wing it when things have gone in a completely unexpected direction. If you
> can do this and the players do not notice, then you're getting good at it :-)
>
There's no better feeling than having the players thank you for the
brilliantly plotted adventure you had to make up as you went along
because they did something totally unexpected in the second encounter.
> >Usually if the NPCs are playing by the same rules that the PCs are using
> >this is not a problem.
>
> Quite, and as an adjunct to this one of the worst things in LRP is unstatted
> NPCs that can not be killed/affected until the plot writer wants them to. But
> I'm not going to comment on this to much it would give away to much about NPCs
> at SoS....
>
What, you mean the basic axiom that all NPCs should have stats
created from the same rules as PCs? It's a good rule, and should be
known.
********* Song of Steel LRP at http://www.netlrp.uk.com/sos **********
"Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge." - Benjamin Jowett
"Logic doesn't apply to the real world." - Marvin Minsky
Marcus.
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <351FC6...@ma.man.ac.uk>, Marcus Hill <mar...@ma.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Rich Caller wrote:
> > Matt said:
> > >dictate whatever occurrs.
> >
> > To a certain extent yes, a game will usually disappoint if a
> > referee/plotwriter strays to far from the rules that he has created. A lot of
> > players, usually those who have seen better, will not accept blatent cheating
> > on the part of the plot team
> >
>
It's more subtle than that though. Often the solution to a problem cannot be
defined by the rules. The players meet a bunch of guards who are protecting
some area and won't let them pass. The players try to talk their way past.
What will work and what won't? This of course is a very simple example, but
it illutrates the point. No LRP rules systems (I hope) have rules for how and
when you can talk your way past the guards, such decisions are the call of
the Refs and the NPCs. In such a situation, the requirement of the Ref to
make arbitrary decisions is set against the requirement of the players to
have free will and command of their own fate.
Blatant flanges are another issue altogether, but minor flanges are in many
ways just as important. What happens in my experience is that with repeated
minor flanges, as time goes by, the players begin to feel less and less in
control of their characters. Eventually they become vaguely conscious that
everything is operating to some hidden plan that was not of their devising.
You must remember that in some ways, plot team cannot cheat, for the world
quite simply is the way they say it is. If plot says the sky is pink, then
it is pink. If plot team say Superman can't be killed by anything but
kryptonite then he can't. Everything plot team does is a creation of some
sorts. This only becomes a problem in my experience when plot team is viewed
to have created some plot for the express purpose of denying the consequences
of player actions and thereby denied their free will. (Oh no, we're back to
an argument about flanging again!). In systems like the Gathering that can
occurr for Logistical purposes, more generally in my experience it occurrs
for plot purposes. The plot writers had in mind that event X would be
followed by event Y. It wasn't so they flanged to make sure it was.
I suppose flanging and writing plot with no opportunities for free will
are the opposite ends of the same problem. You can write a plot where
X leads inexorably to Y, because there is only one route to follow. The
two paths in the wood to the same location problem. Or you can write a
plot where from X you could go anywhere, but whatever happens you will
end up at Y. Like a forest with no trees, but you just get picked up and
carried to the same place after going 4 steps in any direction.
My point wasn't about flanging so much as writing plot that implicity accepts
that at any point the players may do something you do not expect. Flanging
is really just one of the (worst) solutions to that scenario.
> Which reminds me that Matt was asking me who were the PCs and who
> were NPCs at the tavern at the last SoS meet - it's difficult
> for a newcomer to tell who are the NPCs and who are the PCs (especially
> when you're dealing with PC nobles) - which is as it should be.
I think ideally it would be impossible to tell an NPC from a PC. Even for
other NPCs! In practice the constraints of the human form make that rather
difficult. The concept of DPCs can be useful though, if you find such things
palatable.
> > IMO the real skill of plot writing is not the conjouring of exiting
> > adventures, the creation of interesting characters etc. its the ability to
> > wing it when things have gone in a completely unexpected direction. If you
> > can do this and the players do not notice, then you're getting good at it :-)
> There's no better feeling than having the players thank you for the
> brilliantly plotted adventure you had to make up as you went along
> because they did something totally unexpected in the second encounter.
The ability to wing things is essential I think, once you begin to try to
move away from writing linear adventures. You implicitly accept that whatever
your preperation players will one day do something you don't expect to a
greater or lesser degree, and when that happens you have to react to it
immediately, and try and attach to it the same weight as if you had planned
it. In LRP though it can be difficult, when you have the limits of costume
and site and so on to contend with.
> > >Usually if the NPCs are playing by the same rules that the PCs are using
> > >this is not a problem.
> >
> > Quite, and as an adjunct to this one of the worst things in LRP is unstatted
> > NPCs that can not be killed/affected until the plot writer wants them to. But
> > I'm not going to comment on this to much it would give away to much about NPCs
> > at SoS....
> >
>
> What, you mean the basic axiom that all NPCs should have stats
> created from the same rules as PCs? It's a good rule, and should be
> known.
This is I think, categorically true. To me it's an unshakeable tenet that an
unkillable/unstatted NPC is a classic indicator of weak plot. Without trying
to stand and preach, if your plot requires an NPC to be unkillable until
a certain point then it is IMHO bad plot, which is to say not plot I would
personally enjoy playing in as a PC.
More generally I think as you say that if your NPC could reasonably be a
PC, it's almost certainly, if not definitely ok. I've noticed (I think) a
big move recently in some Gathering plots, away from horrific cheese plots
and towards plots where 15pt NPCs form the mainstay of the opposition and
I think the game is subtley improving because of it. It's one of the reasons
I LOATHE npc magic. The moment something is only available to plot writers,
it ceases to be anything but a flange of sorts. Why can't Jim X learn
Necromancy or whatever. What peculiar disease affects the minds of PCs that
prevents them aquiring the same skills NPCs do? The answer can only be
flange and players know it, and that means any NPC with those skills/magics
is unusable from the outset.
The only reason not to make all magic and skills accessible to players is
to keep something back for use as flange. I honestly cannot see any other
reason. In my experience it's much better to get all the rules written
down, and make it all accessible to players, they're bound to do a better
job with it than your NPCs are anyway. Trust your players and let them
have fun killing each other.
Hobbes
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
[MUNCH][MUNCH][MUNCH][MUNCH][MUNCH]....{Burp}.
> I suppose flanging and writing plot with no opportunities for free will
> are the opposite ends of the same problem. You can write a plot where
> X leads inexorably to Y, because there is only one route to follow. The
> two paths in the wood to the same location problem. Or you can write a
> plot where from X you could go anywhere, but whatever happens you will
> end up at Y. Like a forest with no trees, but you just get picked up and
> carried to the same place after going 4 steps in any direction.
The problem that can arise is when you must get to point Y for some
preconcieved reason.
Now by this "preconcieved reason" you could arge that that in itself
is a flange and generally it is. However there are certain cases where
it is unavoidable, the classic example of this being a big event that
is going to end in a big battle (obvious example The Gathering, people
may moan that the reason for the battle often seems contrived but I bet
there would be much more outcry if people were suddenly told on the
Sunday "Oh, there isn't going to be a battle this year because the
diplomacy has solved all the problems."
Poo and flangy? Quite possibly. A nescessity? Unfortunately.
> I think ideally it would be impossible to tell an NPC from a PC. Even for
> other NPCs! In practice the constraints of the human form make that rather
> difficult. The concept of DPCs can be useful though, if you find such things
> palatable.
Ideally I agree that PC's and NPC's should be indistinguishable either
through action, costume or abilities (a lot of people could well do with
taking note of the last one and stop statting rediculous NPC's with silly
powers not available to the players). People either can or can't do X,
having one set of rules for most and a different set for the rest is stupid.
It is however useful if the NPC's are aware of who each other are OOC, this
can avoid the situation where you have all 5 NPC's in a tavern round one
table and all the players round the others. I'm not saying NPC interaction
is a bad thing, it can be very interesting, but you don't want all the NPC's
tied up all evening in thier own schemings and not interacting with the
players (otherwise there useless as NPC's and might as well be PC's).
> The ability to wing things is essential I think, once you begin to try to
> move away from writing linear adventures. You implicitly accept that
whatever
> your preperation players will one day do something you don't expect to a
> greater or lesser degree,
I'd say "Will every day do something you don't expect....."
> This is I think, categorically true. To me it's an unshakeable tenet that an
> unkillable/unstatted NPC is a classic indicator of weak plot. Without trying
> to stand and preach, if your plot requires an NPC to be unkillable until
> a certain point then it is IMHO bad plot, which is to say not plot I would
> personally enjoy playing in as a PC.
I think this fairly well agrees with what I was saying about NPC's above and I
agree where that unkillable NPC's are not fun to be around or play with as a
PC for the reasons stated above.
By "unkillable" I don't mean utterly unkillable, the case of "well if you
use the mcguffin of doom and then take my head of with the hallibut of
flange and then burn my body I will die" is just as bad. NPC's ought to be
able to be taken down by a reasonably co-ordinated attempt from PC's by
things readlily accessible to them (and most certainly not other powers
limited to NPC's!).
[Rest snipped as I agree totally with it.]
Mike Horrill (Using Dejanews because Bath Newsfeed is Crap).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
[MUNCH][MUNCH][MUNCH][MUNCH][MUNCH]....{Burp}.
> I suppose flanging and writing plot with no opportunities for free will
> are the opposite ends of the same problem. You can write a plot where
> X leads inexorably to Y, because there is only one route to follow. The
> two paths in the wood to the same location problem. Or you can write a
> plot where from X you could go anywhere, but whatever happens you will
> end up at Y. Like a forest with no trees, but you just get picked up and
> carried to the same place after going 4 steps in any direction.
The problem that can arise is when you must get to point Y for some
preconcieved reason.
Now by this "preconcieved reason" you could arge that that in itself
is a flange and generally it is. However there are certain cases where
it is unavoidable, the classic example of this being a big event that
is going to end in a big battle (obvious example The Gathering, people
may moan that the reason for the battle often seems contrived but I bet
there would be much more outcry if people were suddenly told on the
Sunday "Oh, there isn't going to be a battle this year because the
diplomacy has solved all the problems."
Poo and flangy? Quite possibly. A nescessity? Unfortunately.
> I think ideally it would be impossible to tell an NPC from a PC. Even for
> other NPCs! In practice the constraints of the human form make that rather
> difficult. The concept of DPCs can be useful though, if you find such things
> palatable.
Ideally I agree that PC's and NPC's should be indistinguishable either
through action, costume or abilities (a lot of people could well do with
taking note of the last one and stop statting rediculous NPC's with silly
powers not available to the players). People either can or can't do X,
having one set of rules for most and a different set for the rest is stupid.
It is however useful if the NPC's are aware of who each other are OOC, this
can avoid the situation where you have all 5 NPC's in a tavern round one
table and all the players round the others. I'm not saying NPC interaction
is a bad thing, it can be very interesting, but you don't want all the NPC's
tied up all evening in thier own schemings and not interacting with the
players (otherwise there useless as NPC's and might as well be PC's).
> The ability to wing things is essential I think, once you begin to try to
> move away from writing linear adventures. You implicitly accept that
whatever
> your preperation players will one day do something you don't expect to a
> greater or lesser degree,
I'd say "Will every day do something you don't expect....."
> This is I think, categorically true. To me it's an unshakeable tenet that an
> unkillable/unstatted NPC is a classic indicator of weak plot. Without trying
> to stand and preach, if your plot requires an NPC to be unkillable until
> a certain point then it is IMHO bad plot, which is to say not plot I would
> personally enjoy playing in as a PC.
I think this fairly well agrees with what I was saying about NPC's above and I
Marcus Hill
Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
> This is I think, categorically true. To me it's an unshakeable tenet that an
> unkillable/unstatted NPC is a classic indicator of weak plot. Without trying
> to stand and preach, if your plot requires an NPC to be unkillable until
> a certain point then it is IMHO bad plot, which is to say not plot I would
> personally enjoy playing in as a PC.
>
> More generally I think as you say that if your NPC could reasonably be a
> PC, it's almost certainly, if not definitely ok. I've noticed (I think) a
> big move recently in some Gathering plots, away from horrific cheese plots
> and towards plots where 15pt NPCs form the mainstay of the opposition and
> I think the game is subtley improving because of it. It's one of the reasons
> I LOATHE npc magic. The moment something is only available to plot writers,
> it ceases to be anything but a flange of sorts. Why can't Jim X learn
> Necromancy or whatever. What peculiar disease affects the minds of PCs that
> prevents them aquiring the same skills NPCs do? The answer can only be
> flange and players know it, and that means any NPC with those skills/magics
> is unusable from the outset.
I agree to a great extent, but with a proviso that you can have some
beings that are very, very hard to kill (demons, dragons, whatever)
in *small* quantities. It's a matter of balance - sometimes it's
good to find (say) the nasty dragon who wants to take over the world,
and your only hope is the nice dragon who has been defeated by the
nasty dragon in the past, and threrefore needs the PCs to help it
win. OTOH, saving the world loses its sense of accomplishment if
you do it too often, and powerful NPCs which you simply can't kill
are futile, and having a powerful benevolent NPC to whom you turn
whenever the excrement impacts upon the ventilation system is equally
bad. So, although the vast majority of NPCs should be viable as PCs,
a few exceptions are not a bad thing.
Will/d'Argent
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
> The only reason not to make all magic and skills accessible to players is
> to keep something back for use as flange. I honestly cannot see any other
> reason. In my experience it's much better to get all the rules written
> down, and make it all accessible to players, they're bound to do a better
> job with it than your NPCs are anyway. Trust your players and let them
> have fun killing each other.
>
This raises an important point, that of 'trusting the players'.
The best example that springs to mind is Level 3 magic. Should this be
placed in the hands of anyone who buys Spellcasting 1&2, for example? Or
is it too powerful?
While I've written plot for club systems for some time, I've never
been on any plot team for the Gathering, so I honestly don't know the
answer to this. If the plot team feel that by placing powerful magic in
the hands of 'ordinary' players, the game would become overbalanced, then
IMHO they are right to withold it from them. Besides, it gives the players
the feeling that they are not the post mowerful things around, and
something to strive for (there are always magebolt scrolls etc.).
OTOH, when that decision is made, the criteria for getting access
to level 3 magic have to be set - getting to the top of the Mages' Guild,
as is currently. However, what about someone who's made a meteoric rise in
the guild in the space of 2 years, in contrast to someone who's played a
bog-standard spellcaster since the Gathering '92? An IC rationale for
who's qualified to use it and who's not is going to be tricky.
This is, I guess, the advantage of smaller events such as Quest
Celtaii (sp?) and Renewal. With fewer people to keep tabs on, the
organisers can give greater powers to the players without fear that
they'll go off and nuke the universe without anyone on the plot team
finding out. With 800-900 mages running about I can imagine that the plot
team are reluctant to give them very powerful spells.
Does the assembled Peanut Gallery feel that the plot team have got
it right, or should they trust the players more?
Will/d'Argent
Rich Caller
>> Indeed. Nothing is more annoying than a blatant flange.
>It's more subtle than that though. Often the solution to a problem cannot be
>defined by the rules. The players meet a bunch of guards who are protecting
>some area and won't let them pass. The players try to talk their way past.
>What will work and what won't?
To take this example in particular, if the guards have been told why they are
guarding this place and what their orders are then its up to ROLEPLAYING. Let
the NPCs and the PCs roleplay it out then deal with it.
>Blatant flanges are another issue altogether, but minor flanges are in many
>ways just as important. What happens in my experience is that with repeated
>minor flanges, as time goes by, the players begin to feel less and less in
>control of their characters. Eventually they become vaguely conscious that
>everything is operating to some hidden plan that was not of their devising.
Yea, the problem here is that its not immediately obvious that its happening,
you may spend a lot of time trying to do stuff before realising what is going
on.
>I think ideally it would be impossible to tell an NPC from a PC. Even for
>other NPCs! In practice the constraints of the human form make that rather
>difficult. The concept of DPCs can be useful though, if you find such things
>palatable.
I don't mind DPCs in a limited sense, ie. PCs who you give suggextions to and
discuss possible courses of action with. You should never really tell a PC of
any sort what to do and its usually better if you can just suggest things to
NPCs as the player usually has a better grip on the character than you do
after they've been playing them for a while. Personally when I create NPCs I
tend to give the player background and some general hints as to how to play
the NPC then tell them to get on with it and tell me what has happened later.
This has the advantage that you don't have to communicate a full personality
to the player and gives a second persons input into the character which I find
very helpful.
>This is I think, categorically true. To me it's an unshakeable tenet that an
>unkillable/unstatted NPC is a classic indicator of weak plot. Without trying
>to stand and preach, if your plot requires an NPC to be unkillable until
>a certain point then it is IMHO bad plot, which is to say not plot I would
>personally enjoy playing in as a PC.
Quite, I've had long arguements with other plot writers over this in the past
and have usually persuaded them that it is a 'BAD THING'.
>More generally I think as you say that if your NPC could reasonably be a
>PC, it's almost certainly, if not definitely ok. I've noticed (I think) a
>big move recently in some Gathering plots, away from horrific cheese plots
>and towards plots where 15pt NPCs form the mainstay of the opposition and
>I think the game is subtley improving because of it.
IMO its improved the range of characters interacting with the NPCs a lot. A
lot of characters I have talked to at the Gathering in the past simply would
not talk to the big hard npcs but feel much more free to talk to less powerful
and less obvious NPCs.
It's one of the reasons
>I LOATHE npc magic. The moment something is only available to plot writers,
>it ceases to be anything but a flange of sorts. Why can't Jim X learn
>Necromancy or whatever. What peculiar disease affects the minds of PCs that
>prevents them aquiring the same skills NPCs do?
Yea, to a point. I mean NPC X could have learnt skill Y from place Z which is
really hard to get. This means that it would be hard for the players to get
skill Y but not impossible.
Steve Lewis
>It is however useful if the NPC's are aware of who each other are OOC, this
>can avoid the situation where you have all 5 NPC's in a tavern round one
>table and all the players round the others. I'm not saying NPC interaction
>is a bad thing, it can be very interesting, but you don't want all the
NPC's
>tied up all evening in thier own schemings and not interacting with the
>players (otherwise there useless as NPC's and might as well be PC's).
>
going into a private room to talk about something. Either play the scene out
in a public place, or make sure there are some PC's in the room to witness
what happens, else there's no point in playing it out. The primary role of
the NPC's is to add to the scenario.
--
Steve Lewis
Technical Support Analyst
Technical Co-ordination Group, Barclays Technology Services (Barclays Bank
plc)
Radbroke Hall, Knutsford, Cheshire WA16 9EU
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 (0)1565 614420 / Clearway 2000 4420 (Office)
Tel. +44 (0)161 257 2891 (Home)
Tel. +44 (0)973 740633 (Mobile)
mailto:Steve...@barclays.co.uk (Office)
mailto:S.J....@dial.pipex.com (Home)
mailto:Healer...@dial.pipex.com (Gathering LRP only)
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <3520CF...@ma.man.ac.uk>, Marcus Hill <mar...@ma.man.ac.uk> writes:
> Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
>
>
> I agree to a great extent, but with a proviso that you can have some
> beings that are very, very hard to kill (demons, dragons, whatever)
> in *small* quantities. It's a matter of balance - sometimes it's
> good to find (say) the nasty dragon who wants to take over the world,
> and your only hope is the nice dragon who has been defeated by the
> nasty dragon in the past, and threrefore needs the PCs to help it
> win. OTOH, saving the world loses its sense of accomplishment if
> you do it too often, and powerful NPCs which you simply can't kill
> are futile, and having a powerful benevolent NPC to whom you turn
> whenever the excrement impacts upon the ventilation system is equally
> bad. So, although the vast majority of NPCs should be viable as PCs,
> a few exceptions are not a bad thing.
>
To an extent I think it depends what you define as an NPC. In a high
fantasy world there should probably exist large, very dangerous and very
powerful things but the game tends to work best if even these things form
the backdrop of the game, rather than the centrepiece. Furthermore they
should be suitably telegraphed. If the players move heaven and earth to
summon the biggest most powerful deity they can find and then promptly whip
out their swords and have a go, they deserve to get toasted.
If however you have a plot that reads "then Tracy, goddess of nightlife
turns up and does XXX" you probably have a problem (and not just with the
flanginess of your plot <grin> ). Being champions of some force and working
against the minions of an opposing entity works well. Being the litter
bearers of goodness is perhaps not so much fun.
I ran a campaign which resulted in the players coming face to face with
an unkillable monster, but they had spent the last six months discovering
it was unkillable. They thought they had the key to it's destruction but
unfortunately for them, the NPC who'd told them that was lying to them.
The point here is that the monster wasn't an NPC. It happened to be a moving
thing, but it could have been anything, it could have been a mystical
evil hole in the ground for the difference it would have made. The NPC of
that story was the evil bastard who lied to them and set them up, to go out
there and he was literally a starting level character.
The powers of the backdrop of your campaign are not important, the gods,
the demons, the dragons, the whatever. So long as they form the backdrop
they can be as powerful as the game world demands. The NPCs are the people
the characters interact with regularly, people they oppose or support and
who oppose or support them, in some concrete time in way. These beings
need to be statted like PCs or it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
Hobbes
Clare Yeowart
Will/d'Argent wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 1998, Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
>
>> The only reason not to make all magic and skills accessible to players is
>> to keep something back for use as flange. I honestly cannot see any other
>> reason. In my experience it's much better to get all the rules written
>> down, and make it all accessible to players, they're bound to do a better
>> job with it than your NPCs are anyway. Trust your players and let them
>> have fun killing each other.
>>
I personally feel that it's not so much a matter of trusting the
players or witholding the nifty stuff as keeping the balance. If
mages get too powerful, there'll be no point in playing a fighter
(this happens already in an awful lot of systems; at low level,
fighters are the most useful but they pale in comparison later in
level/XP/whatever)
OTOH, if mages get too weak, why not be a fighter? If it takes a
month to cast a spell and two seconds to draw a perfectly ordinary
blade which just happens to be vorpal because all the others on that
world are, where's the point? (I know it's an exaggeration, but Iwant
you to think along my lines)
Renewal haven't given much 'greater power to the *' as far as I've
seen. They've given experience points (at last, a reward for
surviving) and allowed people to buy more skills with them, but there
is a limit on how many XPs you get and what you can use them on. A
brand new character tends not to have the range of skills that the
older, veteran characters have; but no higher levels of magic or other
unbalancing factors have taken away the balance between the players
themselves.
--
Clare
This is all my own opinion, and I'm not going to go off in a huff if
you disagree.
Clare Yeowart, cl...@witsend.u-net.com
Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it.
-Philip K. Dick
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
> This raises an important point, that of 'trusting the players'.
> The best example that springs to mind is Level 3 magic. Should this be
> placed in the hands of anyone who buys Spellcasting 1&2, for example? Or
> is it too powerful?
I think this question also raises an important question but I think that
it is a different question from the one you ask. AS the example used here
is The Gathering I will stick with that but I would say that this argument
can be extrapolated to any other system.
I would say that if Spellcasting 3 (or Incantation 3 for that matter) is too
powerful to be allowed in the hands of the players (people the refs don't
have total control over) then the skill/ability itself if is by definition
fundamentally flawed to such a degree that it is in effect unplayable (the
players can't get it after all, it is limited to NPC's).
> OTOH, when that decision is made, the criteria for getting access
> to level 3 magic have to be set - getting to the top of the Mages' Guild,
> as is currently.
In OOC terms become an NPC.
> An IC rationale for
> who's qualified to use it and who's not is going to be tricky.
I'd say impossible.
> Does the assembled Peanut Gallery feel that the plot team have got
> it right, or should they trust the players more?
I think its more a case of looking at the abilities and skills that looking at
the plot teams response to them. Given the Lvl 3 magics I can see the logic
in restricting them in thier current form, wether these skills ought to exist
at all in thier curremnt form is quite another matter!
In this particular case its not in the rule book which means a complete
re-write and/or abolition of the skills would be feasibly possible, wether the
will or desire to do such a thing exists is another matter.
Mike Horrill
ha...@camdesign.co.uk
> Renewal haven't given much 'greater power to the *' as far as I've
> seen.
I disagree... Renewal spellcasters (Of whatever flavour as long as its level
2) are considerably more powerful than Gathering mages of the equivalent
power. The balance is surely tilted towards spellcasters when they all have
ranged damaging magic...? Watch 20-odd Corporeal 2's stand in a line and
anihilate a similar number of the hardest fighters you've ever met 30 feet
away, and then talk about balance... The 50 point (+ Rank skills?) Renewal
NPCs who've concentrated on spells must be hellaciously powerful.
>They've given experience points (at last, a reward for surviving)
Or a natty marketing ploy to reward loyalty... (Joke... Joke... :-))
H.
ha...@camdesign.co.uk
Katie Brown
> >big move recently in some Gathering plots, away from horrific cheese plots
> >and towards plots where 15pt NPCs form the mainstay of the opposition and
> >I think the game is subtley improving because of it.
>
> lot of characters I have talked to at the Gathering in the past simply would
> not talk to the big hard npcs but feel much more free to talk to less powerful
> and less obvious NPCs.
Talking about this at home, the point came up that people wouldn't be
scared of an NPC/likely to obey etc if said NPC had no skills with which
to demand obedience or respect. The only real power the NPC has at this
stage is knowledge, and the character's own charisma and force of will.
Rank may or may not help. This tends to lead the NPCs away from the
'Tremble, puny mortals' school of roleplaying onto something potentially
more interesting, but a lot harder work.
I guess it depends whether you want (f'r'example) the Lord High Poobah
of Tharg to be a powerful NPC, or someone who influences plot with
slightly more subtlety. There is also the question of whether there
_should_ be a range of abilities across the game world, some mages never
making it beyond the odd firebolt, and some people able to set the world
on fire.
I don't see that there's a problem with some spells only being available
to a limited number of very powerful people in the game world. Any skill
will be possessed by different people with a variety of competences -
most people can have a bash at singing, but very few could handle opera.
The issue is really how are these high end abilities managed and
assigned.
Kt
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Brown.
Phone: (+44) 1473 647293 Fax: (+44) 1473 646885 CoCo: (+44) 1473 621492
Email: ka...@b29net.bt.co.uk
Snail: B55/122 BT Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich IP5 7RE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Watson
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > This raises an important point, that of 'trusting the players'.
> > The best example that springs to mind is Level 3 magic. Should this be
> > placed in the hands of anyone who buys Spellcasting 1&2, for example? Or
> > is it too powerful?
>
>
> > An IC rationale for
> > who's qualified to use it and who's not is going to be tricky.
>
> I'd say impossible.
>
I see magic as a mixture of natural talent and lots of study. The study
requires a teacher and/or books etc. Characters who are high up in the
Mages guild have access to the most powerfull teachers and texts
available. Your average wizard on the street dosn't.
Theres your IC rationale - dosn't stop it being crap OOC though.
If a charater puts enough time/effort/money into the research maybe LT
should reward them with Level 3 magic. (maybe they would anyway, I don't
know). You could put it in as a starting skill but I wouldn't like to
risk lumbering a first-time LARPer with that kind of power. IMO its
worth more than 15 points anyway.
Doug, being magical (level 0.1)
Geoff Cook
Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
> To an extent I think it depends what you define as an NPC. In a high
> fantasy world there should probably exist large, very dangerous and very
> powerful things but the game tends to work best if even these things form
> the backdrop of the game, rather than the centrepiece. Furthermore they
> should be suitably telegraphed. If the players move heaven and earth to
> summon the biggest most powerful deity they can find and then promptly whip
> out their swords and have a go, they deserve to get toasted.
Not as much as the players who, having been quested to destroy a
dragon's eggs and provided with a suitably heroic knight to distract
said dragon, arrive at the dragon's lair to find her still in residence
and proceed to try and destroy the eggs anyway.
Geoff 'StupidityKills' Cook
--
Geoff...@Parallax.co.uk
"Unarmed combat is all very well, but why not carry an axe ?"
Clare Yeowart
harry wrote:
and I scribbled:
>> Renewal haven't given much 'greater power to the *' as far as I've
>> seen.
>
>I disagree... Renewal spellcasters (Of whatever flavour as long as its level
>2) are considerably more powerful than Gathering mages of the equivalent
>power. The balance is surely tilted towards spellcasters when they all have
>ranged damaging magic...? Watch 20-odd Corporeal 2's stand in a line and
>anihilate a similar number of the hardest fighters you've ever met 30 feet
>away, and then talk about balance... The 50 point (+ Rank skills?) Renewal
>NPCs who've concentrated on spells must be hellaciously powerful.
Finding twenty-odd corporeal 2's is a very difficult job in itself,
never mind getting them to stand in a line and use the same spell.
I know what you mean, but it only takes is a couple of archers (most
Corp 2s won't have body dev, but a few might have shields) or the
fighters to have a few friendly magic-users handy, and no more
problem. You only get a few cards, so they can't do too much, and
that's wihtout including the veteran picks possible.
Also, most people can't say their vocals whilst 20 heavily armoured
fighters are charging and screaming at the tops of their voices (most
fighters simply won't stand there and take it).
The 50 point characters, who are faction leaders, do not get rank
skills as far as I know, and they are supposed to be a little tougher
than the rest of us. Actually, 50 points is the maximum for any
character if I have my maths right (20 points starting + 5 years at 6
points per year), it's just that the rest of us have only got 2 or 3
years points so far, but we can get rank skills and they can't.
Faction leaders can be killed, the same as anyone else - it's up to
their faction to see that they aren't. The 2IC of the Lions got
killed last Renewal, for instance. The ones who have concentrated on
magic may be hellaciously powerful, but AFAIK they only have access to
the same spells as the rest of us - it just means they get a few more
castings in a day.
Personally, I think I'm pretty powerful as a normal player, but
everyone else who has survived is about on a par with me. The ones
who have survived are a little tougher than the ones who haven't, but
I think that's fair. It's not nearly as unbalancing as most systems.
>>They've given experience points (at last, a reward for surviving)
>
>Or a natty marketing ploy to reward loyalty... (Joke... Joke... :-))
Well, either way, it works, doesn't it? And being one of the
beneficiaries, I'm not about to complain. :)
Clare
John Summers
Or another viewpoint. Perhaps rank 3 magic is just there so NPCs can show
off?
I've been playing a mage for several years at the gathering, and have worked
hard in implementing plots, doing rituals, and assisting other people in and
out of character with getting involved in all aspects of the game within and
outside my faction. I've been a DPC, an NPC. I'm currently the Archmage of
my faction, and have been for a couple of years. Any magical progression?
Nope, of course not.
Rank 3 magic should be changed, and made availiable to those who work for
it, and I don't mean just butt crawling..
But then, I doubt that will ever happen
John Summers
Life's a beach, then the tide comes in......
joh...@ict.co.uk
In article <6fsudm$f08$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote:
>
>
> > This raises an important point, that of 'trusting the players'.
> > The best example that springs to mind is Level 3 magic. Should this be
> > placed in the hands of anyone who buys Spellcasting 1&2, for example? Or
> > is it too powerful?
>
> it is a different question from the one you ask. AS the example used here
> is The Gathering I will stick with that but I would say that this argument
> can be extrapolated to any other system.
>
> I would say that if Spellcasting 3 (or Incantation 3 for that matter) is too
> powerful to be allowed in the hands of the players (people the refs don't
> have total control over) then the skill/ability itself if is by definition
> fundamentally flawed to such a degree that it is in effect unplayable (the
> players can't get it after all, it is limited to NPC's).
It seems to me, in my very limited experience, that "level three" magics are
uncontrolable currently....
Even though they are in the hands of NPCs. By their very nature they indulge
a player's (or NPC's) ego, as "I'm better/more powerful/cleverer than you".
This leads to resentment from the players towards the NPC's and encourages
people to have a go at the NPC's in order to prove how hard they are.
Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
This does ONLY seem to happen in the Gathering system, where the NPC's are
like enhanced players (with extra responsibilities).
I would say that monsters are a different matter.....
Where a part is an evil villain, or a passing superhero then extraordinary
powers are forgivable....it does nothing bad to remind players that they are
not the most powerful beings around, it's just harmful when it's rammed down
their throat every day.
John Shockley.
...And it was all me own work.....
Simon White
John Summers wrote in message <6ftrh1$p...@news1.force9.net>...
>Or another viewpoint. Perhaps rank 3 magic is just there so NPCs can show
>off?
Yes. They do that a lot.
Darn NPCs - always poking their noses in where it isnt wanted and then
blatantly showing off and abusing their ego's.
>I've been playing a mage for several years at the gathering, and have
worked
>hard in implementing plots, doing rituals, and assisting other people in
and
>out of character with getting involved in all aspects of the game within
and
>outside my faction. I've been a DPC, an NPC. I'm currently the Archmage of
>my faction, and have been for a couple of years. Any magical progression?
>Nope, of course not.
The *game* is about blag to a certain extent - its not what it says you can
do - its what people *think* you can do.
Its also a lot more *social* than *ability* based.
More points or skills dont bring you respect (to the greater degree) but
roleplaying does.
If you wish magical progression perhaps you should ask your faction leader
to *progress you* with with a ritual or as a faction special?
I know some of the work you've done for your faction, and you have reported
it clearly above, but your reward is in rank (ok - this is an assumption),
and by having a position which I assume brings you a certain degree of
involvement, influence and respect.
>Rank 3 magic should be changed, and made availiable to those who work for
>it, and I don't mean just butt crawling..
Why do you want it John?
As a reward?
To show off?
I dont think that your comments are fair about those who have worked for it,
in many cases they have given almost all their time at events to working to
make the event better for other players. It may be a little unfair in which
skills are available to whom, but these are not people who have, on the
whole, had opporunities that *any* other players were denied.
>But then, I doubt that will ever happen
Who knows. I once tried to predict the future, but found my sight obscured
by reality...
Simon White
joh...@ict.co.uk wrote in message <6g01qp$f0f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>It seems to me, in my very limited experience, that "level three" magics
are
>uncontrolable currently....
They are a large jump (in some areas) from Level 2 magic, and dont follow
some of the same basic tenets (the most obvious being "No ranged direct
damage").
>Even though they are in the hands of NPCs. By their very nature they
indulge
>a player's (or NPC's) ego, as "I'm better/more powerful/cleverer than you".
>This leads to resentment from the players towards the NPC's and encourages
>people to have a go at the NPC's in order to prove how hard they are.
All NPCs should have a level of responsbility and understanding which is not
expected from PCs.
In many cases this would preclude ego to a greater or lesser degree.
"Here, have this lammi, now let me tie both your hands behind your back".
Players have the freedom that NPCs dont have - many people see NPC as being
a huge plus, esp in the G system, effectively "Players with more points".
This perception isnt helped by the fact that a lot of NPCs are PC-upgrades,
and others are designed to be biased (i.e. Faction Command).
The truth is, for me and a lot of others, far removed from that.
>Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
>magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
Just because you have it doesnt mean you have to use it.
>This does ONLY seem to happen in the Gathering system, where the NPC's are
>like enhanced players (with extra responsibilities).
That perception is there (see above).
>I would say that monsters are a different matter.....
>
>Where a part is an evil villain, or a passing superhero then extraordinary
>powers are forgivable....it does nothing bad to remind players that they
are
>not the most powerful beings around, it's just harmful when it's rammed
down
>their throat every day.
There has been overexposure of some NPCs, for OOC reasons as much as
anything, but, IMO, this has been reduced over the last 12 months.
Players should be able to influence things, and are able to in many ways -
its just that for a lot of people "If we cant kill it by hitting it, we cant
influence it at all"...... a shame IMO.
Simon
Who remembered to sign this one...
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
> It seems to me, in my very limited experience, that "level three" magics are
> uncontrolable currently....
>
> Even though they are in the hands of NPCs. By their very nature they indulge
> a player's (or NPC's) ego, as "I'm better/more powerful/cleverer than you".
> This leads to resentment from the players towards the NPC's and encourages
> people to have a go at the NPC's in order to prove how hard they are.
I think it becomes more of a problem when said NPC or plot involving that
NPC becomes over-used. here are two plots involving 3 NPC's that I can think
of currently that seem to be getting flogged to death. As well as breeding
the resentment at the powes these NPC's weild the main problem is that these
NPC's are getting stuffed down peopels throats day in day out. Okay so one of
the plots is a major ongoing plot but the other has no real reason to be run
at the current time and is, in the main, one of the major sources of apathy
and resentment amongst the players as they feel (rightly or wrongly) that its
gonna happen anyway and theres sod all they can do about it.
Well I seem to rambled off here. What I think I was trying to say is I don't
think these things are a problem IF they are kept fairly well concealed and
not over used, as soon as a certian ability (eg Magebolt) or a certain
character (eg Colour Mages) starst getting over used people get pissed off
with it. I think the key is, in the case of both abilities and NPC's, Use
Sparingly and under no circumstances over-use! Thats what laeds to resnetment
and problems.
Mike Horrill
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
> They are a large jump (in some areas) from Level 2 magic, and dont follow
> some of the same basic tenets (the most obvious being "No ranged direct
> damage").
Which is, IMHO, wrong. The basic tennants are there for a reason (the ranged
magic one being an OOC logistical reason). Why suddenly break that for a Lvl3
magic but not a Lvl 2 one?
Anyway, AFAIK is the ranged damage one that causes the problem. Sitting here
thinking about this I can't help but wonder that if Magebolt didn't exist this
thread would never have started n which case that needs looking at.
> >Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
> >magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
> Just because you have it doesnt mean you have to use it.
But I think the problem is they do and thats the problem, overuse.
> There has been overexposure of some NPCs, for OOC reasons as much as
> anything, but, IMO, this has been reduced over the last 12 months.
I'm tempted to disagree here. In terms of the *number* of NPC's that have
been over-used I agree but in terms of over-use of a *few particular* NPC's I
think the problem has become more acute.
r.ho...@mailcity.com
"Simon White" <S.A.Wh...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> John Summers wrote in message <6ftrh1$p...@news1.force9.net>...
> >Or another viewpoint. Perhaps rank 3 magic is just there so NPCs can show
> >off?
> Yes. They do that a lot.
> Darn NPCs - always poking their noses in where it isnt wanted and then
> blatantly showing off and abusing their ego's.
> The *game* is about blag to a certain extent - its not what it says you can
> do - its what people *think* you can do.
>
> Its also a lot more *social* than *ability* based.
So if it's all about blag and social skills, why does *anyone* need Rank 3
magic?
Roz
(Whose character has *always* managed quite adequately without Rank 3)
Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
In article <6g01qp$f0f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<joh...@ict.co.uk> wrote:
> Even though they are in the hands of NPCs. By their very nature they indulge
> a player's (or NPC's) ego, as "I'm better/more powerful/cleverer than you".
> This leads to resentment from the players towards the NPC's and encourages
> people to have a go at the NPC's in order to prove how hard they are.
> Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
> magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
> This does ONLY seem to happen in the Gathering system, where the NPC's are
> like enhanced players (with extra responsibilities).
i honestly think that a npc's ego tripping does not matter as long as we remember,
npc = non paying character, pc = paying character
and also that the npc is provideing a service for the players, and is not there to indulge in own thier own self gratification.
Elton (cp)
--
_____ _ _
| ____| | |_ ___ _ __
| _| | | __/ _ \| '_ \
| |___| | || (_) | | | |
|_____|_|\__\___/|_| |_|
joh...@ict.co.uk
SNIP
> I dont think that your comments are fair about those who have worked for it,
> in many cases they have given almost all their time at events to working to
> make the event better for other players. It may be a little unfair in which
> skills are available to whom, but these are not people who have, on the
> whole, had opporunities that *any* other players were denied.
I hate to go off the subject (but am about to...)
If the NPCs have given up "almost all their time at events" to the LT should
they be playing NPC parts?
Should a "character" NPC (faction leader/colour mage/ guild leader as opposed
to monster NPCs (pattern/lord of all evil/ancestor)) be played as a part
timer? Would it not be better to find some other reward for the superb work
that many people do OOC at events? It would also allow us to keep IC and OOC
seperated more effectively than at the moment......
Just a thought.....
John.
And it's still all my own work....
Doug Watson
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote:
> Sitting here
> thinking about this I can't help but wonder that if Magebolt didn't exist this
> thread would never have started n which case that needs looking at.
>
only one I've ever seen used or heard of.
Incidentally, are there level 3 Incantations as well. What about level 3
Healing.
Doug, being serious then getting silly
David Miller
John Shockley said;
> This does ONLY seem to happen in the Gathering system, where the NPC's are
> like enhanced players (with extra responsibilities).
The Gathering (any large "artifically instantiated" game universe)
will suffer from / require this sort of situation, especially as the
vast majority of players are once-a-year attendees, who need to have a
"ready made" world put in front of them.
Erm. I'm not sure which way I voted then....... work it out and let me know!
--
D.M.
David E. Miller, Harlequin Ltd, Cambs UK
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jax-Ur at The Gathering, Orinoko at Labyrinthe, Obsidian at Mayfest
loonies we are least loonies we become
Taz
wrote:
> From: M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
> > >Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
> > >magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
>
> But I think the problem is they do and thats the problem, overuse.
Overuse? It is used far more by players and monsters than the NPCs who have it.
> > There has been overexposure of some NPCs, for OOC reasons as much as
> > anything, but, IMO, this has been reduced over the last 12 months.
>
> I'm tempted to disagree here. In terms of the *number* of NPC's that have
> been over-used I agree but in terms of over-use of a *few particular* NPC's I
> think the problem has become more acute.
Overuse, again?
In what sense can an NPC be overused? The only case I can think of is if the
NPC deprives the players by effectively "doing the plot" for them. However, NPCs
who are part of a plot and getting players involved can hardly be "overused".
Pete
Steve Turnbull
In message <6g2bmv$7dh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
r.ho...@mailcity.com wrote:
> "Simon White" <S.A.Wh...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > John Summers wrote in message <6ftrh1$p...@news1.force9.net>...
> >
> > > Or another viewpoint. Perhaps rank 3 magic is just there so NPCs
> > > can show off?
> >
> > Yes. They do that a lot.
> > Darn NPCs - always poking their noses in where it isnt wanted and then
> > blatantly showing off and abusing their ego's.
> >
> > The *game* is about blag to a certain extent - its not what it says
> > you can do - its what people *think* you can do.
> >
> > It's also a lot more *social* than *ability* based.
>
> So if it's all about blag and social skills, why does *anyone* need Rank 3
> magic?
I'll say the obvious, since I'm not involved:
Only the ones who are incapable of blag and lack social skills :-)
--
Steve Turnbull (st...@turnbull.cix.co.uk)
http://www.cix.co.uk/~turnbull/
... Help wanted: Telepath. You know where to apply.
Simon White
>> So if it's all about blag and social skills, why does *anyone* need Rank
3
>> magic?
>
>I'll say the obvious, since I'm not involved:
>
>Only the ones who are incapable of blag and lack social skills :-)
Um, cough, um... :-)
Simon
Simon White
joh...@ict.co.uk wrote in message <6g2jvi$i27$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>SNIP
>> I dont think that your comments are fair about those who have worked for
it,
>> in many cases they have given almost all their time at events to working
to
>> make the event better for other players. It may be a little unfair in
which
>> skills are available to whom, but these are not people who have, on the
>> whole, had opporunities that *any* other players were denied.
>
>I hate to go off the subject (but am about to...)
Go for it....
>If the NPCs have given up "almost all their time at events" to the LT
should
>they be playing NPC parts?
I meant "Give up their time to play NPCs" as much as anything else.
I am talking about the people who work 14 hours a day in the MG as much as
those who do it at the Ritual Circle, or in the Incantors Guild or whatever.
>Should a "character" NPC (faction leader/colour mage/ guild leader as
opposed
>to monster NPCs (pattern/lord of all evil/ancestor)) be played as a part
>timer? Would it not be better to find some other reward for the superb work
>that many people do OOC at events? It would also allow us to keep IC and
OOC
>seperated more effectively than at the moment......
The problem with OOC/IC seperation is that people are happier to give more
time *give out spellcards semi-IC* than *give out spell cards OOC*...
In an ideal world perhaps Games Op would have a dozen full time staff
dealing with these things - but at the moment they dont.
Also, while there may be hundreds of people out there able to play competent
Plot-NPCs, they arent necessarily known about by the right people - which
means you use who you have and trust.... - who are the ones who are busy
doing the million other things...
>Just a thought.....
And one, IMHO, which is quite valid.
Taz
Steve Turnbull wrote:
> > So if it's all about blag and social skills, why does *anyone* need Rank 3
> > magic?
>
> I'll say the obvious, since I'm not involved:
>
> Only the ones who are incapable of blag and lack social skills :-)
I think that the whole premise of the question is wrong.
The game is many things to many people. Some play it as a game of who can get
the most lammies, others prefer the social interactions and there are many who
fit somewhere in between, plus as many other different reasons as there are
players.
Someone needs Rank 3 Magic because it is part of the rationale of the
character and that character's position in the game world.
One might equally well ask why do people gain "free" extra skills with rank?
Pete
David Miller
> npc = non paying character, pc = paying character
This always annoys me! I suspect a great many NPCs would often gladly
hand over cash to be able to just go home......
pc = person who can turn up for a short while and do as they choose
npc = person who has to turn up for a long time, put in time and
effort outside game, and be very careful what they do.
I may as well get sidetracked into the "LRP for profit" thread!
David Miller
> "No ranged direct damage").
I suspect the issue is "no damage through the Ritual Of Peace" ?
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <6g29rc$5au$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk writes:
>
>
> > They are a large jump (in some areas) from Level 2 magic, and dont follow
> > damage").
>
> magic one being an OOC logistical reason). Why suddenly break that for a Lvl
>
> thinking about this I can't help but wonder that if Magebolt didn't exist thi
>
Not convinced. CP have a common or garden spell that near mimics Magebolt and
they somehow survive the awesome task of administering this spell. Everyone
knows you fall over if you get hit by a magebolt, I don't see how thats
hard to implement. Before everyone starts pointing out the utterly obvious
that CP has 500 players and the LT has 3500 players, I am aware of that.
However, there are some specials and some PCs that can do magebolt already,
and the game copes just fine.
If S3 were a skill you had to work DAMN hard for, i.e. save your points for
a few years and work hard for the Mages Guild, then I suspec there would
never be more than a handful of PCs who can do it. Without wanting to give
away too much about the limitations of S3, I can assure you that this would
NOT lead to PCs casting magebolts all over the place.
The real power of Magebolt is that it penetrates the ritual of peace. Given
that so does carting people off site and killing them in the car park, I
don't think thats so much of an issue anymore.
I do agree that reffing 20 magebolt capable PCs on the battlefield would
be difficult. Indeed I suspect some of those Magebolts would be cast and
ignored. However since on the battlefield Sleep and Magebolt make you do
the same thing, only one requires a healer immediately and the other one
probably requires a healer immediately, I don't see the problem.
> > >Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
> > >magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
> > Just because you have it doesnt mean you have to use it.
Whats the point of having something and not using it??? :)
> But I think the problem is they do and thats the problem, overuse.
Over-use of S3!?! Please, I doubt there are many characters in the LT
system who have ever SEEN someone use S3. Violet shoots his flangy big
gun off occasionally, but's he's using trounce power not S3, and to say
he's the exception would be a bit of a euphemisim. Maybe if you LIVE in
the Mages guild you see a lot of colour mages doing S3. I can honestly
never recall seeing a single S3 spell cast ever in 2 years (ish) of
Gathering going.
> > There has been overexposure of some NPCs, for OOC reasons as much as
> > anything, but, IMO, this has been reduced over the last 12 months.
>
> I'm tempted to disagree here. In terms of the *number* of NPC's that have
> been over-used I agree but in terms of over-use of a *few particular* NPC's I
> think the problem has become more acute.
I am happily oblivious to the meaning of these last two sentences. :)
Hobbes
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <6g2jvi$i27$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, joh...@ict.co.uk writes:
> SNIP
> > I dont think that your comments are fair about those who have worked for it,
> > in many cases they have given almost all their time at events to working to
> > make the event better for other players. It may be a little unfair in which
> > skills are available to whom, but these are not people who have, on the
> > whole, had opporunities that *any* other players were denied.
>
> I hate to go off the subject (but am about to...)
>
> they be playing NPC parts?
>
> to monster NPCs (pattern/lord of all evil/ancestor)) be played as a part
> timer? Would it not be better to find some other reward for the superb work
> that many people do OOC at events? It would also allow us to keep IC and OOC
> seperated more effectively than at the moment......
>
>
> John.
> And it's still all my own work....
>
Are you suggesting John that people who work their butts off for the sake
of the rest of us and our enjoyment shouldn't get to play keff hard snacky
NPCs? If so then I'm inclined to agree with you.
At this point, I'm going to have to admit to criticising something without
suggesting an alternative, which is a poo thing to do, but there you go.
I think the idea of rewarding OOC effort with IC snackies is a bit crap.
For a start it begins to blur the distinction between IC and OOC which
is never a good idea. It's my experience that the game organisors rewarding
themselves by giving themselves gross snacky characters (not that I'm
accusing ANYONE of doing this), tends to demean and undermine the enjoyment
of those PCs they interact with. Given that they're ultimate purpose is
to enhance that enjoyment this is kinda self defeating.
I like to believe that people who work in the organisational part of LRP
should be motivated by two things, huge wodges of money or the love of
the hobby. Of course I'm just hopelessly naive.
Hobbes
Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
In article <DEM.98Ap...@watson.harlqn.co.uk>,
David Miller <d...@harlqn.co.uk> wrote:
> This always annoys me! I suspect a great many NPCs would often gladly
> hand over cash to be able to just go home......
> pc = person who can turn up for a short while and do as they choose
> npc = person who has to turn up for a long time, put in time and
> effort outside game, and be very careful what they do.
> I may as well get sidetracked into the "LRP for profit" thread!
we are paying money to "do as we like" that means that npcs (even if they
are a volentiers) are staff and subsequently are a service provider.
Elton
Mr M.I. Pennington
Hmm, it's time for my hob nail boots. Aitken give me that sword or truth
and shield of justice...
I wanta clear up what I think is a BIG mistake being made here, concerning
S3. Now I'm only a baby rules lawyer, so you'll forgive me if I'm wrong,
but this is my understanding of the rules (such as they are) at presnt.
S3 is a set of spells, including the infamous Magebolt amongst others. It
has similar restrictions to S2 in terms of the abilty to use it (hands and
armour and things), and most importantly of all, each spell has a set of
vocals, like all the other spells. They go something like this. "By the
power of high magic and the elements of fire and air, and countless other
tedious details that no-one here really wants to read about, but which really
are in the full spell vocals honestly I magebolt your leg").
Please contrast this with the notorious incident involving a former colour
mage on his birthday, which went something like this...
"Magebolt, magebolt, magebolt."
Look carefully and it may become apparant that the individual in question
was either cheating hideously or had some battery up his bum which meant
HE WASN'T USING THE OFFICIAL S3 MAGEBOLT spell.
S3 is a set of spells, they're a bit more powerful than the S2 spells but
not that much more powerful. Being able to shoot someone with verbals that
take 30 seconds isn't as good as your standard PGT immune to normal,
enchanted damage in my book. Of course being able to shout "magebolt,
magebolt, magebolt" and have lots of people fall over, is better, but that
isn't what you are talking about when you suggest giving S3 to players...
I thought about it really hard and remembered that I have once in two years
seen an S3 spell cast and that was from a scroll (Cheers FB!). I suspect
the majority of the 3000 Gathering players have NEVER SEEN AN S3 SPELL.
How that constitutes over-use is beyond me. (The Flangy Trio
FlorryWhitePurple is a DIFFERENT argument).
Most NPCs in the LT system are there for logistical purposes and have very
large constraints placed on their actions which is why they never do anything
contentious and why I've never seen many Magebolts. As Simon White said
elsewhere they are not just PCs with 30pts, they really do have their hands
tied. Of course the bad ones undo the knots while no-one is looking but
thats another argument again.
I say, give S3 to players, they're bound to do more interesting things
with it than the NPCs do!!!
Mike Horrill wrote...
> Which is, IMHO, wrong. The basic tennants are there for a reason (the ranged
> magic one being an OOC logistical reason). Why suddenly break that for a Lvl
> magic but not a Lvl 2 one?
I don't know if this really is the concept, but as a practising rules lawyer,
to me that is the biggest pile of steaming poo I ever heard.
Sleep is a ranged damage spell.
Fear is a ranged damage spell.
Sure you recover from the damage inflicted by a sleep or a fear faster than
a magebolt, but is the relevant to the logistics? I don't see it. Magebolt
is a more powerful version of sleep, it puts you out for longer than your
10 seconds.
John Shockley posted saying...
>It seems to me, in my very limited experience, that "level three" magics are
>uncontrolable currently....
>
>Even though they are in the hands of NPCs. By their very nature they indulge
>a player's (or NPC's) ego, as "I'm better/more powerful/cleverer than you".
>This leads to resentment from the players towards the NPC's and encourages
>people to have a go at the NPC's in order to prove how hard they are.
>
>Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
>magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
>
>This does ONLY seem to happen in the Gathering system, where the NPC's are
>like enhanced players (with extra responsibilities).
and Mike Horrill posted....
>I think it becomes more of a problem when said NPC or plot involving that
>NPC becomes over-used. here are two plots involving 3 NPC's that I can think
>of currently that seem to be getting flogged to death. As well as breeding
>the resentment at the powes these NPC's weild the main problem is that these
>NPC's are getting stuffed down peopels throats day in day out. Okay so one of
>the plots is a major ongoing plot but the other has no real reason to be run
>at the current time and is, in the main, one of the major sources of apathy
>and resentment amongst the players as they feel (rightly or wrongly) that its
>gonna happen anyway and theres sod all they can do about it.
>
>Well I seem to rambled off here. What I think I was trying to say is I don't
>think these things are a problem IF they are kept fairly well concealed and
>not over used, as soon as a certian ability (eg Magebolt) or a certain
>character (eg Colour Mages) starst getting over used people get pissed off
>with it. I think the key is, in the case of both abilities and NPC's, Use
>Sparingly and under no circumstances over-use! Thats what laeds to resnetment
>and problems.
I see!!! Now I know what you're talking about. Or I think I know... :)
Reading between the lines of Mike and John's post, what they are really
saying is
"Captain Purple is a big gross flangy snacky lammy head, and players are
sick of it."
Only they can't say that cuz it's impolite to name people, but I can cuz
Paul's my mate see. :) (Haha the powers one gains by having mates in the LT!)
What they are also saying, and much more worryingly (and wrongly) in my
opinion is...
"Flappy Floris and Wussy White are just as lammied up to the eyeballs but
thats ok because they never do anything so we don't mind them."
[Just for the record, while a lot of players are fed up with the Purple
Flangemeister, I know a far few in the Bears who like him for the very
reason that the above complainants don't. I.e. he gets stuck in and dishes
it out with gay abandon. Mr. Silly with attitude. A lot of Bears relate to
that you see... :) ]
Personally I think this is poo. The idea that it's ok for some NPCs to be
strolling around with a magical AK47 under their arm, so long as they only
fire it occasionally is to my mind bloody ludicrous. It comes back to that
basic tenet of plot writing. If your NPC has no stats, can do anything and
can't be killed until plot says so, it's BAD PLOT.
If the reasoning is that FlorryWhitePurple are rewards for the VERY
substantial efforts of Mark Thomas, Simon White and Paul Wilder on
everyone's behalf, then the reasoning is flawed. Such characters IMO
reduce the enjoyment of the game for everyone. Why encourage people to
do work to enhance the game and then give them a flange monster to
negate the effect. Seems dumb to me.
If the reasoning is that FlorryWhitePurple is needed to be grossly
statted for plot reasons, then it's bad plot and should go. Plot is
about players, and provoking players to make choices which affect
their characters and the characters around them. It isn't about watching
one half of the FlorryWhitePurple monster talk to the other half.
I would just like to point out that I have a large amount of respect for
all three parts of Moss Chops Snacky Chops, Si, Paul and Mark who do a
great job for the LT, and this isn't intended as a personal attack. I just
think their role-playing talents are wasted on the NPC roles they play
at present which for my taste detract from the game and encourage players
to feel like helpless onlookers.
I cheered when Floris and the Tomes vanished into the void. I wept to hear
they'd returned.
John Shockley also said....
>I would say that monsters are a different matter.....
>
>Where a part is an evil villain, or a passing superhero then extraordinary
>powers are forgivable....it does nothing bad to remind players that they are
>not the most powerful beings around, it's just harmful when it's rammed down
>their throat every day.
Yurch! Boo plot, boo plot, boo plot. Passing Superheros? Read a superman
comic sometime. Focus on one of the panels in which Superman beats up
Dork guy. Look at the bloke in the background, the onlooker who is watching
the fight between these two epic titans.
Now imagine role-playing that person.
No thanks.
You're suggesting that it's ok for us to right plot with an enormous
snacky monster in (that oddly enough no-one has heard about until today...),
but it isn't ok for people to write plot with Captain Purple in it.
The problem that FWP and their plot plot equivalents present is that
many players (but not everyone) knows they're snacky. You can't touch them.
You can't affect them. No matter how hard you try you are never going to
affect one of them, except in pre-conceived ways written by plot. It's not
entirely true of course, but it is the perception. Yes Purple rams his
snackness down people's throats, whereas Whitey and FB don't but the
essential problem is in their existence not their actions.
When you create an NPC who is super-statted you implicitly require that
that person is the focus on ensuing events. And that is a mistake because
in role-playing, players should be the focus.
Don't super-stat your NPCs. You know it makes sense.
Hobbes
P.S. Apologies to JS and MH if that wasn't what they're getting at by talking
about over-exposed NPCs. If I've made a mistake please correct, because
obviously I still can't understand a word you're talking about... :)
Alan Forsyth
> I think that the whole premise of the question is wrong.
>
> The game is many things to many people. Some play it as a game of who can get
> the most lammies, others prefer the social interactions and there are many who
> fit somewhere in between, plus as many other different reasons as there are
> players.
>
> Someone needs Rank 3 Magic because it is part of the rationale of the
> character and that character's position in the game world.
>
> One might equally well ask why do people gain "free" extra skills with rank?
>
> Pete
Lets get one thing sorted out here the role of the npc is primarily two fold1:
help plot line run smoothly :-) so that "paying guests" enjoy the whole event
2: Add flavour to the event with no direction and so many participants it would
come crashing down around our ears
level three magic would appear excessive and on the whole I would tend to agree
with the notion that granting excessive powers to individual npc's, could be seen
as compensation for their inability to carry off an authoritative role
convincingly( he/she can't convince players so lets have them in awe of him/her).
surely it's down to players to test the metal of these mega npc's
once this letter goes out on the news group I probably wont be an npc anymore.:-)
I personally have no grotesque powers no outrageous magical abilities. Im
just a bog standard 15 point character.
Ok I have no more impact on plot than any other player, many of the players I
have interacted with don't even know im an npc. I've been threatened, attacked,
even tried along with my associate in kangaroo court fashion but im still alive!
you see we have a special power that appears on no lamie called "role
playing" it's a skill and best of all it costs nil points so maybe if other npc's
go back to basics and re-learn this skill players might not have so many
complaints
Just a thought?
Horrocks
Doug Watson wrote:
>
> M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> > > This raises an important point, that of 'trusting the players'.
> > > The best example that springs to mind is Level 3 magic. Should this be
> > > placed in the hands of anyone who buys Spellcasting 1&2, for example? Or
> > > is it too powerful?
> >
> >
> > > An IC rationale for
> > > who's qualified to use it and who's not is going to be tricky.
> >
> > I'd say impossible.
> >
> I'm always one for a challenge.
>
> I see magic as a mixture of natural talent and lots of study. The study
> requires a teacher and/or books etc. Characters who are high up in the
> Mages guild have access to the most powerfull teachers and texts
> available. Your average wizard on the street dosn't.
>
> Theres your IC rationale - dosn't stop it being crap OOC though.
>
> If a charater puts enough time/effort/money into the research maybe LT
> should reward them with Level 3 magic. (maybe they would anyway, I don't
> know). You could put it in as a starting skill but I wouldn't like to
> risk lumbering a first-time LARPer with that kind of power. IMO its
> worth more than 15 points anyway.
>
> Doug, being magical (level 0.1)
What about if a charactor wanted to use his/her occupational skill
points to buy 3rd level magic
Roz Horton
>Sleep is a ranged damage spell.
>
>Fear is a ranged damage spell.
>
>Sure you recover from the damage inflicted by a sleep or a fear faster than
>a magebolt, but is the relevant to the logistics? I don't see it. Magebolt
>is a more powerful version of sleep, it puts you out for longer than your
>10 seconds.
(This has little to do with the previous thread, it's more of an
intellectual argument.)
I'm not sure I agree with your definition of Sleep and Fear as ranged
*damage* spells. Ranged *effect*, yes, but unlike Magebolt they don't
in themselves inflict damage.
"Ah", you might say, "but someone could cast a Sleep, and then injure
the helpless target, *thus* causing damage." However, the damage
results from that subsequent strike; as an indirect, not direct,
consequence of the spell.
In fact, Fear, by causing the target to flee from the conflict,
could even save that target from damage.
If Sleep and Fear were always used to weaken a target before
inflicting physical damage, I'd dismiss my argument as a distinction
without a difference. However, whereas the only use of Magebolt is (as
far as I know) to cause injury, both Sleep and Fear have other uses.
To give actual examples:
Sleep:
(1) preventing a 'slightly unwell' Crown Prince from hurting his own
men, without risking any injury to him [cast on Elias Karlennon at the
recent Harts Parliament]
(2) to be able to sneak off, destination unnoticed (cast on the Baron
of Bollington at the same event}
Fear:
assisting a group in rounding up an errant member and giving him a
'gentle' push in the direction of his camp. [cast on Iggy of Bacchus
Bastards in 1094, and he still hasn't let me forget it ;-) ]
Fear is also excellent when used right in the face of an immobilised
suspect. The psychological torture softens them up, whilst they
remain fully conscious, undamaged, and able to respond to
interrogation.
I'd be interested to know what else Magebolt can be used for. Possibly
getting back into your Tower if you've left the keys at the Guild? (I
don't know the stats, does it work on inanimate objects?) But that's
still damage.
cheers
Roz
Doug Watson
Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
>
> Whats the point of having something and not using it??? :)
>
Doug, making a point there honest
Doug Watson
Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
>
<snipped a bit>
>
> I think the idea of rewarding OOC effort with IC snackies is a bit crap.
> For a start it begins to blur the distinction between IC and OOC which
> is never a good idea. It's my experience that the game organisors rewarding
> themselves by giving themselves gross snacky characters (not that I'm
> accusing ANYONE of doing this), tends to demean and undermine the enjoyment
> of those PCs they interact with. Given that they're ultimate purpose is
> to enhance that enjoyment this is kinda self defeating.
>
> I like to believe that people who work in the organisational part of LRP
> should be motivated by two things, huge wodges of money or the love of
> the hobby. Of course I'm just hopelessly naive.
>
> Hobbes
>
getting to play NPC's?
Or is it that people who get to play NPC's are getting to put in loads
of OOC effort?
I don't think NPC at the Gathering etc cause any problems and they do a
lot of good making the game fun and interesting for the players. If you
think an NPC is a problem, complain (nicely) to LT and they'll do
something about it (I'm sure :-) ).
If all that the voulenteers what for their time and effort is to throw
the occasional Magebolt, then good for them.
Doug, not sucking up to NPC's. At all. In any way. Ever :-)
Doug Watson
Horrocks wrote:
>
> Doug Watson wrote:
> >
> > If a charater puts enough time/effort/money into the research maybe LT
> > should reward them with Level 3 magic. (maybe they would anyway, I don't
> > know). You could put it in as a starting skill but I wouldn't like to
> > risk lumbering a first-time LARPer with that kind of power. IMO its
> > worth more than 15 points anyway.
> >
> > Doug, being magical (level 0.1)
>
> What about if a charactor wanted to use his/her occupational skill
> points to buy 3rd level magic
>
*Wizard* is something couldn't be an occupational skill which would help
towards the time/effort/money for research.
Doug, being occupational and skillfull :-)
Katie Brown
Glynn & Kathy Greenwood wrote:
> we are paying money to "do as we like" that means that npcs (even if they
> are a volentiers) are staff and subsequently are a service provider.
>
> Elton
Hey guys, come and volunteer to npc! It'll involve hours/days/weeks of
your own time, require you to constrain your roleplaying to a specific
character designed by someone else and you'll get sod all sleep or time
to relax.
As an added bonus, the players are going to treat you, not as a human
being, but a Service Provider. This means they can ignore any and all of
the basic conventions of human interaction at will, raise blue murder
when you do anything they don't like (oh, and you'll never be able to
please all of them), and take you utterly for granted when you keep them
happy.
Yeah, the queue's over there.
Oh, sorry? You said the door? Back that way.
Damn.
Kt
Geoff Cook
Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
> I like to believe that people who work in the organisational part of LRP
> should be motivated by two things, huge wodges of money or the love of
> the hobby. Of course I'm just hopelessly naive.
Fortunately you're not the only one.
There are a goodly crop of people working at the Gathering who have
never been given snacky roles or huge wodges of cash. In fact I haven't
done ANY charactering at the Gathering at all for more years than I can
remember. I do it because I like doing things that let other people have
fun and get my kicks out of meeting lots of people some of whom
appreciate my help.
They do let me in without paying though :-)
Geoff 'Security' Cook
--
Geoff...@Parallax.co.uk
"Unarmed combat is all very well, but why not carry an axe ?"
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
Massive application of the text chopper to Matt's post.
Okay, yes so I was referring to Violet and White, not soo much to Floris
as it happens as he actually seesm to have the respect of people and as
such people don't actually try and take a pot shot at him, I can only
think of one time (well 2 incidents) that Floris has needed to anything
other than a 15 pt character in the past few years and that was in his
little arguments with Elias, both of which were set piece plot.
I think this gets away a bit from the overuse of these NPC's which is my
main concern rather than the over-use of the powers they might have not
ramming certain NPC's at the players quite so often in plot removes the
irritation of ramming thier powers at the players so much as well.
> If the reasoning is that FlorryWhitePurple are rewards for the VERY
> substantial efforts of Mark Thomas, Simon White and Paul Wilder on
> everyone's behalf, then the reasoning is flawed. Such characters IMO
> reduce the enjoyment of the game for everyone. Why encourage people to
> do work to enhance the game and then give them a flange monster to
> negate the effect. Seems dumb to me.
I quite agree.
> If the reasoning is that FlorryWhitePurple is needed to be grossly
> statted for plot reasons, then it's bad plot and should go. Plot is
> about players, and provoking players to make choices which affect
> their characters and the characters around them. It isn't about watching
> one half of the FlorryWhitePurple monster talk to the other half.
I think that is one of the problems with white/purple. It seesm evry much to
be "Stand there and watch us do stuff plot" rather than "Get stuck in and do
somethng about it plot". Okay so players first recation to something they
don't like is to try and hit it but frankly if you're not in the MG there is
little you can do about what there up to apart from try and hit it.
> I would just like to point out that I have a large amount of respect for
> all three parts of Moss Chops Snacky Chops, Si, Paul and Mark who do a
> great job for the LT, and this isn't intended as a personal attack. I just
> think their role-playing talents are wasted on the NPC roles they play
> at present which for my taste detract from the game and encourage players
> to feel like helpless onlookers.
Quite possibly. I have seen some great role playing from Paul but getting
these characters out of plot and actually letting them play a little more
might do us all a favour, not least Mark Paul and Si who would get a bit of
a break an get to do a bit more role playing for once.
> I cheered when Floris and the Tomes vanished into the void. I wept to hear
> they'd returned.
Alleliueah!!!
That is my view exactly!
Imp
Matt, dear,
You're boo.
Imp >:)
Khaela Moondancer, Vq Cyngelis, The Light Mage
Mages Guild Web Pages - http://www.cix.co.uk/~avernus
joh...@ict.co.uk
In article <Eqw6A...@liverpool.ac.uk>,
m...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr M.I. Pennington) wrote:
>
> I see!!! Now I know what you're talking about. Or I think I know... :)
>
> Reading between the lines of Mike and John's post, what they are really
> saying is
>
> "Captain Purple is a big gross flangy snacky lammy head, and players are
> sick of it."
>
> Only they can't say that cuz it's impolite to name people, but I can cuz
> Paul's my mate see. :) (Haha the powers one gains by having mates in the LT!)
>
> What they are also saying, and much more worryingly (and wrongly) in my
> opinion is...
>
> "Flappy Floris and Wussy White are just as lammied up to the eyeballs but
> thats ok because they never do anything so we don't mind them."
>
Not quite what I meant......
It was my intention to say that all three (amongst others) are interacted
with on a daily basis, are at all the best parties, and I find it a little
sickening that any of them can wield power that I can never hope to achieve.
This power seems to serve no reasonable in-game effect in terms of enhancing
plot, and therefore I am opposed to their possessing it.
It is not the activity level that is of concern, it is the very nature of the
three characters, and the fact that they are inextricably linked with events
in the known world.
>
> I cheered when Floris and the Tomes vanished into the void. I wept to hear
> they'd returned.
As did I.
>
> John Shockley also said....
>
> >I would say that monsters are a different matter.....
> >
> >Where a part is an evil villain, or a passing superhero then extraordinary
> >powers are forgivable....it does nothing bad to remind players that they are
> >not the most powerful beings around, it's just harmful when it's rammed down
> >their throat every day.
>
> Yurch! Boo plot, boo plot, boo plot. Passing Superheros? Read a superman
> comic sometime. Focus on one of the panels in which Superman beats up
> Dork guy. Look at the bloke in the background, the onlooker who is watching
> the fight between these two epic titans.
>
> Now imagine role-playing that person.
>
> No thanks.
I agree entirely. The example that you have quoted would result in
roleplaying tedium. The point I was attempting to make is that certain bad
guys/good guys have to be a cut above the players.
What do you think would have happened to Maar the Faceless at the Nights Dawn
if (everyone knew that) he was a fifteen point character. Ooooohhh say the
players....Scaaaareeeyyy! ;0)
Maar only works as a plot thread because no one can run up, beat him about
the head, and watch him crumple.....
In the same way, if the Pendragon had been a normal man and Excalibur an
ordinary sword, then he'd have lasted five seconds, and the plot that we had
been building for four years would have died with him.
The Harts players enjoyed the fact that after their years of effort, they
finally got a king that was a little bit special.
It is even ok IMHO to have things that are invulnerable....IF there is a good
reason for them. And they do not prevent the players doing stuff.
>
> You're suggesting that it's ok for us to right plot with an enormous
> snacky monster in (that oddly enough no-one has heard about until today...),
> but it isn't ok for people to write plot with Captain Purple in it.
No I'm not....
>
> The problem that FWP and their plot plot equivalents present is that
> many players (but not everyone) knows they're snacky. You can't touch them.
> You can't affect them. No matter how hard you try you are never going to
> affect one of them, except in pre-conceived ways written by plot. It's not
> entirely true of course, but it is the perception. Yes Purple rams his
> snackness down people's throats, whereas Whitey and FB don't but the
> essential problem is in their existence not their actions.
I agree
>
> When you create an NPC who is super-statted you implicitly require that
> that person is the focus on ensuing events. And that is a mistake because
> in role-playing, players should be the focus.
Sometimes, the players should be given a situation to react to......
As long as they can affect the outcome.......
Super stats are not the problem, it is the fact that too many plots use them.
If a super strength bad guy is a rarity then he is scary and impressive, if
he is commonplace then he is just one more thing in a long line of stuff that
no one can hurt.......
.....and that is dull.
I, personally would like to see more NPCs who are vulnerable, and are
impressive in their demeanor, not in their power. But, I also can see a time
and place for hard nasty things.
Feel free to disagree with me......
;0)
John.
Looking forward to an interesting debate.......
David Miller
> I like to believe that people who work in the organisational part of LRP
> should be motivated by two things, huge wodges of money or the love of
> the hobby. Of course I'm just hopelessly naive.
That is your (main?) redeeming feature, Matt.
Frankly, I suspect the second is the only option available to most people.
David Miller
> What about if a charactor wanted to use his/her occupational skill
> points to buy 3rd level magic
Ok. 400 OSPs for S3 ?
Aw, take too long to save up for them?
Tough. Anyway, Gathering level LRP is NOT 'won' by brawn.
I'm a player and I have a good time, if *I* make the effort.
David Miller
> I can honestly never recall seeing a single S3 spell cast ever in 2
> years (ish) of Gathering going.
True, you didn't see (coming) the one that got Thomas Finn (mark 1), did yah!
I think I've seen a few. One from the VM of course, after some wag had
knocked his hat off, but the guy took a great dive and was clealry
looking for it :-) . Indigo-as-was once magebolted a diseased MG
tabard so we could clear up the fizrep! And the Fire Ele MBed the
Black Cardinal once. Heard many stores of course.
As Pete Scott said, these days, most NBs are case by players from scrolls.
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <6fr9rh$fal$1...@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Steve Lewis" <S.J....@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> >It is however useful if the NPC's are aware of who each other are OOC, this
> >can avoid the situation where you have all 5 NPC's in a tavern round one
> >table and all the players round the others. I'm not saying NPC interaction
> >is a bad thing, it can be very interesting, but you don't want all the
> NPC's
> >tied up all evening in thier own schemings and not interacting with the
> >players (otherwise there useless as NPC's and might as well be PC's).
> >
> Absolutely. I'm always aware these days that there is no point in 2 NPC's
> going into a private room to talk about something. Either play the scene out
> in a public place, or make sure there are some PC's in the room to witness
> what happens, else there's no point in playing it out. The primary role of
> the NPC's is to add to the scenario.
>
My original point here was that it would be interesting if no-one could tell
who the NPCs and who the PCs were. Consider at the big G. there are 3000+
players and perhaps 100 NPCs. 1 in 30. What is the chance of those 1 in 30
spending by sheer coincidence more than a miniscule amount of time together
alone with another NPC. Small, I'd say on a purely statistical basis.
But you all cry, the NPCs are all the dead important people, and the dead
important people have a natural IC tendancy to talk to the other dead important
people. That if you think about it breaks my rationale that there is no-way
to tell who the NPCs are and aren't.
The essence of role-playing is to make the PCs important, to make them the
focus of the plot. So your NPCs would naturally move towards the PCs because
they're the important people that you need to deal with! You wouldn't need
to know who was an NPC and who wasn't, indeed the game would be improved if
you couldn't tell.
Imagine an LRP game where people saw a character doing dead important stuff
in front of everyone that changed the direction of the game world and caused
loads of shit and got lots of people involved and so on.
Imagine that those people thought "Yeah, he must be a PC, otherwise he
wouldn't be doing all that important stuff!"
Yes, I know I'm living in a dream world. But I like my dreams. :)
Hobbes
P.S. Steve is of course 100% right that NPC-NPC interaction at the gathering
is as pointless as a snowmaker in the sahara. NPCs are there to enhance PCs
pleasure and with the Gathering as is. Still I can dream. :)
Jaana Heino
Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
>My original point here was that it would be interesting if no-one could tell
>who the NPCs and who the PCs were.
Welcome to Finland.
Really, most games here don't make a difference between NPCs and PCs.
Actually, an NPC in a LARP sounds like a contradiction in terms to me -
how can you have a character in a live, if no one is playing it?
Of course, we don't have anything like games for 3000+ people. A game
for 200 is considered pretty large...
--
Jaana Heino----------------------email: jant...@cc.helsinki.fi----
Iivisniemenkuja 4 F 70---------------------------------------------
02260 Espoo-------------------------"Power corrupts, but we--------
FINLAND------------------------------still need electricity."------
Mark Ayen
Katie Brown <ka...@b29net.bt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Glynn & Kathy Greenwood wrote:
>
>> we are paying money to "do as we like" that means that npcs (even
>>provider.
>
>Hey guys, come and volunteer to npc! It'll involve hours/days/weeks of
>your own time, require you to constrain your roleplaying to a specific
>character designed by someone else and you'll get sod all sleep or time
>to relax.
>
>As an added bonus, the players are going to treat you, not as a human
>being, but a Service Provider. This means they can ignore any and all
>of the basic conventions of human interaction at will, raise blue
>murder when you do anything they don't like (oh, and you'll never be
>able to please all of them), and take you utterly for granted when you
>keep themhappy.
Don't forget that you'll get little or no experience for your PC and that
-- if you're *really* lucky -- you'll get the living crap beaten out of
you by murderous, sleep-deprived PCs, finishing your "time of service" a
mass of welts, bruises and contusions!
Mark
============================================================
lion...@prodigy.com http://pages.prodigy.com/CT/mayen/
Victor Mortuorum Serum the Insidious Nicolai Baljar
Visit the LIONE World Wide Web Site at:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/LIONE/
============================================================
John Scott
In article <352896D1...@b29net.bt.co.uk>, Katie Brown
<ka...@b29net.bt.co.uk> wrote:
> Glynn & Kathy Greenwood wrote:
>
> > we are paying money to "do as we like" that means that npcs (even if they
> > are a volentiers) are staff and subsequently are a service provider.
> >
> > Elton
>
<hopping on Katies post because Eltons warblings didn't make it to my newserver>
I'm a group leader at the Gathering - I've got about 30 people who will,
in the broadest sense of the word, do what I say.
If any one of them came to me with the same attitude that you've got, I'd
ask them to leave the group.
We are not paying money to do as we like, we are paying money (for any
event) to be allowed to interact in a world, and the money we pay goes to
thank the organisers and re-imburse their costs. People who "do what they
like" are the idiots who decide that even thought we're playing in a
fantasy world, they can dress up as Space Marines and play heavy metal
music from obviously modern boom boxes right in the middle of time in.
People who "do what they like" are, IMNSHO, wankers, by and large.
We've all got a responsibility at _any_ event we go to to build a world.
We do this by acting in character, and by reacting in character. We do
this by making characters appropriate to the world, or, if they are not
appropriate, adapting them in character.
The Flames of Abraham are an excellent example of this. They're Victorian
Vampire Hunters, sent through to the Gathering world by accident. They
could have spent the last 3-4 years wandering around going "how quaint" in
upper class English accents but not adapting to the world at all.
Instead, they've adapted - they've stopped relying on guns (which stopped
working anyway) and started carrying swords. They've lost bits of
clothing to misadventure, and replaced them with "fantasy" clothing.
They, in my opinion, have made a real effort to think through the
implications of what would happen if they were really Victorian
adventurers who were stuck in a fantasy world.
That's the responsibility of the players.
NPCs are there to move the plot along - they can be told "stand there, say
this" and they will. They ensure that things happen so that players have
something to react to.
(Will MXP please note, I'm not advocating flange - the words were move
along, not solve ...)
It may be that NPCs aren't needed - players might be happy to create their
own plots and run around interacting with each other
But I doubt it. So the responsibility of the NPCs is to move the plot
along, to do what they're told by the organisers, and to remain true to
their characters on those occasions when they haven't been given direction
from the organisers.
They're not there to pander to players, or to be "service providers". Like
players, they're there to make the world a more believable place. The
good ones do. The crap ones don't.
And that's true of PCs and NPCs alike.
John
<bee, what bonnet?>
The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this ...
Matt Duffy
m...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr M.I. Pennington) wrote:
<snip>
>"Captain Purple is a big gross flangy snacky lammy head, and players are
>sick of it."
Speak for yourself. I kind of like cartoon badguys :-)
>Personally I think this is poo. The idea that it's ok for some NPCs to be
>strolling around with a magical AK47 under their arm, so long as they only
>fire it occasionally is to my mind bloody ludicrous.
Drawing an analogy to the accessibility of the Level 3 'magebolt'
spell: I would really love my own Scud launcher. There is a good
reason for me not having one. Hence only the very powerful have access
to inter-theatre capable ballistic missiles. Ever heard of the 'right
to keep and bear arms'? Thats a dead good idea. I don't f*&?kin'
think.
I have a sword. I have sleep spells. With some ingenuity I can acheive
what magebolt does. No problem. End of story.
I have some big knives in my kitchen drawers as do about 15 million
other households in the U.K. Just because the snacky folks have guns
and we only have knives doesn't mean everyone should have guns.
> It comes back to that
>basic tenet of plot writing. If your NPC has no stats, can do anything and
>can't be killed until plot says so, it's BAD PLOT.
Ok. Let me paint a picture. Say you are attempting to get a quite a
large piece of plot off the ground, that you have spend loads of time
working on, say just like the Maar the Faceless unliving plot. Say
just as you are kicking off the plot the players decide to get
together a major Incantor wedge and steamroller over one of your
plot's Npcs. Sound familiar? The players couldn't kill Thomas Finn as
Cyngelis pulled his arse out of the fire just in time. Bad plot? I
don't think so. Pragmatic? Probably.
In an ideal world all plot is player directed and the plot writers
feed in plot threads via npcs and react solely to the threads that the
players pick up on.
In an ideal world, no one dies in infancy, no one goes hungry or
without a job, we all live in liberal democracies and live meaningful
and happy lives.
Unfortunately life isn't like that. Idealists talking waffly bollocks
and tinkering about the periphery rarely do anything to improve
situation at hand. You will find that ingenuity and pragmatism
almost always do.
>If the reasoning is that FlorryWhitePurple are rewards for the VERY
>substantial efforts of Mark Thomas, Simon White and Paul Wilder on
>everyone's behalf, then the reasoning is flawed.
You are getting the horse before the cart, again. Snacky? Possibly.
But what the f*&k is the use of it if such a character's brief is as
narrow as theirs are.
>Such characters IMO reduce the enjoyment of the game for everyone.
Why? Please elaborate. How do they reduce the enjoyment? Do they steal
your lammies? Do they ride roughshod over your carefully crafted
schemes? I must have skipped that talk.
You need major npcs to give momentum to your background plots. On my
own the chances of me effecting Lord Irvine, Tony Blair or Baroness
Thatcher are very very small. If I try to harm, intimidate them or
coerce them the chances are I would spend a long time in the most
secure hell hole in the U.K. Together they are your backgorund npcs.
They define the bounds and limits of your world. They add to the a
rich tapestry.
Now, look at Floris, Violet and White again, and re-read the paragraph
above.
>Plot is about players, and provoking players to make choices which affect
>their characters and the characters around them. It isn't about watching
>one half of the FlorryWhitePurple monster talk to the other half.
How often do you watch CCN or BBC news or read a newspaper. These
characters paint an overall picture. How come people take direct
action when they see trees being bulldozed for a second runway on news
at Ten?
>The problem that FWP and their plot plot equivalents present is that
>many players (but not everyone) knows they're snacky. You can't touch them.
Have you tried? Ever?
JFK was snacky (CiC of the most powerful armed forces in the world,
guarded day and night by the brightest and best trained people) but
someone did him. Remember the grassy knoll? Remember a hotel bombing
in Brighton? Remember Lord Mountbatten's boat?
You can touch them. You just have to want to bad enough. Players
killing your major Npcs just because they can sucks as much as Npcs
who can do intercontinental touch of death level 5.
Your players have to want to effect your snacky Npcs. If your best
friend had been murdered by Whitey, or Floris had just burned your
house killing the mother of your children, that I presume would give
you the passion to get even. If politician put taxes up I doubt you
would want to kill them. But what if their agents (I use this in the
broadest meaning of the term - Police, Army, whatever) 'disappeared'
your wife/husband/son/daughter? You would re-access your situeation.
>You can't affect them. No matter how hard you try you are never going to
>affect one of them,
I don't believe you have ever tried. You just have to want to bad
enough, as I have said before. You can affect them. It's a very common
misconception that you can't. If you behead violet with the Sword of
Doom I bet you a lot of money Paul would roleplay character death. If
the Npcs don't then they are bad roleplayers. I would be really
f*&cked off if I had been killed fair and square and Mr Plot team said
"sorry you can't die coz our timetable says you are doing something
else important in ten minutes." It's called integrity.
>except in pre-conceived ways written by plot. It's not
>entirely true of course, but it is the perception.
>Yes Purple rams his snackness down people's throats
Real life has bad guys who abuse their power. Ever heard of a guy
called Saddam?
>whereas Whitey and FB don't but the
>essential problem is in their existence not their actions.
Why? You fail to give a substantive reason to back up your arguement.
>When you create an NPC who is super-statted you implicitly require that
>that person is the focus on ensuing events.
No you don't. You are using his snackyness as insurance that the major
plot threads that will get many more players involved can be fed to
the players. It's called pragmatism.
The real world has quite a few powerful people. I'll wager you
anything you like that they have twice as many enemies than they have
freinds. That is why these folks are snacky. That's why the Yanks have
the Secret Service and we have the Special Branch to defend our
executives.
>and that is a mistake because in role-playing, players should be the focus.
>Don't super-stat your NPCs. You know it makes sense.
Overall: You make some pretty sweeping assumptions Matt. You back them
up with scant evidence. Directing plot for anything more than 100
people (in an attempt to get a majority of them involved) requires
pragmatism, ingenuity and compromise as I'm sure you know and have
employed.
Just my ramblings.
Matt.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Duffy Software Developer
Telephone: +44 (0)468 202582
"I blow minds for a living" - Jello Biafra
'Ban Everything' - Jello Biafra resource website:
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Studio/4599/
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Summers
> "Simon White" <S.A.Wh...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> The *game* is about blag to a certain extent - its not what it says you
>>can do - its what people *think* you can do.
Sorry Simon. I have to disagree with you here. Blag is not part of the game,
it's part of the way SOME people play the game. Some people role-play well,
and if they come up against something which MIGHT be a bit harder than them
they react cautiously (or like a true psychopath!!) But we also have to role
play with people who live and die by the lammie, not to mention NPCs who
react to most characters, whatever their reputation, as being of no threat
or real interest. For them role-play is no substitute for skill.
At the end of the day there is no real method of character progression.
Even OSPs are of little use unless you subscribe to guild politics, that is
if you can get in.... Why should a memeber of a guild get a skill more
cheaply than someone who has been doing the job within their facton. Hell, a
guild is just a union. The work is the same whether you work for the guild
or your people!!
Rank 3 magic is just there to keep the Shiny Immortal NPCs going a bit
longer, and to make them look a bit better.
>>
>> Its also a lot more *social* than *ability* based.
And as for social..... Yeah right. A case of do as I say rather than do as I
do. The vast majority of NPCs at the gathering are far from social. I'm fed
up of the attitudes of most of them to the general PC populace. They seem
only to interact with their fans/lackeys. Interacting with most of them is
like interacting with a lamppost...... And try explaining social to the
idiot wearing full plate and wielding half a dozen lammied items......
John Summers
'Life's a beach, then the tide comes in.....'
Doug Watson
Matt Duffy wrote:
>
> m...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr M.I. Pennington) wrote:
>
> > It comes back to that
> >basic tenet of plot writing. If your NPC has no stats, can do anything and
> >can't be killed until plot says so, it's BAD PLOT.
>
> Ok. Let me paint a picture. Say you are attempting to get a quite a
> large piece of plot off the ground, that you have spend loads of time
> working on, say just like the Maar the Faceless unliving plot. Say
> just as you are kicking off the plot the players decide to get
> together a major Incantor wedge and steamroller over one of your
> plot's Npcs. Sound familiar? The players couldn't kill Thomas Finn as
> Cyngelis pulled his arse out of the fire just in time. Bad plot? I
> don't think so. Pragmatic? Probably.
>
desired effect. Would Thomas Finn being killed (again) destroy the
plot-line. He could be replaced, the plot would change slightly from
where-ever it was intended to go but it would still work.
If Thomas is so vital to the plot, Maar could have brought him back,
maybe as a ghost or something. The players get a result, the plot team
keeps its NPC (in spirt at least :-) ) and everybody is happy.
Doug, being happy
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
In article <891903170.6477.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Ma...@fibrua.demon.co.ukx wrote:
> Say
> just as you are kicking off the plot the players decide to get
> together a major Incantor wedge and steamroller over one of your
> plot's Npcs. Sound familiar? The players couldn't kill Thomas Finn as
> Cyngelis pulled his arse out of the fire just in time. Bad plot? I
> don't think so. Pragmatic? Probably.
Well i think Matt (Duffy) and I are going to have to disagree on this one.
There has, IMHO been a problem with the use of Thomas Finn here. *IF* he
was needed to get the Gargoyles plot off the ground (and I won't dispute
that fact) then that NPC should not have been put in jepordy which then
required a "flange out" to ensure he survived. That is 1 - Bad Plot (The
players couldn't effect the outcome) and 2 - A classic example of over
using an NPC. It was not nescessary for Thomas Finn to appear at certain
events he did appear at, now ther eis a risk of a good plot being ignored by
some people as the "Thomas Finn Again" attitude (*1*).
> You are getting the horse before the cart, again. Snacky? Possibly.
> But what the f*&k is the use of it if such a character's brief is as
> narrow as theirs are.
Well if its no use get rid of it then? By your own argument the power does
not need to be there and never did so lets bin it.
> Why? Please elaborate. How do they reduce the enjoyment? Do they steal
> your lammies? Do they ride roughshod over your carefully crafted
> schemes? I must have skipped that talk.
I can think of examples of NPC's riding rough shod over players carefull
constructed schemes, yes! (*2*)
> You need major npcs to give momentum to your background plots.
Bad Plot then?
> On my
> own the chances of me effecting Lord Irvine, Tony Blair or Baroness
> Thatcher are very very small. If I try to harm, intimidate them or
> coerce them the chances are I would spend a long time in the most
> secure hell hole in the U.K. Together they are your backgorund npcs.
> They define the bounds and limits of your world. They add to the a
> rich tapestry.
In the UK we have a thing known as a "General Election" every 4 or 5 years.
Unfortunately I will nver be able to vote Violet etc. out of a job but I will
get the chance to kick My Blair out of a job should he piss me off
sufficiently.
> >The problem that FWP and their plot plot equivalents present is that
> >many players (but not everyone) knows they're snacky. You can't touch them.
> Have you tried? Ever?
> JFK was snacky (CiC of the most powerful armed forces in the world,
> guarded day and night by the brightest and best trained people) but
> someone did him. Remember the grassy knoll? Remember a hotel bombing
> in Brighton? Remember Lord Mountbatten's boat?
But bullets in the hear are fatal in the real world, arrows in the head were
fatal in 1066 (Battle of Hastings). I bet a latex arrow in the head of said
NPC would be nothing more than a minor inconvenience (*3*).
> You can touch them. You just have to want to bad enough. Players
> killing your major Npcs just because they can sucks as much as Npcs
> who can do intercontinental touch of death level 5.
But if said NPC has pissed said player off sufficiently shouldn't they ahv
realistic chace of killing said NPC (if they can get to him, effective
bodyguards is a different matter).
> No you don't. You are using his snackyness as insurance that the major
> plot threads that will get many more players involved can be fed to
> the players. It's called pragmatism.
Its called Bad Plot.
*1* This is by no means meant as critiscism of Matt Pennington, he plays
Thomas Finn the NPC and as such is directed by the plot team.
*2* Not nescessarily those NPC's mentioned mainly in this thread and this is
not a problem restricted to the Gathering system.
*3* NEVER aim arrows at a persons head! I am just illustrating a point.
Mike Horrill
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
In article <Er011...@liverpool.ac.uk>,
m...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr M.I. Pennington) wrote:
> My original point here was that it would be interesting if no-one could tell
> who the NPCs and who the PCs were. Consider at the big G. there are 3000+
> players and perhaps 100 NPCs. 1 in 30. What is the chance of those 1 in 30
> spending by sheer coincidence more than a miniscule amount of time together
> alone with another NPC. Small, I'd say on a purely statistical basis.
On a purely statistical basis I totally agree. We now need to look at what
actually happens. At the G there are so many people that the dilution of
the NPC's is so great they don't spend that much time together (with the
noticable exception of the Mages Guild where a good half dozen could be
found in 1 tent at any one time) (*1*). At smaller events NPC's do see to
have a habit of "bunching" and I can think of a few people who have a habit
of tending to be together as a little group. It might be good IC for them
together but it isn't good OOC for the normal players who want to speak to
them.
> P.S. Steve is of course 100% right that NPC-NPC interaction at the gathering
> is as pointless as a snowmaker in the sahara. NPCs are there to enhance PCs
> pleasure and with the Gathering as is. Still I can dream. :)
This is a good argument against small and/or heavily guarded command tents
at the Gathering or any other large event. It makes it difficult for the
players to interact with the NPC's if they have to run the gauntlet of over
zealous guards to get to one another, perhaps a few less guards and a few
more open tents might be a help?
*1* Now the colour mages have been dispanded this problem has hopefully been
dealt with already by dealing with the gross over balance of NPC's within
that organisation.
Steve Powell
I have read this and associated strings. The following comments are my own
observations and opinions only. They are not intended to cause offence ;-)
John Summers wrote:
> > "Simon White" <S.A.Wh...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> The *game* is about blag to a certain extent - its not what it says you
> >>can do - its what people *think* you can do.
>
> Sorry Simon. I have to disagree with you here. Blag is not part of the game,
> it's part of the way SOME people play the game. Some people role-play well,
> and if they come up against something which MIGHT be a bit harder than them
> they react cautiously (or like a true psychopath!!) But we also have to role
> play with people who live and die by the lammie, not to mention NPCs who
> react to most characters, whatever their reputation, as being of no threat
> or real interest. For them role-play is no substitute for skill.
Don't forget the way PCs react to NPCs. I've met and interacted with a number of
characters who turned out to be NPCs. They did not lord it over me, indeed they
were quite polite and informative. Yes, I've seen and spoken to the Violent one,
and he seemed quiet and subdued at the time. It is all a matter of how you
approach them and your attitude when you do.
A close friend even overheard Mr Wilder comment 'Time for the Power Gaming
Ponse' before kiting up as Violet, so perhaps it is the intention that some NPCs
are confrontational / power mad etc. Just perhaps it is also intended that a
situation occurs so that PCs will react in a specific way towards a specific
character / guild / event. This might also be called PLOT.
As far as Blag is concerned, this is possible by anyone at any time. Faced off
with a near invulnerable opponent, what do you do? Run? Lie and hope for the
best? Give up? It's your choice, and it is the skill of the NPC in role-playing
to react appropriately.
> At the end of the day there is no real method of character progression.
> Even OSPs are of little use unless you subscribe to guild politics, that is
> if you can get in.... Why should a memeber of a guild get a skill more
> cheaply than someone who has been doing the job within their facton. Hell, a
> guild is just a union. The work is the same whether you work for the guild
> or your people!!
Guilds offer training, guidance and access to specialist equipment for one. As
for OSP's, they are useful without Guilds. Just ask at G.O.D. about how to use
them.
> Rank 3 magic is just there to keep the Shiny Immortal NPCs going a bit
> longer, and to make them look a bit better.
So why were three Mage Bolts cast in rapid succession by a PC at one event?
Scrolls give access to such magic, if you know how to use them, and PCs are more
likely to abuse such magic than NPCs.
> >>
> >> Its also a lot more *social* than *ability* based.
>
> And as for social..... Yeah right. A case of do as I say rather than do as I
> do. The vast majority of NPCs at the gathering are far from social. I'm fed
> up of the attitudes of most of them to the general PC populace. They seem
> only to interact with their fans/lackeys. Interacting with most of them is
> like interacting with a lamppost...... And try explaining social to the
> idiot wearing full plate and wielding half a dozen lammied items......
Wrong! The majority of NPCs are unknown to be NPCs. I know a number of people
who have been offered NPC status due to things they have done IC. Most turned it
down due to the restrictions on their role-playing, but a couple have accepted.
No one could tell that they were NPCs. They are 15 point characters, just like
the majority of PCs, they just have additional responsibilities and are the
source of information / items to be introduced into the game. Where an NPC needs
to make an impact and be noticed, then they may use or display enhanced powers.
In the main, such things are not used.
It is also possible to mistake a PC for an NPC. I have had this happen to me (to
my amusement), and I have seen an NPC treated like a servant by a PC due to
ignorance. It is all degrees of Role-playing and attitude.
Besides, there are a lot of Power Gamers out there who will try to control
everything for their own benefit. They can and would destroy events like the
Gathering if they gained control in a guild or faction, and they would strive to
gain such control. An NPC can be controlled and removed if needed with ease. A
PC could not. So an NPC has a little more power where they have to protect their
position. Is that so bad?
The thing to remember is that with Power comes responsibilities. It is the abuse
of power that leads to corruption. An NPC has their responsibilities enforced
upon them where as PCs do not. Who, then, is more likely to become corrupt?
> John Summers
>
> 'Life's a beach, then the tide comes in.....'
Yep! That works.
Steve Powell
--
"A coward dies a thousand deaths, A soldier dies but once." -Tupac Shakur
"Do or do not. There is no try." -Yoda
"And so Common Sense shall prevail". Me, not too long ago!
Simon White
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote in message <6gcolf$kv0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <Er011...@liverpool.ac.uk>,
> m...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr M.I. Pennington) wrote:
>
>> P.S. Steve is of course 100% right that NPC-NPC interaction at the
gathering
>> is as pointless as a snowmaker in the sahara. NPCs are there to enhance
PCs
>> pleasure and with the Gathering as is. Still I can dream. :)
>
>This is a good argument against small and/or heavily guarded command tents
>at the Gathering or any other large event. It makes it difficult for the
>players to interact with the NPC's if they have to run the gauntlet of over
>zealous guards to get to one another, perhaps a few less guards and a few
>more open tents might be a help?
As in a lot of areas you have to sacrifice/balance IC concerns and actions
with OOC accesbility and fun.
>*1* Now the colour mages have been dispanded this problem has hopefully
been
>dealt with already by dealing with the gross over balance of NPC's within
>that organisation.
Not that you've ever had a problem with the MG eh Mike :-)
Seriously, I agree with you to some extent. The old Colour Mages were
hangovers from the days (92/93?) when they were the plot, and were major
plot NPCs. The role has diminished, and while the Guild is still the
strongest of all the guilds, it is more in tune with the other, newer and
less experienced guilds.
Simon
Doug Watson
Simon White wrote:
>
> M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote in message <6gcolf$kv0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >
> >at the Gathering or any other large event. It makes it difficult for the
> >players to interact with the NPC's if they have to run the gauntlet of over
> >zealous guards to get to one another, perhaps a few less guards and a few
> >more open tents might be a help?
>
> As in a lot of areas you have to sacrifice/balance IC concerns and actions
> with OOC accesbility and fun.
>
immortal and give then all Spellcasting 3 - then there'd be no security
worries :-)
Seriously though (well, as serious as I get), I've often had trouble
getting into my own command tent (and other factions too, but thats a
different matter ;-) ) because of some big-wig meeting or similar (i.e.
all or mostly NPCs).
Faction command tents should be more open to the Faction, as should such
meetings where practical (and I can't think of any reasons it wouldn't
be - feel free to prove me wrong).
Doug, fighting for the little people
Marcus Hill
Mr M.I. Pennington wrote:
>
> But you all cry, the NPCs are all the dead important people, and the dead
> important people have a natural IC tendancy to talk to the other dead important
> people. That if you think about it breaks my rationale that there is no-way
> to tell who the NPCs are and aren't.
>
of NPCs are, indeed, dead important people, most of them are actually
living important people.
(Sorry. I couldn't help myself.)
********* Song of Steel LRP at http://www.netlrp.uk.com/sos **********
"Logic is neither a science or an art, but a dodge." - Benjamin Jowett
"Logic doesn't apply to the real world." - Marvin Minsky
Marcus.
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <6gcjus$u...@news2.force9.net>, "John Summers" <Jo...@summers.force9.co.uk> writes:
> > "Simon White" <S.A.Wh...@bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> >> The *game* is about blag to a certain extent - its not what it says you
> >>can do - its what people *think* you can do.
>
> At the end of the day there is no real method of character progression.
> Even OSPs are of little use unless you subscribe to guild politics, that is
> if you can get in.... Why should a memeber of a guild get a skill more
> cheaply than someone who has been doing the job within their facton. Hell, a
> guild is just a union. The work is the same whether you work for the guild
> or your people!!
<OOC>
The Guilds have little significance in the Gathering game because they are
overshadowed in importance by the factions. This is a pity since they are
potentially a useful source of additional plot and role-playing. Giving the
Guilds the ability to provide the snacky skills like Climb Walls and the
like enhances their attractiveness to players and thereby rightly improves
their status within the game.
<IC>
The knowledge of the arcane, esoteric and unusual skills is a closely
guarded secret known only to the few who pass it onto their most trusted and
loyal apprentices. To protect themselves and their monopoly of these skills
from exploitation by the great powers of the world, the form Guilds. It
can take a man years of hard work and dedication to the Guild before the
elders will teach him some of their most valuable skills.
> Rank 3 magic is just there to keep the Shiny Immortal NPCs going a bit
> longer, and to make them look a bit better.
Poo. For a start rank 3 magic is just another skill, and isn't anything to
do with shiny immortal NPCs. More importantly to suggest that the flange
magic that the flange NPCs do have is just to make them look better is
just plain wrong. Actually it wouldn't be so bad if that WAS the reason,
(although it would be very insulting to the people who do). They have
the power so that when the plot goes pear shaped in some unpredicted way
they can call upon their flange power to restore it to some desired course.
It's great to go on about NPCs lacking role-playing skills and the rest of
it, but it's not true, and it's irrelevant. If you the game organisor has
decided that something needs flanging, very rarely will NPC role-playing
skills be sufficient to the task. For instance when Lord General Holborns
head fell off, I fail to see a way in which he could have continued to
play the NPC and run the faction had the Grand Master Mage just come and
role-played in a clever and skilled manner with those around him.
I'm NOT defending flange, I'm pointing out that if you chose to accept it
as a neccessary evil, then you need ways to do it. Thats what Floris and
his sidekicks are for. Floris popping someone's head back on, is a tiny
bit better than it just going back on by itself, whatever you think of
flange.
> And as for social..... Yeah right. A case of do as I say rather than do as I
> do. The vast majority of NPCs at the gathering are far from social. I'm fed
> up of the attitudes of most of them to the general PC populace. They seem
> only to interact with their fans/lackeys. Interacting with most of them is
> like interacting with a lamppost...... And try explaining social to the
> idiot wearing full plate and wielding half a dozen lammied items......
Some people share your opinion of NPCs at the Gathering, and some don't.
I played as a PC for 18 months and never had any problems talking to any
NPCs. They role-played with me just fine, so I find it difficult to relate
to what you say because it flatly contradicts the entirety of my own
experience as a PC.
Hobbes
mar...@ma.man.ac.uk
In article <6gb3au$gli$1...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>,
> Really, most games here don't make a difference between NPCs and PCs.
> Actually, an NPC in a LARP sounds like a contradiction in terms to me -
> how can you have a character in a live, if no one is playing it?
>
>
The term "NPC" doesn't mean a character who is being played by nobody, it
means a character who is being played as part of the plot - this can range
from "third zombie from the left" to highly independent parts whose players
have to keep in mind both the characterisation of the part and the fact that
they are basically there to move the plot along in roughly the direction
intended by the writers (or to wing it if the players are clearly taking the
plot elsewhere!)
Marcus (trying out DejaNews for a change)
Taz
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote:
> *1* Now the colour mages have been dispanded this problem has hopefully been
> dealt with already by dealing with the gross over balance of NPC's within
> that organisation.
To simply single out an IC section and count the NPCs associated to it, then
claim it is unbalanced, is simplistic.
The Mages Guild is not some autonomous entity that is effectively powered up to
with NPCs to lord it over the rest of the game for its own ends. It may appear
that way but such is entirely wrong.
The Mages Guild, like other controlled sections of the game, (and the Mages
Guild is possibly the most LT controlled) has a defined IC part in the Game
with a history and rationalisation.
It may be true that it was overbalanced but one must look at the underlying
reasons why there were so many NPCs in the Guild rather than simply head count.
*Pete*
Will/d'Argent
On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Doug Watson wrote:
> Seriously though (well, as serious as I get), I've often had trouble
> getting into my own command tent (and other factions too, but thats a
> different matter ;-) ) because of some big-wig meeting or similar (i.e.
> all or mostly NPCs).
> Faction command tents should be more open to the Faction, as should such
> meetings where practical (and I can't think of any reasons it wouldn't
> be - feel free to prove me wrong).
>
I think this depends a great deal on which faction you're talking
about. I went into the command tent several times to chat to people at the
last Gathering (I'm a Gryphon BTW), and while I always had the beady eye
of one or more bodyguards on me, it felt as if the players could go and
talk to the command group.
Will/d'Argent
Jaana Heino
mar...@ma.man.ac.uk wrote:
>In article <6gb3au$gli$1...@oravannahka.Helsinki.FI>,
>> Really, most games here don't make a difference between NPCs and PCs.
>> Actually, an NPC in a LARP sounds like a contradiction in terms to me -
>> how can you have a character in a live, if no one is playing it?
>The term "NPC" doesn't mean a character who is being played by nobody, it
>means a character who is being played as part of the plot - this can range
>from "third zombie from the left" to highly independent parts whose players
>have to keep in mind both the characterisation of the part and the fact that
>they are basically there to move the plot along in roughly the direction
>intended by the writers (or to wing it if the players are clearly taking the
>plot elsewhere!)
Actually, I sort of figured that out already, I was just trying to be
funny. (Badly, I admit. Sorry for the misunderstanding.)
My real point was, anyway, that in Finland in most games there are no
NPCs as such. The characters critical to certain plots are played by
players as well as characters that are not so central. GMs and
organisers play characters, too, sometimes more important ones,
sometimes less important ones, but they play them more like players
do... as much IC as ever possible.
In the best games (best, in this context, being a heavily subjective
word), of course, there is not just one or two "Big Plots", but lots and
lots of minor things are going on... so, in a way, every character is
central to his or her own story.
John Summers
Ok, maybe you've got the wrong idea about what I was saying....
I'd never advocate putting the guilds in PC hands. But at the same time I'd
like to see the guilds and the people who 'run' them become more accessible
to players, and also to become more IC. I pity the poor devils who work in
them, trying to handle logistics AND players. Yeesh!!
And as for the OSP situation! Well, yes I've looked at the list that GOD
have and I can find no decent explanation why some of the skills, especially
the lower ones, should cost less at the guilds than at GOD. Hell, I've
played the same mage character at the gathering, performed numerous rituals
plot and otherwise, and have played my factions Archmage for 3 years. Why
can't I, or any other faction High Mage/Incantor/Healer... teach our
students some of the lower skills on the list?? Doesn't make sense!
There are some people out there who can't/don't want to join a guild. Some
have so much IC and OOC work to do they don't have time. Why should they be
penalised?
NPCs. Well, I was referring to certain common NPCs, who OOC as well as IC,
refuse to interact with 'lower types', like me!! Even at events run by
ourselves, where these people have turned up, not even 'hi how are you?' was
acknowledged!! I'm not saying all NPCs are bad. I'm not that naieve. But
there are some people who just aren't suited for the job.
I get to hear a lot of gripes in my position, and the majority of what I
have said in my posts to this NG are not my opinion, but the collected
opinions of many people both inside and outside my faction. Perhaps I'm just
an idealist. But what's wrong with that??
John Summers
'life's a beach, then the tide comes in....'
ha...@camdesign.co.uk
Si...@iname.com
In article <6geith$a...@news1.force9.net>,
"John Summers" <Jo...@summers.force9.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I'd never advocate putting the guilds in PC hands. But at the same time I'd
> like to see the guilds and the people who 'run' them become more accessible
> to players, and also to become more IC. I pity the poor devils who work in
> them, trying to handle logistics AND players. Yeesh!!
As I said in my other post, please email any suggestions you, or anyone else
has. They will all be read.
> And as for the OSP situation! Well, yes I've looked at the list that GOD
> have and I can find no decent explanation why some of the skills, especially
> the lower ones, should cost less at the guilds than at GOD. Hell, I've
> played the same mage character at the gathering, performed numerous rituals
> plot and otherwise, and have played my factions Archmage for 3 years. Why
> can't I, or any other faction High Mage/Incantor/Healer... teach our
> students some of the lower skills on the list?? Doesn't make sense!
> There are some people out there who can't/don't want to join a guild. Some
> have so much IC and OOC work to do they don't have time. Why should they be
> penalised?
(One reason picked out of the air)
[IC]
The skills cost less at the guilds because in the guilds you are nominally
spending time in an environment desgined for skill sharing and learning, with
people who have mastery over whatever skill to a greater level than anyone
else in the world.
[OOC]
The factions have their skills (normal rank) and the guilds have skills which
they offer cheaper as an incentive for players. To get the benefits from a
guild you have to sacrifice a lot of time and energy.
If people dont want to join a guild, dont penalise those who do.
You can *teach* people skills - its a little known fact that Level 2 Magic is
supposed to be the product of formal training - so IC you can teach people
that. The Gryphons and Lions both have universities for this purpose... (or
will have soon).
It does make sense regarding other skills, because you "dont have them"...
To be blunt John, I understand this point, but I dont agree with it. Maybe we
should have identikit characters in every faction, and each faction could
have its own high walls, ritual circle, OOC powercards and plot - that way
they neednt come out of their camp at the Gathering at all...
The real world is different people with different skills, making a rich
tapestry through variety. The Gathering world is the same...
> NPCs. Well, I was referring to certain common NPCs, who OOC as well as IC,
> refuse to interact with 'lower types', like me!! Even at events run by
> ourselves, where these people have turned up, not even 'hi how are you?' was
> acknowledged!! I'm not saying all NPCs are bad. I'm not that naieve. But
> there are some people who just aren't suited for the job.
That is people being rude, rather than NPCs being rude...
> I get to hear a lot of gripes in my position, and the majority of what I
> have said in my posts to this NG are not my opinion, but the collected
> opinions of many people both inside and outside my faction. Perhaps I'm just
> an idealist. But what's wrong with that??
This may well be my last post on the matter, as I dont believe that such
discussions are suitable for the newsgroup. I for one would be happy to
discuss your concerns by email, and I'm sure others will also.
Please get in touch, as I am genunine interested in your opinions.
Simon
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
Right, firstly let me say I am taking this discussion back up to a
general level rather than a gathering/LT specific level as I think there
is an interesting point of a general nature that has been brought up.
In article <352A03...@boat.bt.com>,
wat...@DAMMTHESPAM.boat.bt.com wrote:
> Seriously though (well, as serious as I get), I've often had trouble
> getting into my own command tent (and other factions too, but thats a
> different matter ;-) ) because of some big-wig meeting or similar (i.e.
> all or mostly NPCs).
> Faction command tents should be more open to the Faction, as should such
> meetings where practical (and I can't think of any reasons it wouldn't
> be - feel free to prove me wrong).
This is a very good point. Too often it seems that people have to run the
gauntlet of over zealous gate guards and then over zealous camp guards to
get anywhere, having people demanding to know what you are doing at every
stage can put people off and will intimiadte the more quiet and shy
individuals (OOC quiet and shy individuals that is) thus destracting from
thier enjoyment.
I wonder how far you would get in such camps if you said "I wish to listen
to the kings council"? How about a partition in a command tent where on one
side the council is held and on the other an area separated by a 3ft high
cordon behind which people may stand and observe, listen and occasionally
heckle (persistant hecklers being thrown out at best and executed at worst).
It might sound daft idea but there is a public gallery in the house of
commons where anyone may go and listen (You usually don't notice it on
the TV, its above where the cameras usually are opposite the speakers chair).
I feel having areas like this, whilst not interesting a great deal of
players would be great as a source of infomation dissemination and solves
the (IMHO pointless) meetings of leaders behind closed doors.
Mike
Katie Brown
> > Faction command tents should be more open to the Faction, as should such
> > meetings where practical (and I can't think of any reasons it wouldn't
> > be - feel free to prove me wrong).
One problem with Faction command tents is fanatically loyal (PC) guards
not wanting to put their leader at risk by letting in all and sundry.
This can get out of control, leaving faction members out in the rain
while their leaders wonder why it's so quiet. However, it can also be
resolved IC, as soon as someone realises it's happening.
As with a lot of these things, it's a lot more productive to point out
the problem quietly, and as soon as possible and get it dealt with
before it escalates. (Or have I been sent on too many management courses
about employee empowerment?)
Kt
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Brown.
Phone: (+44) 1473 647293 Fax: (+44) 1473 646885 CoCo: (+44) 1473 621492
Email: ka...@b29net.bt.co.uk
Snail: B55/122 BT Labs, Martlesham Heath, Ipswich IP5 7RE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Miller
> One problem with Faction command tents is fanatically loyal (PC) guards
> not wanting to put their leader at risk by letting in all and sundry.
Indeed (tm). This is exacerbated(sp?) by the fact that we play our
game in the real world, dressed up in a frock... The real world that
is, well yes, and some of us :-)
Most big events do not have a limitless supply of large pavilions.
There are exceptions but in many cases a small tent must cram in as
many as possible. When it rains, the guards will want to cram in as
well, lets face it its a game, they are gonna take cover, in the tent
they are guarding or just dash off?
If the weather is nice, one might enjoy a relaxed, openly visible
conference 'neath the royal gazebo. Often it is a case of hammer in
the tent pegs regularly and don't drip everywhere!
And then there are those 'secret' meetinsg and numerous spies.
Its a game, its not perfect.
Chris Wheeler
In article <6gfgl4$cmi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
writes
>Right, firstly let me say I am taking this discussion back up to a
>general level rather than a gathering/LT specific level as I think there
>is an interesting point of a general nature that has been brought up.
>
>In article <352A03...@boat.bt.com>,
> wat...@DAMMTHESPAM.boat.bt.com wrote:
>
>> Seriously though (well, as serious as I get), I've often had trouble
>> getting into my own command tent (and other factions too, but thats a
>> different matter ;-) ) because of some big-wig meeting or similar (i.e.
>> all or mostly NPCs).
>> meetings where practical (and I can't think of any reasons it wouldn't
>> be - feel free to prove me wrong).
>
>gauntlet of over zealous gate guards and then over zealous camp guards to
>get anywhere, having people demanding to know what you are doing at every
>stage can put people off and will intimiadte the more quiet and shy
>individuals (OOC quiet and shy individuals that is) thus destracting from
>thier enjoyment.
>
>I wonder how far you would get in such camps if you said "I wish to listen
>to the kings council"? How about a partition in a command tent where on one
>side the council is held and on the other an area separated by a 3ft high
>cordon behind which people may stand and observe, listen and occasionally
>heckle (persistant hecklers being thrown out at best and executed at worst).
>
>It might sound daft idea but there is a public gallery in the house of
>commons where anyone may go and listen (You usually don't notice it on
>the TV, its above where the cameras usually are opposite the speakers chair).
>
>I feel having areas like this, whilst not interesting a great deal of
>players would be great as a source of infomation dissemination and solves
>the (IMHO pointless) meetings of leaders behind closed doors.
Well, last year in the Lions we had a fairly secure gate, but the
Command Tent was open for all Lions. All visiting dignitaries were told
(I believe) that they could not talk in closed session, but that their
conversations must be open for any Lions who wished to listen to do so.
Would this go some way to meeting your requirements ?
Chris
All the worlds a stage, and most of us are desperately unrehearsed.
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
In article <352B49C5...@b29net.bt.co.uk>,
Katie Brown <ka...@b29net.bt.co.uk> wrote:
> As with a lot of these things, it's a lot more productive to point out
> the problem quietly, and as soon as possible and get it dealt with
> before it escalates. (Or have I been sent on too many management courses
> about employee empowerment?)
Definitely. I find it acts as great stress relief and is very
therapeautic to issue the occasional bollocking.
Mike, not supporting good personnel management techniques.
Katie Brown
M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk wrote:
> Definitely. I find it acts as great stress relief and is very
> therapeautic to issue the occasional bollocking.
Of course, having tried the civilized option first, you have a
gloriously high moral standpoint from which to fling things. Plus
there's the 'counting to ten before losing your temper' bonus. Allows
you to build up a really good head of steam...
Kt (wandering happily away from the original topic)
Wanderer
Jaana Heino wrote:
>
> My real point was, anyway, that in Finland in most games there are no
> NPCs as such. The characters critical to certain plots are played by
> players as well as characters that are not so central. GMs and
> organisers play characters, too, sometimes more important ones,
> sometimes less important ones, but they play them more like players
> do... as much IC as ever possible.
specifically to facilitate plot. Darn tooting they better stay
IC,shouldn't everyone playing? :)
Myself,I play two characters. Both are (technically) PC's. One's
definitely so-a warrior with a small dollop of rogue. The other one is
the one PC cleric of an in-game religion whose primary followers are ALL
NPC's. Plot folks have asked me to come into game as that cleric when
I'm NPC'ing a weekend...because the more that NPC/PC line is blurred the
better. :)
-Paul T.
S.J....@dial.pipex.com
Come and join the lions. The Command tent is always open to faction members
at all times (except for the occasional hush-hush meeting - maybe twice per
Gath), and is usually the venue for the late night party after Time-Out.
Of course, the faction camp itself is the hardest one to get into...
Steve Lewis.
Jaana Heino
Wanderer wrote:
>That's the general idea of an NPC. A character that was made
>specifically to facilitate plot. Darn tooting they better stay
>IC,shouldn't everyone playing? :)
I still don't get what idea there is to make the difference... Specially
if there is none. :)
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <891903170.6477.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, Ma...@fibrua.demon.co.ukx (Matt Duffy) writes:
> m...@liverpool.ac.uk (Mr M.I. Pennington) wrote:
>
>
> >"Captain Purple is a big gross flangy snacky lammy head, and players are
> >sick of it."
>
> Speak for yourself. I kind of like cartoon badguys :-)
I can only speak for myself and Mr. Bimble. I hate cartoon bad guys. Not
that I think Violet is one mind you.
> >Personally I think this is poo. The idea that it's ok for some NPCs to be
> >strolling around with a magical AK47 under their arm, so long as they only
> >fire it occasionally is to my mind bloody ludicrous.
>
> Drawing an analogy to the accessibility of the Level 3 'magebolt'
> spell: I would really love my own Scud launcher. There is a good
> reason for me not having one. Hence only the very powerful have access
> to inter-theatre capable ballistic missiles. Ever heard of the 'right
> to keep and bear arms'? Thats a dead good idea. I don't f*&?kin'
> think.
> I have a sword. I have sleep spells. With some ingenuity I can acheive
> what magebolt does. No problem. End of story.
But the S3 spell, magebolt ain't that powerful. It isn't, it really isn't.
I don't really understand your argument here. You seem to imply that players
shouldn't have magebolt because it's too powerful. Then you point out that
a sleep spell and a sword acheives similar results...
My point is that having something in the system but not using it, is naff.
If you ain't using it, don't have it in!
> I have some big knives in my kitchen drawers as do about 15 million
> other households in the U.K. Just because the snacky folks have guns
> and we only have knives doesn't mean everyone should have guns.
I'm not arguing that they should. I'm arguing a tiny handful of PCs who
work hard should have the useful, tasty skill S3. As you yourself point
out, it isn't very powerful really. As for the flange powers, I don't
want anyone to have those, PC or NPC.
> Ok. Let me paint a picture. Say you are attempting to get a quite a
> large piece of plot off the ground, that you have spend loads of time
> working on, say just like the Maar the Faceless unliving plot. Say
> just as you are kicking off the plot the players decide to get
> together a major Incantor wedge and steamroller over one of your
> plot's Npcs. Sound familiar? The players couldn't kill Thomas Finn as
> Cyngelis pulled his arse out of the fire just in time. Bad plot? I
> don't think so. Pragmatic? Probably.
This is the CLASSIC mistake of plot writing. It is the essential failing
that I was trying to illustrate a fortnight ago when I was wittering
about the nature of plot.
If you decide that something IS or IS NOT going to happen, then you remove
players free will and that prevents the thing being role-playing anymore,
which is the whole point!
In plot-writing you must never concentrate on what is going to happen at
some point in the future, you must concentrate on what is happening now.
If you decide that Event B will follow Event A, then you are removing the
element of player free-will that is essential to role-playing. It doesn't
matter HOW ACE the plot is going to be, it's a mistake to think that
role-playing in six months time is better than role-playing now. It's
far too easy to fall into the trap of thinking about the plot potential
something will have when it develops. A plot in the hand is worth two in
the bush. Don't flange now to create plot later, because it is terribly
counter productive.
> In an ideal world all plot is player directed and the plot writers
> feed in plot threads via npcs and react solely to the threads that the
> players pick up on.
> In an ideal world, no one dies in infancy, no one goes hungry or
> without a job, we all live in liberal democracies and live meaningful
> and happy lives.
>
> Unfortunately life isn't like that. Idealists talking waffly bollocks
> and tinkering about the periphery rarely do anything to improve
> situation at hand. You will find that ingenuity and pragmatism
> almost always do.
uh? eh? Well I guess I must be talking waffly bollocks.
>
> >If the reasoning is that FlorryWhitePurple are rewards for the VERY
> >substantial efforts of Mark Thomas, Simon White and Paul Wilder on
> >everyone's behalf, then the reasoning is flawed.
>
> You are getting the horse before the cart, again. Snacky? Possibly.
> But what the f*&k is the use of it if such a character's brief is as
> narrow as theirs are.
If the power is useless because theyre not allowed to use it, why have
it IC and OOC as part of the game???
>
> >Such characters IMO reduce the enjoyment of the game for everyone.
>
> Why? Please elaborate. How do they reduce the enjoyment? Do they steal
> your lammies? Do they ride roughshod over your carefully crafted
> schemes? I must have skipped that talk.
Right. Elaborate. Ok. <grin>
Obviously as well you know, it has nothing to do with lammies or schemes.
The LT has a problem with the perception of flange. This is neatly
illustrated by your example with Thomas Finn, where when players failed
to kill him, they and you assumed he was unkillable because he was
required for plot later. Flange is bad for the game, because it removes
the key element of player free will. Player's enduring problem with the
Gathering is that they can't affect anything that happens, in other
words what-ever they do, the LT just flange it back to the original
plot line.
Any good plot line should be appropriately statted. The aim is that when
players try things it will be a challenge to them. Just because things
respond to players actions, doesn't mean it should be a push over. The
consequence of that is that many times when players try something, they
will fail. If the players lack confidence in the Refs/plot writers they
will think that have failed because the plot writers had already decided
the outcome and they will get pissed off.
That meants to run decent plot you have to have the confidence of the
players, so that when they try something that doesn't work they don't
give up and cry "flange".
Having characters with enormous flange powers, like FlorryWhitePurple
re-inforces in players minds that the event organisors are prepared to
flange their plot if need be. They must be, since there really is no
other reason to have characters with such powers (the idea that it's for
the ego trip of the guys involved is laughable to anyone whose met Mark,
Paul or Si. The LT aint dumb enough to give such powers to people who
are going to use them for their own gratification). They have those powers
so that they can keep the plot going forwards, pure and simple.
And that reduces mine and some others enjoyment of the game.
> You need major npcs to give momentum to your background plots. On my
> own the chances of me effecting Lord Irvine, Tony Blair or Baroness
> Thatcher are very very small. If I try to harm, intimidate them or
> coerce them the chances are I would spend a long time in the most
> secure hell hole in the U.K. Together they are your backgorund npcs.
> They define the bounds and limits of your world. They add to the a
> rich tapestry.
> Now, look at Floris, Violet and White again, and re-read the paragraph
> above.
In the late 1980s Mrs T. in her divine wisdom introduced the poll tax. It
wasn't popular and a large group of people began to protest against it.
Eventually they forced the government to back down and go in a new
direction.
Kingy Gunnar = Tony Blair, Queen T = Mrs T. If the political leaders of
the Gathering world make a decision then it is difficult for players to
oppose them, but not imposssible. Some players have gathered sufficient
momentum to move the Gathering world before now, and will do so again I
hope.
The only analogy for Floris Brand in our world that I can think of is god.
Theologians have been arguing for thousands of years how man kind can have
free will when god is omniscient and omnipotent.
As a final point, I don't give a shit whether something is authentic or
realistic or not. I role-play because I want some escapism from being a
mundane non-entity in a world of billions. If I'm a player in an lrp game,
I want the pleasure of being in control of my destiny, I want to feel that
me and the people around me are the focus of events, continuously, however
unrealistic that might be.
> >Plot is about players, and provoking players to make choices which affect
> >their characters and the characters around them. It isn't about watching
> >one half of the FlorryWhitePurple monster talk to the other half.
>
> How often do you watch CCN or BBC news or read a newspaper. These
> characters paint an overall picture. How come people take direct
> action when they see trees being bulldozed for a second runway on news
> at Ten?
But imagine if the Transport minister turned up, clicked his fingers and
all the trees disappeared???
> >The problem that FWP and their plot plot equivalents present is that
> >many players (but not everyone) knows they're snacky. You can't touch them.
>
> Have you tried? Ever?
> JFK was snacky (CiC of the most powerful armed forces in the world,
> guarded day and night by the brightest and best trained people) but
> someone did him. Remember the grassy knoll? Remember a hotel bombing
> in Brighton? Remember Lord Mountbatten's boat?
> You can touch them. You just have to want to bad enough. Players
> killing your major Npcs just because they can sucks as much as Npcs
> who can do intercontinental touch of death level 5.
JFK was NOT snacky. JFK was the most powerful man in the world at the time,
but one loony (with CIA backing of course!), who planned and timed a well
excuted hit, changed the course of history. If the bullet had bounced off
JFK's head, that would have been snacky.
Earlier you argue that it's ok to flange in the interest of driving long
running plot forwards. Now you argue that players can affect the plot
if they just try hard enough.
> >You can't affect them. No matter how hard you try you are never going to
> >affect one of them,
>
> I don't believe you have ever tried. You just have to want to bad
> enough, as I have said before. You can affect them. It's a very common
> misconception that you can't. If you behead violet with the Sword of
> Doom I bet you a lot of money Paul would roleplay character death. If
> the Npcs don't then they are bad roleplayers. I would be really
> f*&cked off if I had been killed fair and square and Mr Plot team said
> "sorry you can't die coz our timetable says you are doing something
> else important in ten minutes." It's called integrity.
Hmm. I must be one of those people who lacks faith in the LT not to flange
things then. To me the possession of all physical magic implies a certain
IC sense that the individual is quite hard to kill.
>
> >except in pre-conceived ways written by plot. It's not
> >entirely true of course, but it is the perception.
>
> >Yes Purple rams his snackness down people's throats
>
> Real life has bad guys who abuse their power. Ever heard of a guy
> called Saddam?
Your arguement utterly hinges on the belief that the characters you
are describing can be affected. I have absolutely no more knowledge
than you on the matter I suspect, but I'm afraid I don't share your
belief. Sorry. I reckon you could spend years planning your attempt on
Floris and it wouldn't be worth dirt, even if you did have CIA backing.
> Overall: You make some pretty sweeping assumptions Matt. You back them
> up with scant evidence. Directing plot for anything more than 100
> people (in an attempt to get a majority of them involved) requires
> pragmatism, ingenuity and compromise as I'm sure you know and have
> employed.
I did make some sweeping statements, in part because I was kinda following
on from a lot of posts made over the last few weeks as this group has
kinda rolled from thread to thread about the nature of plot and so
on. Hope this explains things better.
Hobbes
Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader)
In article <6gcolf$kv0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
wrote
>This is a good argument against small and/or heavily guarded command tents
>at the Gathering or any other large event. It makes it difficult for the
>players to interact with the NPC's if they have to run the gauntlet of over
>zealous guards to get to one another, perhaps a few less guards and a few
>more open tents might be a help?
But isn't that just another form of flange? If you were the ruler of a
nation state at the Gathering wouldn't you want to make sure that you
wouldn't be disturbed by your subjects (or somebody else's!) while you
were busy doing something of national importance? Surely the challenge
for the enterprising player is in gaining access to a supposedly
"secure" area. To make gaining entrance to the High King's pavillion
easy robs players of the chance at trying to get in there by subterfuge,
fast talking or force of arms.
Speaking personally, I had a great time trying to elude the gate guards
at the Tarantula's Parliament. I didn't succeed very often, but when I
did it gave me a feeling of satisfaction that I wouldn't have got had it
been easier.
Just my point of view.
Bin
aka s'Pika of the Beastmen |\_/|
(o o)
-- Magebolted by McTay -------------------oOO-(_)-OOo----
-- Back for seconds ------------------------------------
Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader)
In article <Er1nH...@liverpool.ac.uk>, "Mr M.I. Pennington"
<m...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote
>For instance when Lord General Holborns
>head fell off, I fail to see a way in which he could have continued to
>play the NPC and run the faction had the Grand Master Mage just come and
>role-played in a clever and skilled manner with those around him.
rotflmao
>I'm NOT defending flange, I'm pointing out that if you chose to accept it
>as a neccessary evil, then you need ways to do it. Thats what Floris and
>his sidekicks are for. Floris popping someone's head back on, is a tiny
>bit better than it just going back on by itself, whatever you think of
>flange.
Of course there is the other option ... let him die! Haven't you been
saying that no flange is necessary? And I agree, I'm not convinced it
ever is. If some enterprising player chops an NPC's head off, well
that's just tough. I don't have a problem with giving powerful NPCs
defences but if the players manage to job them despite those defences
then surely the plot team should just doff their caps to the players
(and nip off for an emergency plot meeting), rather than devaluing the
players' investment in the game. Of course the same should hold true for
player failure, if Holbon lost his head because the PCs weren't on the
case then perhaps having him drop dead might just teach them a salutory
lesson, as opposed to the current "don't worry, uncle/auntie NPC will
come along and make it better (at least until it becomes plotworthy to
withold the magic keeping the head on the shoulders amyway)". After all,
the players PAY for the event and I suspect that the reason that so many
do pay is that they believe that they can make a difference, once
players start believing otherwise they stop giving you money and give it
to someone else whose main advertising ploy seems to be that players CAN
make a difference. At this point I should perhaps say that I'm not
planning on leaving the Gathering anytime soon, there's more than enough
good plot, NPCs and PCs to keep me entertained for the foreseeable
future. I'd just like to see those areas that the LT can control (ie.
plot and NPCs) continue to improve.
Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader)
In article <6g0c30$g7r$1...@usenet.bham.ac.uk>, Simon White
<S.A.Wh...@bham.ac.uk> wrote
>Players have the freedom that NPCs dont have - many people see NPC as being
>a huge plus, esp in the G system, effectively "Players with more points".
>This perception isnt helped by the fact that a lot of NPCs are PC-upgrades,
>and others are designed to be biased (i.e. Faction Command).
From personal observations I have to say that all of the Faction Command
NPCs I've come across are eager to roleplay without waving their NPC
special abilities (if any) in my face. The "PC-upgrades" (doesn't that
reinforce the spurious logic that being an NPC is better than being a
player?) that are in the system have never caused me a problem. So I'm
afraid that I must disagree with what you've said here.
I'm quite happy (as a player) to have a hatred of certain NPCs (IC I was
particularly alarmed when Violet was actually polite to me at the
Convocation of Guilds), it really adds to my enjoyment of the event. But
I'd like to believe that my dislike of certain NPCs (and indeed PCs) is
based on mutually good roleplaying, rather than the alternative.
>>Said NPC's then respond with the most obvious weapon they have....level 3
>>magic....and you end up with even more resentment.
>
>Just because you have it doesnt mean you have to use it.
Unless by using it you enhance the experience of the players.
Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader)
In article <Eqw6A...@liverpool.ac.uk>, "Mr M.I. Pennington"
<m...@liverpool.ac.uk> wrote
>Reading between the lines of Mike and John's post, what they are really
>saying is
>
>"Captain Purple is a big gross flangy snacky lammy head, and players are
>sick of it."
Speaking as a player, the chain-cannon that is Violet :o) is great to
have around AS LONG AS HE CAN BE KILLED. I don't mean that if I'm angry
with him IC (and boy am I ever angry with him IC) I should just be able
to walk up to him with no preparation at all and tear him a new
ringpiece - that would be crap. What I do mean is that I should be able
to work hard with other characters who also hate the purple bastard IC
and stand a chance of seeing him fall bleeding at my feet begging for
mercy (down s'Pika, down) having spent loads of cash and effort getting
the right tools for the job. The worry is that regardless of what is
brought against his Violentness he won't go down, and that IMHO would be
crap. Of course I don't know whether or not this will happen as my
fiendish plans aren't ready to roll ... yet. If I screw up killing him
because I made a mistake or didn't get the information that's fine, if
he doesn't die because he's an NPC then that's poo. Of course if my
plans succeed and he falls over permanently then obviously all of the
rumours of his invulnerability have been just that, rumours.
>What they are also saying, and much more worryingly (and wrongly) in my
>opinion is...
>
>"Flappy Floris and Wussy White are just as lammied up to the eyeballs but
>thats ok because they never do anything so we don't mind them."
But isn't that OK? If they haven't done anything to make characters (or
God forbid, players) dislike them why should they be reviled? As I've
pointed out before, I think that Violet is great OOC, IC I want him
dead. I don't see a problem there. The only problem arises if any NPC is
unkillable (even Floris) because that's when players start to get
annoyed and feel as though they are just random spods watching on while
the extra-planar gribbly eats Superman's head.
>[Just for the record, while a lot of players are fed up with the Purple
>Flangemeister, I know a far few in the Bears who like him for the very
>reason that the above complainants don't. I.e. he gets stuck in and dishes
>it out with gay abandon. Mr. Silly with attitude. A lot of Bears relate to
>that you see... :) ]
Actually, I like him for that reason too. But I think it would be a bad
idea to have too many NPCs doing what he does. Too much of a good thing
and all.
>Personally I think this is poo. The idea that it's ok for some NPCs to be
>strolling around with a magical AK47 under their arm, so long as they only
>fire it occasionally is to my mind bloody ludicrous. It comes back to that
>basic tenet of plot writing. If your NPC has no stats, can do anything and
>can't be killed until plot says so, it's BAD PLOT.
I couldn't agree more. I don't think that the discussion here is really
about power, rather I think it's about accountability. If the NPC can
ignore the consequences of his actions purely _because_ he's an NPC,
that's bad. If, on the other hand, there's a big showdown between him
and the townsfolk he's been terrorising and he has all of his magical
powers stripped away (and they stay gone) that's good.
>I cheered when Floris and the Tomes vanished into the void.
I didn't ... he didn't take White and Violet with him.
>I wept to hear
>they'd returned.
Actually at first I thought "Oh good he's come back to get them" ...
then I wept.
>Don't super-stat your NPCs. You know it makes sense.
Hear, hear.
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <3529DD...@boat.bt.com>, Doug Watson <wat...@boat.bt.com> writes:
> > >basic tenet of plot writing. If your NPC has no stats, can do anything and
> > >can't be killed until plot says so, it's BAD PLOT.
> >
> > large piece of plot off the ground, that you have spend loads of time
> > working on, say just like the Maar the Faceless unliving plot. Say
> > just as you are kicking off the plot the players decide to get
> > together a major Incantor wedge and steamroller over one of your
> > plot's Npcs. Sound familiar? The players couldn't kill Thomas Finn as
> > Cyngelis pulled his arse out of the fire just in time. Bad plot? I
> > don't think so. Pragmatic? Probably.
> >
> desired effect. Would Thomas Finn being killed (again) destroy the
> plot-line. He could be replaced, the plot would change slightly from
> where-ever it was intended to go but it would still work.
I think you have to be very careful as a ref not to take the attitude
that players want to succeed so they should. I think the rp experience
becomes pretty superficial if the refs simply allow you to succeed purely
because you tried. I think it's much better to try and stat a situation
in a manner to a level that is appropriate in character and then it is
up to the players to find some way to overcome the limitations placed
on them IC. Basically the same fairness that covers not intervening on
behalf of the players to stop them, covers not intervening to help them
either.
Without failure there is no triumph. To me an essential part of LRP is
the pleasure of success that comes from winning through against the odds,
of accomplishing something that was hard to do. If the Refs just alter
every situation to ensure that the players schemes always succeed that
pleasure is gone. And yes that means that some times players will fail
in things they attempt, but letting the consequences of those failures
ride will make victory all the sweeter in the long term. (The good guys
always win in the end!).
>
> If Thomas is so vital to the plot, Maar could have brought him back,
> maybe as a ghost or something. The players get a result, the plot team
> keeps its NPC (in spirt at least :-) ) and everybody is happy.
>
Would everybody be happy with this? I hope not, certainly it wouldn't make
me happy as a player. You work hard to defeat an NPC and his evil schemes.
You come up with a brilliant plan, you gather the resources you need, you
get the people you require, you put everything in place and you carry off
the perfect execution. The plot is defeated and you feel on top of the
world. Then the refs say "nice plan, but I'm afraid we need that plot to
continue, so he'll be back next week as a ghost".
Make the victory hard fought for, but when the players gain that victory,
let them savour it. Thats what heroic lrp is all about!
Hobbes
Mr M.I. Pennington
In article <Ef0chaAe...@msbp.demon.co.uk>, "Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader)" <b...@msbp.demon.co.uk> writes:
> In article <6gcolf$kv0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk
> wrote
>
> >This is a good argument against small and/or heavily guarded command tents
> >at the Gathering or any other large event. It makes it difficult for the
> >players to interact with the NPC's if they have to run the gauntlet of over
> >zealous guards to get to one another, perhaps a few less guards and a few
> >more open tents might be a help?
>
> But isn't that just another form of flange? If you were the ruler of a
> nation state at the Gathering wouldn't you want to make sure that you
> wouldn't be disturbed by your subjects (or somebody else's!) while you
> were busy doing something of national importance? Surely the challenge
> for the enterprising player is in gaining access to a supposedly
> "secure" area. To make gaining entrance to the High King's pavillion
> easy robs players of the chance at trying to get in there by subterfuge,
> fast talking or force of arms.
>
> Speaking personally, I had a great time trying to elude the gate guards
> at the Tarantula's Parliament. I didn't succeed very often, but when I
> did it gave me a feeling of satisfaction that I wouldn't have got had it
> been easier.
>
> Just my point of view.
>
It is true that it's flangy for meetings to be artificially open to anyone.
In fact it's part of a whole set of flanges that go on in playing NPCs,
where things are often deliberately done to allow interested or clever
players to discover them. How far you should go in pursuing flanges of
those kind is an interesting question.
I accept what you say about the enjoyment of getting past decent guards but
one of the constant criticisms of the LT is that too much plot takes place
in closed tents, between NPCs (more usually NPCs and high ranking PCs) and
the average person can't get involved. In the light of that, I think the
NPCs have to adjust their IC attitude to ensure that their characters receive
more exposure to the average players. In other words they should darn near
let anyone in the tent. Yes it's flangy, yes it's unrealistic, but it does
produce a better game that is more enjoyed by everyone.
Hobbes
Tony Blews
Quoth M.D.H...@bath.ac.uk:
>It might sound daft idea but there is a public gallery in the house of
>commons where anyone may go and listen (You usually don't notice it on
>the TV, its above where the cameras usually are opposite the speakers chair).
You don't see it because it is illegal to be filmed inside the commons
unless you are a member of it..... and you might get to see joe public
on tv.
Sorry to wheel fact in here.
--
Tony Blews, tony @ netlrp.uk.com (autoresponder)
http://jumper.mcc.ac.uk/~tonyb/
Simon White
Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader) wrote in message ...
>In article <6g0c30$g7r$1...@usenet.bham.ac.uk>, Simon White
><S.A.Wh...@bham.ac.uk> wrote
>
>>Players have the freedom that NPCs dont have - many people see NPC as
being
>>a huge plus, esp in the G system, effectively "Players with more points".
>>This perception isnt helped by the fact that a lot of NPCs are
PC-upgrades,
>>and others are designed to be biased (i.e. Faction Command).
>
>From personal observations I have to say that all of the Faction Command
>NPCs I've come across are eager to roleplay without waving their NPC
>special abilities (if any) in my face. The "PC-upgrades" (doesn't that
>reinforce the spurious logic that being an NPC is better than being a
>player?) that are in the system have never caused me a problem. So I'm
>afraid that I must disagree with what you've said here.
I'm glad you can disagree with me ;-)
Yes, the term PC-Upgrades is a sarcastic one... to my eyes, that is how a
some of said NPCs view their position - they were PCs once, so they carry on
behaving as such.
Damn ASCII - you can never get the intonation right...
Simon
Horrocks
S.J....@dial.pipex.com wrote:
>
> Come and join the lions. The Command tent is always open to faction members
> at all times (except for the occasional hush-hush meeting - maybe twice per
all are welcome) after Time-Out.
>
> Of course, the faction camp itself is the hardest one to get into...
> Steve Lewis.
> Corrected by Rob (hope you dont mind just thought I would do a little advertising)
Glynn & Kathy Greenwood
In article <Ef0chaAe...@msbp.demon.co.uk>,
Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader) <b...@msbp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >This is a good argument against small and/or heavily guarded command tents
> >at the Gathering or any other large event. It makes it difficult for the
> >players to interact with the NPC's if they have to run the gauntlet of over
> >zealous guards to get to one another, perhaps a few less guards and a few
> >more open tents might be a help?
IM SORRY BUT THEY ARE GAURDS!
They would be poor quality if they let every tom dick and assassin thru.
(obviously people with good reason are allowed entry)
Let loose the dogs of war!
The Kaptin
Wanderer
Jaana Heino wrote:
>
> Wanderer wrote:
> >That's the general idea of an NPC. A character that was made
> >specifically to facilitate plot. Darn tooting they better stay
> >IC,shouldn't everyone playing? :)
>
> I still don't get what idea there is to make the difference... Specially
> if there is none. :)
that for whatever purpose. An NPC was made by the people running the
game for a specific purpose(even if that's "to add atmosphere") and has
guidelines on what their characters do or do not do imposed by the
person who "created" them(as opposed to the one who is playing the NPC).
-Paul T.
Stuart McNair
In article <Ef0chaAe...@msbp.demon.co.uk>,
"Robin Jones (Health Education Team Leader)" <b...@msbp.demon.co wrote:
" A lot of stuff about command tents"
I agree with 'Bin'
A command tent, large or small gives the players a good excuse to exercise
their devious minds in overcoming the guards. It also give the people
playing guards a good time trying to stop those of us of evil intent trying
to to their boss harm.
I've probable had some of my most enjoyable experiences roleplaying trying
to get into places where i'm not welcome. On the filp side I've also had a
lot of fun guarding places against people like me.
Stu
aka BOG
ps. Bin, how the hell are you ?
Jaana Heino
Wanderer wrote:
>A player character is one that built "himself",and is free to pursue
>that for whatever purpose. An NPC was made by the people running the
>game for a specific purpose(even if that's "to add atmosphere") and has
>guidelines on what their characters do or do not do imposed by the
>person who "created" them(as opposed to the one who is playing the NPC).
Okay, let me get this straight... now it seems most Finnish LARPs have
only NPCs... (my, is this difficult, wonder if I am having a language
problem).
In most LARPs here, a player does not create his/her own character. The
characters are written by the organisers and then handed out - wishes
taken into account as much as possible. After being given to the
players, the characters are free to pursue any goals that are not in
contradict with the background and goals provided for the character by
the author/organiser.
Wanderer
Jaana Heino wrote:
>
> Wanderer wrote:
> >A player character is one that built "himself",and is free to pursue
> >that for whatever purpose. An NPC was made by the people running the
> >game for a specific purpose(even if that's "to add atmosphere") and has
> >guidelines on what their characters do or do not do imposed by the
> >person who "created" them(as opposed to the one who is playing the NPC).
>
> Okay, let me get this straight... now it seems most Finnish LARPs have
> only NPCs... (my, is this difficult, wonder if I am having a language
> problem).
>
> In most LARPs here, a player does not create his/her own character. The
> characters are written by the organisers and then handed out - wishes
> taken into account as much as possible. After being given to the
> players, the characters are free to pursue any goals that are not in
> contradict with the background and goals provided for the character by
> the author/organiser.
to do their job-edifying,motivation for PC's,hacking them to bits as the
orc invaders,whatever-and then when done are given a new role to play.
Sometimes that's "third zombie on the left",other times it's "King Rolf
of Westheim"...but those NPC's are under the direct finger of plot.
If you give someone their character,and then give them free will within
that-that's a PC. And yes,it's quite possible to have no NPC's
whatsoever by the method you're using,since none of the characters are
under the direct finger of whoever is running the game.
-Paul T.
ILF people,maybe I'm not the best one for this-I'm used to "campaign"
style LARPs...