Weird Question ...

[CrosshairCollie]

After the character creation session, is it normaly to look at the assembled team and think, simultaneously, 'We've got all the bases covered' and 'We're never gonna survive past the first session'?

[Curufea]

Depends on the type of game and the type of players.

If the players are used to problem solving games, such as cyberpunk - where you need certain types of characters to complete adventures (like cops, or hackers), then yeah.

If, however, you are in a homegrown setting with a GM who doesn't care if the party consists of all the same type and has let the players know they're happy with any character concept - then no.

[Morgdane]

Sad, but in some games. Yes. Those are also usually the games that go on for weeks, while the ones that I predict going on forever die before i finish planning them.

[Edsel]

Yeah. I, and I think most of the people in my group, worry too much about that sort of thing. The fears are usually unjustified. We ought to iinvent a term for this.

Neo-PC Deathiphobia?

[Vondy]

I, as a gamemaster, have had this feeling. I would frequently look at the player characters and think, "my what a wonderfully well rounded and effecive bunch of characters," and then look at who was playing which character, and the dynamics in play between the players, and think: "they won't last five minutes." Don't get me wrong, I had great players, but there were certain combinations that were the death-knell not only to the characters, but the game as a whole. It required the right combo, or the presence of one of my three "core players" (the guys who pulled everyone together and made things happen), for the game and characters to work. Otherwise I'd just shrug and whip out one of my episodic side games instead of wasting the work, and ruining the story, in the absence of people who cared. I had two in particuliar who, if they were present without a strong leader, they and the game were doomed.

[Edsel]

Here is a great truth I have always observed.

The least rule savy and tactically inept player is the one who will always want to run the team martial artist.

[Blue]

Call of Cthulhu... absolutely EVERY time I've ever made a new character for it that has been the thought. Still fun though.

I've not had the pleasure of Pulp Hero yet, but I would tend to think not. It really is hard to die in a Hero System game unless you skew things that way. But that's a merit.

[CrosshairCollie]

Call of Cthulhu... absolutely EVERY time I've ever made a new character for it that has been the thought. Still fun though.

I've not had the pleasure of Pulp Hero yet, but I would tend to think not. It really is hard to die in a Hero System game unless you skew things that way. But that's a merit.

The thing is ... you're SUPPOSED to have a short lifespan in Call of C'thulhu. :)

[KA.]

The thing is ... you're SUPPOSED to have a short lifespan in Call of C'thulhu. :)

You know, that statement reminds me of a significant truth that I learned about fiction while watching "Leave It To Beaver".

Beaver was reading a classic story ("Robin Hood" ?) and was just finishing the part about the archery contest.
He told Wally that he was really worried that Robin Hood was going to lose.

Then either he, or Wally, made the observation:
"Of course Robin Hood isn't going to lose!
If he was going to lose, they wouldn't have named the book "Robin Hood".
They would have named it after the guy who won!"

Which brings us back to the topic at hand.

When you are playing "Champions" you expect the good guys to eventually win.
When you are playing "Pulp Hero" you expect the heroes to eventually win.

When you are playing "Call of C'thulhu" who do you think is going to win?

I'm just saying . . .

:D

KA.

[CrosshairCollie]

You know, that statement reminds me of a significant truth that I learned about fiction while watching "Leave It To Beaver".

Beaver was reading a classic story ("Robin Hood" ?) and was just finishing the part about the archery contest.
He told Wally that he was really worried that Robin Hood was going to lose.

Then either he, or Wally, made the observation:
"Of course Robin Hood isn't going to lose!
If he was going to lose, they wouldn't have named the book "Robin Hood".
They would have named it after the guy who won!"

Which brings us back to the topic at hand.

When you are playing "Champions" you expect the good guys to eventually win.
When you are playing "Pulp Hero" you expect the heroes to eventually win.

When you are playing "Call of C'thulhu" who do you think is going to win?

I'm just saying . . .

:D

KA.

I can find no faults with this logic.

[keithcurtis]

I remember the original batch of characters for Savage Earth. I had envisioned Thundarr/Kamandi/Killraven style characters.

I got:

A 15 year old adept pacifist vegetarian
An inhumanly strong riven giant. Who was gentle, meek and dim.
An animated wooden man. With carpentry and masonry skills.
A feline thief (played by someone who should not play a thief)
and (thank goodness), a Viking-esque barbarian woman.

Up until that last character, I figured, "well, at least I won't need to worry about how slow Hero combat runs. Because there won't be any."

It did dramatically alter the type of campaign I ran. It became far more political and exploration oriented.

Keith "Every GM's world is perfect until..." Curtis

[Old Man]

I think we can rearrange the classic quote "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" to "No campaign concept survives contact with the players."

[Curufea]

"Win" is a VERY subjective term in roleplaying.
It can be applied to such things as "Completing a mission", "Developing a character", or just "having a good time"

[Zeropoint]

For sure. In a Lovecraf-esque horror game, having the entire party wind up insane and/or dead could easily constitute a "win", if the players are on board with that style of story.