Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

[Sword-dancer]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

 

A great GM/DM/Storyteller/WHATEVER can effectively lead his party by the nose without them even realizing it. Part of it is knowing your players... Part of it is knowing the world you are playing in well enough to make the things you *want* to happen fit the way things *actually* could happen...

 

Even if every other player on the table is an experienced GM?

 

Just as an example... in a wheel of time d20 game i was gming for a while

I remeber a post ón the WoT Forum where the poster wrote he wouldN´t play with players who wouldn`t see it when they would get lead by the nose.

 

btwevery time I played with a Scroting GM one thing happened, a player /PC who acted on his personaltiy and took initiative broke his game, because they weren`t able to scope with a Game a PC doesn`t follow the script to the letter and wholedn`t be themselves forced to follow the Scripting.

 

OTOH Players who were blunted by the Scrpted by the Letter Style couldn`t function with GM and their adventures who expected and needed initiative, they waited passivly for something they could react with.

[Lezentauw]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Even if every other player on the table is an experienced GM?

 

 

I remeber a post ón the WoT Forum where the poster wrote he wouldN´t play with players who wouldn`t see it when they would get lead by the nose.

 

btwevery time I played with a Scroting GM one thing happened, a player /PC who acted on his personaltiy and took initiative broke his game, because they weren`t able to scope with a Game a PC doesn`t follow the script to the letter and wholedn`t be themselves forced to follow the Scripting.

 

OTOH Players who were blunted by the Scrpted by the Letter Style couldn`t function with GM and their adventures who expected and needed initiative, they waited passivly for something they could react with.

 

Whether you are an experienced GM or not, if a GM does it correctly, you do not know you are being led by strings. You may have experiences where it is obvious, but it is possible to be lead and it not be obvious. An experienced GM knows that you will most likely want to pursue a certain avenue, and will set things up so they can do that. By them setting up what player's characters are most likely going to want to do, they will be scripting the events for the night.

 

I think that you are being argumentive over a bad experience. Not every GM is the same. And at some point some scripting is necessary. If there is not some form of scripting done, then you would have a very boring story.

 

GM: 'So what do you guys want to do tonight?'

 

Players looking at the GM with a blank stare: 'You mean you did not prepare anything for us to do? Great another haphazard game again...'

 

 

Scripting allows for a GM to know things about the area and plan for possible actions that the players will take.

 

A GM wants to set up a certain string of events. So he comes up with a couple of hooks to get the pcs to bite on his string.

 

While not neccessary written in this manner, but the GM then goes about setting up a flowchart: If the pcs does this, then this happens. If they do not do that, then this happens. If a GM fleshes this part out enough, there is no detecting the scripting. Because they have already thought of contingency plans in advance to get the pcs involved.

[Sword-dancer]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Whether you are an experienced GM or not' date=' if a GM does it correctly, you do not know you are being led by strings. You may have experiences where it is obvious, but it is possible to be lead and it not be obvious. .[/quote']

I´ven`t experienced this in my 10, say better 8 Years of Roleplaying even once.

 

 

An experienced GM knows that you will most likely want to pursue a certain avenue, and will set things up so they can do that. By them setting up what player's characters are most likely going to want to do, they will be scripting the events for the night.

No, I don`t think so, he will most llikely plan for the most likely Route(s) of the PCs but wouldn`t force them to take that route.

 

I think that you are being argumentive over a bad experience.

Not only one bad experience!

Not every GM is the same. And at some point some scripting is necessary. If there is not some form of scripting done, then you would have a very boring story.

 

GM: 'So what do you guys want to do tonight?'

 

Players looking at the GM with a blank stare: 'You mean you did not prepare anything for us to do? Great another haphazard game again...'

 

Christopher Kubasik wrote

 

Well, I can tell you what I did last week. I arrived at my first session of my Pendragon campaign with nothing but the outline I've given above and the ready use of Saxons as punching bags if I couldn't think of anything better for the characters to do for the hours of game time we'd scheduled. Let me make this clear: I really didn't have any idea what was going to happen, but I trusted that the players would provide what was needed and everything would work out fine.

 

quoted from here

 

http://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/itoolkit4.html

 

I run more than one adventure especially at a con without more than an idea to get started.

In fact the last two times I tried to run a preplanned conadventure one of the PCs broke the plot before the introduction even had started, because the city guard would`ve wanted him for attacking/Trying to murdering one of their own.

So i improved something out of an idea I´d also.

 

The last Con ad I run, the Players/PC made so much action themselves that a good Part of the game I did actually enjoyed only to listen them.

[Outsider]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

In my...lets see... 27 years of RPG experience, I've been GM and player many times. I've led players through scripts undetected, and, as a player, been led through them without knowing it, too, having only found out how scripted things were by talking to the GM out of game after the fact. If I hadn't asked, or they hadnt volunteered the information, I would never have known. I've also had the other experience, where the leading (on my part or the Gm's, when I'm a player) has not gone so well. If you havent asked, and your GM hasnt offered up the informatin about how closely you've followed his plan, how would you know you havent been undetectably led?

 

 

 

Anyway...

 

Something I'd like to see less of is players who make characters inappopriate to the setting or who they know (or should know) will NOT get along with the other characters.

 

Example :

The group agrees to play a Danger International game where the PCs will be hardened mercenaries fighting for whoever pays them. 4 players make hardened mercenaries who will fight for whoever pays them. The fifith player makes a squeamish and idealistic CIA agent that the other 4 characters wouldnt take into he bush with them even if they were paid extra. The fifth player then proceeds to complain at length because the other 4 wont make allowances for his character "who is just acting according to character". Basically the same, but on the opposite side of the coin, from a character who makes a murderous vigilante Super and expects the rest of the group (who he knows are planning on making strong-jawed goodie-goodies) to live with it.

[Sword-dancer]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

If you havent asked, and your GM hasnt offered up the informatin about how closely you've followed his plan, how would you know you havent been undetectably led?

.

 

Because they walled the character in, anyactivitie who didn`t fit into their script was blocked, the other way was greased!

 

 

 

Anyway...

 

Something I'd like to see less of is players who make characters inappopriate to the setting or who they know (or should know) will NOT get along with the other characters

.

 

Did the player know his character wouldn`t and couldn`t function with the res of the group?

Why had you accepted an uncompatible PC, who wouldn`t neither fit the PC Group nor the Campaign?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

On scripting: This depends largely on the playstyle of the group. Some people want to run characters who just run around getting themselves into trouble. Others have characters whose goal in life is NOT to adventure. My D&D fighter considers himself a smith. He will take up arms for a good cause, but he's not out there selling himself as a mercenary. Provide him with a town and ask "OK, guys, what do you want to do?", and he'll be looking for a way to put his skills as a smith, not a soldier, to use. He might start a shop. He'll be quiote satisfied. I as a player, however, will not - I'll be quite bored.

 

I once knew a gamer who planned to populate his game world in advance, including placing many scenarios well in advance. If you happen to ignore the L1 plot hooks and wander into a dungeon intended for L15 characters...oh well! That, to me, is "unscripted". After all, only encountering challenges in accordance with your level of ability smacks of rsailroading, doesn't it?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Heh heh...a good point. I don't want my beginning character to wander into the lair of Mastradikhan the Grandfather of all Dragons, and I don't want my demi-god character to find nothing more challenging than breaking up Scrob and his Goblin Gang's designs on Farmer Grunt's melon patch.

 

I would hope that most GMs script at least enough to avoid these extremes.

[Outsider]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Because they walled the character in, anyactivitie who didn`t fit into their script was blocked, the other way was greased!

 

Yeah, that would be an example of where you detected the GM lead/script, and of bad GMing (IMo). A GM who did their job well would not be so obviously clumsy at the whole thing.

 

 

Did the player know his character wouldn`t and couldn`t function with the res of the group?

Why had you accepted an uncompatible PC, who wouldn`t neither fit the PC Group nor the Campaign?

 

Yes, the player knew. On paper, his character worked, and fit in. The "company man" operating in the third world hiring and directing mercenaries to further his country's interests. Had appropriate skills, appropriate knowledges, appropriate background, appropriate limitations. Once play actually started though, the player played the character in a way to make him incompatible with the other characters, who he knew would be a murderous, amoral lot of mercs. His defence was that he was "just role playing the character as he envisions him". It put the GM (not me, actually) in the position of either having to railroad the other 4 characters into taking this guy with them (and NOT having a 'weapons malfunction' as soon as there were no witnesses about) or of forcing the fifth player to not role play his character as he saw fit.

 

The real solution would have been for the fifth player to actually have spoken up when we were talking about what kind of campaign to run next.

[MarioTani]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Interesting Topic^_^

 

I'd really like starting PCs to not have much knowledge of the outside world.

 

It's not a matter for me, as my players _are_ LAZY!

They will not study the setting and are happy with the information I give em. so they do not know the world!

 

And this happen in spitoe fo me using always the same world, and only because usually the next campaign is in a different territory than the previous.

 

Surely this effect will end soon, but for now there's no need of corrections for me.

 

As a general rule, I believe that the player should have the same informations their character could get, so I've two different sets of races'es descriptions. But they have to play and so they need to know the rules if they want to create their PC.

 

Moreover I usually let them decide where to play in the setting and so they should at least have some knowledge of what there is and where it is.

 

The keyword is "Some" too much and you spoil the fun too less and they are not satisfied with their chioces.

 

PCs shouldn't have a perfect knowledge about the magic system

 

The way magic wirks it's a general rule that almost every player knows.

This is not the same to say that they know what can be accomplished with the rules.

 

There's not something like a "Spell List", and after the last setting revision (a couple of month ago, maybe less) there not a "Magic List".

 

In practice now they know HOW TO create a spell, HOW TO play a mage.

But nothing assures you that anyone use the magic in the same way.

 

It's much more frequent the opposite, and this happens as with the new rules every PC has to create a school of magic his mage has followed.

 

They should delineate:

1) Elements used

2) Theme of the school

3) Theacher

4) Way of casting

5) Some samples of spell, some with low AP some with high AP

 

So they describe in game terms (and with a little of background) the school of magic their character has learned, and define it, but nothing stops someone to create some really different school, and so they really do not know what could be.

 

So to speak the Magical Energy, it's similar to elettricity.

You know it's there and have some comprehension of how it works, but it can let you accomplish many different chores with different devices, and the same task could be accomplished in different way if it's done using devices built on differing principles.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

PCs shouldn't have a perfect knowledge about the magic system

 

The way magic wirks it's a general rule that almost every player knows.

This is not the same to say that they know what can be accomplished with the rules.

 

This is very much in genre, and also problematic, IMO, in games. Reasons?

 

- Players want to know their characters' capabilities. Keeping the nature of magic secret will deter some players form making spellcasters. Maybe that's a good thing depending on the desired campaign.

 

- Players not knowing the rules tends to slow down the game.

 

- If PC's don't know how it works, NPC's shouldn't either. This can be hard for a GM to fairly and consistently simulate.

 

For me, thios is an area where Fiction and Games tend to split.

[MarioTani]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

This is very much in genre, and also problematic, IMO, in games. Reasons?

 

- Players want to know their characters' capabilities. Keeping the nature of magic secret will deter some players form making spellcasters. Maybe that's a good thing depending on the desired campaign.

 

uhmm maybe I'm not being able to explain myself:(

 

The players know what their character can do (they have to create the spells)

just they do not know what other spellcaster can do, and how they can attain it, as they are all different magic schools.

 

- Players not knowing the rules tends to slow down the game.

 

I'm with you on this:)

 

- If PC's don't know how it works, NPC's shouldn't either. This can be hard for a GM to fairly and consistently simulate.

 

just to state it clearly:

The player knows what magical effect his character can produce, but does not know what other charactare can do.

 

The character has not the ability to understand what other mages are accomplishing as i see the waves been modelled, but if the two schools are not very similar (something rare tha can sometimes happen) they do not know what the ritual is for.

 

so the character can sense the weaving, but cannot understand why someone is weaving magic.

 

he can sense someone tapping the mana near him, can even understand that the major aspecting is Fire and the minor is Gate, but cannot guess what is being casted.

 

so the caster can be tring to cast:

Girt's Escape, a form of teleportation

Kiwel's farstrike, a form of gate to let your weapons fly trough to reach at teh opponent from unexpected sides

Fyunh's demonic summoning, the summoning of a creature from the depts of hell

Gorm's Fireball, a fireball that strikes opening a portal to the plane of fire for a brief moment

 

and the things get more complicated if a spell use more than a Major or minor aspect.

 

In this way spells are mysterious but nonn hindering the game (or so I believe)

[Basil]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

A sense that there's an entire world, not just a big (or not so big) place with dungeons in

 

Too many campaigns I've been in/seen/heard of/read the book(s) for don't have any sense of the hugeness, the complexity, the unpredictability of a real world. For example, most settings from gaming companies have the feeling that the world stops at the edge of the map. Contrast to Tolkein, where there's a feelling there are lands, unknown to the area around Gondor/the Shire/etc; areas with cultures and history.

Heck, look at the map of MIddle Earth---there's the sea of Rhûn that we're told nothing about. In most RPG products there'd be the feeling the artist wanted to fill in space. With Tolkein, you end up wondering what the folks there are like; you may even find yourself inventing a history and traditions for it.

 

 

A feeling of time; the feeling there's been stuff happening long before your characters exist, and that stuff will keeping happening after they're gone.

 

Too many campaigns lack this. Too often, there's a "weird legend" or "old story" that's either nothing but a plot hook, or a bit of window-dressing that has a connection to neither the present nor any other "tale from the past." Admittedly, it's hard to give a feeling of the depths of time at Tolkein's level, but I find it so rare to see any attempt at a feeling of history. And tossing out a dozen names of bygone kingdoms/kings/archmages just shows up how little history the setting has. (As well as usually sounding stupid, from the grab-bag nature of those names).

 

 

Related to the last point:

Lengends, stories, tales, etc, that aren't just plothooks &/or hints

 

I know of nothing that brings alive a world faster, with few words, than the GM having an NPC drop a passing reference to some old story "everyone knows".

 

{using a know legend}

GM (as Farmer Amico): "You'd've ne'er thought that there runty pony coulda pullt that cart outa that there ditch, but then you'd've ne'er thought that there half-growed King Arthur could've pullt that sword outa that there stone."

 

{different setting, invented legend}

GM (as Farmer True): "'Tis true mine horse looks too smal to pull your wagon from out the ditch 'tis immured in. Yet, forget not that Liendra didst remove the Crown of Talkon from out the grip of the Everfrozen Lake!"

 

See how it goes? And the tale of Liendra doesn't have a bloody thing to do with the PCs, their predicament, their advancement, or anything else. It's just part of the world. Of course, it's even better if the legends are a direct steal from real-world ones, but I'm too tired to go to that effort.

[gewing]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law' date=' nobility, upper class, etc[/b']

 

This has been a frequent "problem" in both games that I have run and been a player in, and it has always bothered me. Admittedly, this is largely on the GM for not setting the tone properly. I think a lot of the behavior I don't like from players concerning this stems from years of not having to take the in-game social heirarchy seriously, so it's not entirely their fault.

 

I'd like to see PCs do things like not make eye contact king, and at least go to one knee (if not prostrate themselves) in his presence, if they ever see him at all. I'd like for them to treat him like the powerful figure that he is. I'd like them to fear angering him, cheerish opportunities to make him happy, and generally treat him the way kings get treated in fantasy literature. I'd also like them to have to do similar things with Dukes, Barons, Lords, Chancellors, Regents, or whoever is in a station above that of the PCs.

 

I'm am completely willing to admit that this falls on the GM to enforce, and it probably wouldn't take to much forethought to make it happen. I just have had lots of experiences where it didn't, and I think it would have been way cooler if everyone would have acted a bit more like I think they should, which is to say like in the novels. I can only think of a few gamers I've ever played with that would have considered going down on their knees because the royal carriage was going by. And I'm pretty sure the ramifications for not doing so could be horrific. But if the GM doesn't make bad things happen, then the players have nothing to fear.

 

Does anyone know of any RPG books that cover things like this? Explain something like how a particular king likes to be addressed, or how his "subjects" are expected to act in his presence? I'm sure I could come up with some stuff if I bothered, but I have more money than time these days...

 

We had a pretty good campaign years ago, but it was limited by one major problem. Not only did the characters not know much about the world we were going to be gaming in, the DM hadn't set everything yet either.

 

So the balance of power between the "minor" nobles we encountered and ourselves was not immediately obvious. The Backgrounds we made up were sometimes a poor fit.

 

I still like the character I came up with, If I could start him over again....

[gewing]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

We had a couple campaigns (some shortlived, true...) where the characters were from different times, etc.

 

In one fun little bit, my character was a royal bodyguard from a Basically Star Wars time line. IIRC I had Most of the minor talents from the onld pulp Heroes game (mind is blanking) I was extremely strong, and had something similar to a lightsabre. My friends character was basically a street samurai from a cyber punkish world where the Japanese, iirc, won WWII. We ended up in mythic Greece (good sourcebook) and my character "went native" immediately. I was wearing a tunic and sandals, had a bedroll over my shoulder, and had picked up a huge Bronze axe. My Lightsabre was hidden in my bedroll...

 

After our group had met, we were attacked by a magical/technological monster that created a darkness around itself. I charged into it, drawing my lightsabre once out of sight, and ended up slicing the thing in two... I hid my weapon, and when the darkness cleared, the street samurai was trying to figure out how I used a bronze axe to do energy damage...

 

OK, I liked it.

 

 

--and that's a pity. I fail to understand why someone would play a genre-based rpg and not play within the genre. If I were going to run a Western, I wouldn't want someone trying to play an alien with a laser pistol.

 

Unless it was That Sort Of Game.

 

Keith "maybe I'm spoiled with my group of players" Curtis

[gewing]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

In reference to Sword-Dancer's amazon :

 

Yes, there are characters who, perfectly within character, will not respect the social heirarchy. Unfortunately for such characters, it is also perfectly within character for the noble to whom they are discourteous to respond by doing some pretty bad things back. A 'peasant' class person who doesnt show proper respect might be killed out of hand. A free citizen might be severely whipped or imprisoned. Another noble within the same feudal system might get in trouble with his leige lord, and be challenged to a duel. (And in my game's dueling code, the higher ranking party can always choose to be represented by a champion) A foreign noble failing to follow the proper forms might sour relations between their kingdom and the one they have offended a noble of, or even spark a war, if the insult is grave enough. If the other 'noble' is not from a recognized and respected country, they might not even get treated as a noble at all. Uncouth barbarians!

 

If a player makes such a character, how does the GM handle it, is the question. I'd say that you impress on the player that it is a serious character disadvantage, and give them disad points appropriately. Let them know that the only time they will ever be able to meet with a nobleman is if the noble is 'incognito' or if he really, really, really needs their help with something. Any other time and their lack obeisance to the social/governmental order will likely get them beaten, whipped, or imprisoned, and resistance to those results will get them killed or outlawed. (outlawry = a nice fat hunted, gained in play, so no character points added to their sheet) If they still want to make the character with that disad, its on their head.

 

being locked up and tortured by the noble you thought was your friend sucks.

 

Lets start the campaign over, OK???

[gewing]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Sounds like a 15 point perk...

 

campaign specific too.

 

1 My Character isn`t an Amazon but an Amazon Priestess, a priestess of great renown and proven worth to the goddess(The Marschall of the Pantheon, Goddess of HonorableWarriors, Knights and so on)

2 Even if she were an Amazon, she would be therefore a member of the sisterhood therefore a member of their own branch of church.

The last Highqueen is a saint the ruling high Queen considered the chosen Champion.

Even one of this reasons would be more than enough to not let her be subject to any other law then that of the sisterhood or any other court, with the possible exception of a court of the churches of the Pantheon.

 

3 As a Priest of one of the gods of the Pantheon, she is autiomaticaly a judge if needs calls, as a priestess of the sisterhood she is automatically a judge of the sisterhood.

Which means she is fully authoriced to hold court even over the highest nobility except an emperor, given by old imperial law.

This is practically not changeable

 

4 Any fighting able Person who would send a Champion against a priestess of the goddess in a duell of honor etc would mark himself a coward.

btw she would refuse a duell because named persons aren`t honorable and therfore not worthy of a duell, which would be an deadly blow to their reputation.

 

5 Priests in these Lands are considered proven by their gods and call therefore high respect even the lowlist priest from the highest ran(at least in theory) andnoPriest answers to worldly law or court.

[gewing]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Well, John did surrender, and even forced his companions to...

 

Look what it got him.

 

HAMBURGER!!!! maybe.

 

Dead is dead, and the dead dont care.

 

Surrendering, though, means being largely powerless and subject to the whims of another, a situation that many players probably get their fill of (and more) in real life.

 

Resistance to retreat is more difficult to explain. It could be a matter of having to leave fallen comrades to be captured that makes it distasteful.

[gewing]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

In my...lets see... 27 years of RPG experience, I've been GM and player many times. I've led players through scripts undetected, and, as a player, been led through them without knowing it, too, having only found out how scripted things were by talking to the GM out of game after the fact. If I hadn't asked, or they hadnt volunteered the information, I would never have known. I've also had the other experience, where the leading (on my part or the Gm's, when I'm a player) has not gone so well. If you havent asked, and your GM hasnt offered up the informatin about how closely you've followed his plan, how would you know you havent been undetectably led?

 

 

 

Anyway...

 

Something I'd like to see less of is players who make characters inappopriate to the setting or who they know (or should know) will NOT get along with the other characters.

 

Example :

The group agrees to play a Danger International game where the PCs will be hardened mercenaries fighting for whoever pays them. 4 players make hardened mercenaries who will fight for whoever pays them. The fifith player makes a squeamish and idealistic CIA agent that the other 4 characters wouldnt take into he bush with them even if they were paid extra. The fifth player then proceeds to complain at length because the other 4 wont make allowances for his character "who is just acting according to character". Basically the same, but on the opposite side of the coin, from a character who makes a murderous vigilante Super and expects the rest of the group (who he knows are planning on making strong-jawed goodie-goodies) to live with it.

 

 

You did say NO NINJAs....

 

I liked Skippy Hauser...

 

 

 

Edit, I thought it was that game you were talking about.

 

Though the character who REALLY had to have his minigun was a little bit of a pain.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

uhmm maybe I'm not being able to explain myself:(

 

The players know what their character can do (they have to create the spells)

just they do not know what other spellcaster can do, and how they can attain it, as they are all different magic schools.

 

Ahhh...Well, that's definitely an easy one in Hero. Just make each player create his own magic system that his character (and, presumably, some other wizards) use and voila.

 

You'd think, however, that mages would gravitate towards a magical style that proves effective, resulting in larger numbers of wizards focussed on a small number of schools. Of course, that doesn't prevent "fringe schools" being surprising, and/or new schools being developed.

 

The "every mage to his own school and style" approach would work well in a setting where magic is very new, and wizards are figuring it out by trial and error (or where the "old order" has recently collapsed due to a magical crisis). Gravitatung to effective results can't happen until the wizards, and the world, have experience with magic.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

For me' date=' this is an area where Fiction and Games tend to split.[/quote']

 

Yeah, people playing a game really ought to know what the rules are. I think that's like a... rule... or something.

[CBikle]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

I'd like for PCs to pay proper levels of respect to the law' date=' nobility, upper class, etc[/b']

 

This has been a frequent "problem" in both games that I have run and been a player in, and it has always bothered me. Admittedly, this is largely on the GM for not setting the tone properly. I think a lot of the behavior I don't like from players concerning this stems from years of not having to take the in-game social heirarchy seriously, so it's not entirely their fault.

 

I'd like to see PCs do things like not make eye contact king, and at least go to one knee (if not prostrate themselves) in his presence, if they ever see him at all. I'd like for them to treat him like the powerful figure that he is. I'd like them to fear angering him, cheerish opportunities to make him happy, and generally treat him the way kings get treated in fantasy literature. I'd also like them to have to do similar things with Dukes, Barons, Lords, Chancellors, Regents, or whoever is in a station above that of the PCs.

 

 

To get around this problem, I'd model the VIP NPCs on character-actors and that seemed to do the trick.

 

Just say the King looks like Sean Connery or Alec Guinness or whomever's grabbing all the "wise and noble ruler" roles in fantasy movies these days.

[Houston GM]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

I'd like to see fewer standard D&D archetypes.

 

Example #1

Why is the priesthood of Adamnan (God of music and song) made up of holy cleric types? Wouldn't it make more sense for his church to be run by bardic types?

 

Similarly, why wouldn't the church of the god of war be run by retired soldiers and warriors?

 

Example #2

Why would the assassins guild limit membership to sneaky people who have an affinity for poisoned daggers? Wouldn't they welcome a wizard who can cast a death spell?

 

 

I'd like to see hierarchies based on criteria other than raw power.

 

Example #3

Why would Adamnan's church be controlled by the person who wielded the most power? Perhaps they select leaders on the basis of live performances, or who composes the best music.

 

Example #4

Why is a general always the most powerful warrior in the army? Why not promote someone who is less formidable, but better at strategy? Or promote the one who is the best at inspiring his troops?

 

And if you're feeling cynical, the general could be the one who is best at brown-nosing.

[Outsider]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

You did say NO NINJAs....

 

I liked Skippy Hauser...

 

 

 

Edit, I thought it was that game you were talking about.

 

Though the character who REALLY had to have his minigun was a little bit of a pain.

 

Actually, I was referring to the very brief Mercenaries in Africa one off that Steve tried starting up one night. Which was, IIRC, the one with the minigun character.

 

 

As to Skippy Hauser, I never claimed to be innocent of running roughshod over capaigns myself

[Outsider]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

Examples 1-3 : Complete agreement.

 

Example 4 : Agree also, but offer for consideration that the nobility (from whom officers are generally drawn) are usually the people with the best equipment in the here and now, and the ones who had the best training and diet when growing up. It is also a traditional fantasy 'bit', not that that gives it any credibility.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Things I'd like to see more of in fantasy gaming

 

I'd like to see fewer standard D&D archetypes.

 

Example #1

Why is the priesthood of Adamnan (God of music and song) made up of holy cleric types? Wouldn't it make more sense for his church to be run by bardic types?

 

Similarly, why wouldn't the church of the god of war be run by retired soldiers and warriors?

 

 

Any character who devotes his life to the worship of a god more or less by default falls under the holy category, and would pretty much need to have a lot of cleric type background skills. If you're going to be telling me how to live in order to insure I have a good afterlife, you'd better have your KS: Dogma, KS: Theology, etc bought up to an acceptable level. Of course, if you're trying to lead me in worshipping Adamnan, you'd better be able to sing better than me, too.

 

Example #2

Why would the assassins guild limit membership to sneaky people who have an affinity for poisoned daggers? Wouldn't they welcome a wizard who can cast a death spell?

 

Good point. I would think most assassin's guilds would also have a place for people who are none too sneaky, but too stupid to realize what a great risk they're putting themselves in, and too stupid to realize how little they're being paid.

 

I'd like to see hierarchies based on criteria other than raw power.

 

Example #3

Why would Adamnan's church be controlled by the person who wielded the most power? Perhaps they select leaders on the basis of live performances, or who composes the best music.

 

Example #4

Why is a general always the most powerful warrior in the army? Why not promote someone who is less formidable, but better at strategy? Or promote the one who is the best at inspiring his troops?

 

And if you're feeling cynical, the general could be the one who is best at brown-nosing.

 

Also good points, and points I've used often. For that matter, I don't think I've ever had an NPC general as the most powerful warrior in the army, except for some barbaric or chivalric types, where an individual's prowess translates into glory for his followers.