Player vs. Character

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

As I recall, Korvac did, in fact, kill most of the Avengers, however his "dying act" was to ressurect them (albeit with many at death's door and requiring medical attention.

 

I suppose they could have had a year of "Avengers in the Hospital" stories, but I suspect the fans would have tired of that pretty quickly. My experience is that few stories get much reference in the next issue other than, perhaps, a brief mention in passing.

 

What lasting repercussions should it have had? Some dead characters? Well, Avengers Disassembled had that - didn't make it a classic.

 

Actually, there are a number of good stories that COULD have come out of this, but didn't.

 

How about stories where the remaining Avengers and second stringers have to carry on while the big-guns are laid up. How about a couple deaths that happen in an epic battle, well set-up and executed... so that you have iconic deaths like that of Ferro Lad vs. the Sun-Eater (until that was retconned away.) Avengers Disassembled was poorly executed... but I loved the concept. Better written... better foreshadowing... actually well written deaths of a few characters... it could have been great.

 

The fact is... comics aren't there to tell stories... but to sell comics. Whatever "EVENT" has to happen to sell, they'll do it.

 

RPGs and the stories they tell... you don't have to sell-out to stockholders. You can actually tell long, involved, dramatic and tragic and lasting stories. Stories with ramifications that aren't glossed over or forgotten when the next writer comes along. Stories that players and GM can actually invest themselves in, because they will NOT be retconned or forgotten... and years later, the ramifications of a superteam being half wiped out by a battle with minor cosmic entity still effect the world and the current games.

 

These are things that most comics will never do... thus I invest myself in creating them via role playing... and this all goes hand in hand with being "in character" as that rests upon the GM and players to have created a world in which such things as "Do I top off my charge, or run back in right now?" have meaning and depth, because the battle may turn on that decision... and win or lose, this battle will have repercussions that could last years. Such questions as KA started in this thread can't be answered in a vacuum. The answers are so intertwined and dependent upon the capital-S "Story" being told... and that is a culmination of character and game world history and play history and event details and so much more.

[lemming]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

The TPB added pages? Really? I'm going to have to look that one up. This is one of those childhood moments with total lack of closure. To think I could actually read what was supposed to have happened...

 

(Uh... is it any good... the TPB? I don't want to scar myself further. )

No further scarring, just a page or two that didn't further much more info. I think Moondragon has some more angst while the Avengers are at Korvac's funeral. I need to invest some points on my memory roll.

[Karma]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I suppose you have to look at the character in the first place. Does he have 'Reckless', or 'Thinks actions speak louder than words', 'Glory Hound' or even 'Heroic' as a disadvantage? If not then you can't punish him for wanting to think of the best response to a given situation. However if you want to keep the franetic pace up then put the franetic pace in.

Iron man destroys the door. Does he:

a) See that he is needed in the fight and that any delay on his part will lead to the villian winning/getting away?

Sees that he is not needed at this point and has time to recharge his batteries?

If a) then he's going to risk running out of juice in order to do what is necessary, but if then even the most heroic person, unless he's a complete fool (or glory hound 'I saved the day, even though my batteries were drained'), is going to take the time to make sure he's at full strength before he returns to the fight.

If PCs in your campaign are in situation a) and decide to 'take a time out' then the villian should escape/win, but just the same if they are in situation and rush in where they are not needed while underpowered they should learn why the saying is '*fools* rush in' not 'heroes'. Just because your a hero doesn't mean you have to do the stupid thing.

Still if they rush in *when needed* they should be rewarded for their heroics (since that is what heroics are all about).

[Dauntless]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I believe that the root of this problem is that unlike the real world or even the dramatic world, players in a game precisely know the abilities and limitations of what they can do.

 

Think about it, do you know how much energy you have (END) when you're running? I don't know about you, but there's been many times I've gotten a second wind or just pushed myself past the pain and discovered that my tiredness was really just a mental one and not a physical one. Or let's say you get wounded. Do you really know that that cut to your arm only took off 20% of your BODY? Let's say you are chasing a crook across the rooftop. You come across a gap. Now in the game world, the average GM will give you the distance, and you can reliably predict if you can jump it or not. But how would you honestly know what the distance is? And even if the gap is only 10 feet, and you've been able to jump 12 before, what makes you think you can jump 10 feet safely this time?

 

Because of this exact and intimate knowledge of a character's abilities and limitations, players do things which go against what dramatic characters or real life people would do. The Hero game system is at its heart not a Simulationist design, but a gamist design. It tries to calculate all the angles in order to maximize the potential of the character. However, this isn't very realistic. A truly simulationist game design would indeed have a detailed and non-arbitrary rules system to resolve actions, but it would not allow 100% information retrieval for the players or for that matter even the characters themselves.

 

The best way to reduce some of this is to do what programmers do....Information Hiding. Encapsulate as much data as needed and hide it from the end user since they shouldn't be mucking around with it anyways. Instead of giving the players quantifiable numbers for their stats and powers, giving them qualifiers instead. For example, use adjectives to describe their characteristics or power levels. Instead of telling a character that they just took 8 BODY and 35 STUN, tell them that that last hit was excruciating, and hurt about as bad as that time they had a rib puncture their lung.

 

In the absence of absolute information, the players will have to rely on instinct and pay close attention to what's going on. Moreover, they will have to start using their heads a lot more since they won't even know how much damage they are doing to their targets. Instead of playing a numbers game, they will instead start playing a personality and choosing what they want to do based on partial information. Afterall, that's what we do in the real world and what dramatic characters do as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I suppose you have to look at the character in the first place. Does he have 'Reckless'' date=' or 'Thinks actions speak louder than words', 'Glory Hound' or even 'Heroic' as a disadvantage? [/quote']

 

Or simply "Overconfident".

 

I could take a minute or two and get a full charge, but this guy won't last long enough against ME for the charge I have to run out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

How about stories where the remaining Avengers and second stringers have to carry on while the big-guns are laid up.

 

As you note below, the purpose of comics is to sell comics. People want to read about the big guns, so they get the big guns. [besides, Thor was able to swithc back to Blake, so now we have Thor and the Second-Stringers - which won't read a lot different than Thor's own book.]

 

How about a couple deaths that happen in an epic battle' date=' well set-up and executed... so that you have iconic deaths like that of Ferro Lad vs. the Sun-Eater (until that was retconned away.)[/quote']

 

Defeat of Korvac by someone else's hand would have changed the story markedly from what was written. It would have needed more issues, since time was only available for one Avenger (Cap) to get a whole page of attention. Potentially a great story, but not the Korvac story.

 

Plus, whenever a characetr dies, it's always somebody's favorite, and we lose the future of that character. We aso get into the whole "can't kill the big players so only second stringers die" issue.

 

Avengers Disassembled was poorly executed... but I loved the concept. Better written... better foreshadowing... actually well written deaths of a few characters... it could have been great.

 

Any story could be great if we strip out everything that happened and add in better things. But I agree disassembled was more of a disappointment because of what it could have been than because of what it ultimately was.

 

The fact is... comics aren't there to tell stories... but to sell comics. Whatever "EVENT" has to happen to sell' date=' they'll do it.[/quote']

 

Absolutely. Don't buy lousy books, they won't make (as many) lousy books. It sure sounds simple...

 

RPGs and the stories they tell... you don't have to sell-out to stockholders. You can actually tell long' date=' involved, dramatic and tragic and lasting stories. Stories with ramifications that aren't glossed over or forgotten when the next writer comes along. Stories that players and GM can actually invest themselves in, because they will NOT be retconned or forgotten... and years later, the ramifications of a superteam being half wiped out by a battle with minor cosmic entity still effect the world and the current games.[/quote']

 

Yeah. For example, you lost two players because they felt the deaths of their characters were arbitrary and unreasonable While we lack readership and stockholders (and Marvel wasn't public when Korvac was published, but it still had owners who wanted black ink, not red), we do have to cater the game to all players' (GM included) tastes. That's easier, of course, since we need only find common ground in a much smaller group of people, and can mix and match as needed to create that group, but it's still not a one man show.

 

Such questions as KA started in this thread can't be answered in a vacuum. The answers are so intertwined and dependent upon the capital-S "Story" being told... and that is a culmination of character and game world history and play history and event details and so much more.

 

The tough part to KA's question becomes "tell me about the character". Perhaps the scene is all about overcoming your psychological limitations (be it "fears running out of juice" or "reckless, overconfident and headstrong"), and the character should be trying to overcome his usual nature. Perhaps it is a showcase for the character's personality, and he should follow it.

 

As I read KA's question, however, it's "How many players will run the character in accordance with his personality, and take a heroic risk, and how many will game the numbers, submerging role play to gain tactical advantage".

[KA.]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

-major snip-

As I read KA's question, however, it's "How many players will run the character in accordance with his personality, and take a heroic risk, and how many will game the numbers, submerging role play to gain tactical advantage".

 

Thanks for putting it much better than I seem to have.

 

Since starting this thread I have been caught up in some time-consuming car repair issues, so I haven't had a chance to comment on the posts, but that is exactly what I was intending to ask.

 

Not: "Is it appropriate for some characters in some campaigns to spend a lot of time considering tactics?"

 

But: "How many of us sacrifice role-playing our characters to gain a tactical edge?"

 

I do want to respond to some of the posts.

 

Supreme Serpent:

Good point.

It is, to a great degree the GM's responsibility to set the tone.

Are rash 'heroic' actions rewarded or punished?

However, unless the players and GM are careful there can be unintended changes to the tone.

If the players are expected to rush in and attack, the GM usually needs to make the opposing forces a bit weaker/less organized, so that the players don't get trashed every time.

But, the first time the players get a 'bloody nose' from villains that are more of a challenge or roll well, the players might start acting a bit more sneakily.

When they do this, they will have no problem rolling over the relatively light opposition, which can cause the GM to get a bit upset over his villains being 'disrespected'.

Next thing you know, the GM has upped the ante by making the villains more crafty and prepared, and you can end up with the situation where every player move can lead to disaster.

I am not saying that this more serious level of play is somehow 'wrong', but there is a difference between doing it that way on purpose, and ending up there by accident.

Doing it on purpose can result in a tense tactical game that everyone involved enjoys.

Doing it by accident can result in anger, paranoia, and a lot of negativity.

 

Zed-F - Quite right. In a more realistic game, playing tactically makes sense.

 

fbdaury - Your reply made me laugh.

Are you a lawyer?

It sounded like someone in the press had indirectly accused your character of hesitation during a crisis, and this was the press release intended to respond to the charge without admitting any wrongdoing.

 

When I started this thread, I was mainly thinking of decisions I have made concerning my own characters. It seems like the way I worded my first post made people think I was somehow equating tactics with cowardice.

 

I don't think that characters need to have a 'Hulk Smash' mentality, I just think that some players, including myself, play our characters like the relatively fragile, unheroic beings that we are, rather than the powerful figures that they are.

 

Mister E - I try to go for the 'comics simulation' style too. If that is the style you are playing, you are supposed to fall into ambushes, get put in deathtraps, etc. etc. I consider it part of the genre, at least the genre I want to play. On a related note, other than godlike alien beings, how many classic comic book heroes go around with all their special defenses activated at all times? If you think about it, Iron Man should probably be immune to basically any NND attack in the world. How hard would it be to filter out gasses, biological agents, radiation, etc., with that kind of technology available?

But, even though he can be immune to those effects, he doesn't seem to keep all of those defenses active all the time.

Which means Gas Man's Gas Attack can actually harm him, at least the first time, then he comes up with a way to deal with it.

I think if some players ran Iron Man, he would be in full 'Haz-Mat' mode at all times, which just takes away from the fun in my opinion.

 

TheTemplar - Bravo! This is exactly what I hope to improve in myself.

If a character is supposed to be tactical, that is fine. But if you are Mr. Impatient, you are going to wade in unless that appears to be suicidal or lethal to hostages/civilians.

 

Lamrok - While I don't know if I want that sort of thing formalized, I like the idea of playing your character, rather than the game being rewarded. A bonus XP for good roleplaying can do the job just fine.

 

sinanju - I admit to getting as much fun out of a good tactical victory as anyone, but I must refer back to my reply to Supreme Serpent. If this goes on too often then the GM will start to ramp up the opposition until you have to play tactically just to survive. Which is fine if that is what you want to do, but is not much fun if you don't really like that style of play.

 

Battlestaff - Battlestaff - I admit that there are times when fictional characters do things that are just stupid.

But there is a difference between stupid, flawed, and follwing your destiny.

 

I mean, Bilbo could have taken the Ring, as soon as he got it, jumped on one of those giant eagle things, flown to Mount Doom, and tossed it in and saved everyone a lot of trouble. But that is not how the story goes.

 

Bruce Banner could have realized that security was too slack around the test site, put up a fence, and prevented Rick Jones from ever getting in the way of the Gamma Bomb.

 

John McClane could have decided to keep his shoes on.

 

Sometimes playing out a good story means making some mistakes and taking some lumps. Avoiding all that can take a lot of flavor out of the game.

 

casualplayer - Good point about pacing. The GM can run the game in a manner where spending an hour deciding how to open an envelope isn't an option. But I would want there to be player buy-in on running things this way.

 

RDU Neil - I must say with tremendous respect and admiration that you play the game on a whole different level and in a completely different manner than I do. With the kind of attention to detail you describe, and the way you see the gaming experience, I would not begin to argue with your methods, even though they are not my own.

 

savagewolf - I am mostly replying to your post to say hello.

I don't remember talking to you before.

Thanks for posting to this thread.

 

However, I must respectfully disagree.

The Iron Man comics I have been reading reprints of were:

Tales of Suspense #73-99

Tales to Astonish #82

and

Iron Man #1-11

as reprinted in Essential Iron Man Vol. 2.

In these, Iron Man is constantly running low on power during a fight.

Often even the energy required to lift something extremely heavy will strain him to the point that he must back off and fight defensively.

Near the end of this run, Iron Man developed a thermocouple coating or something, that allowed him to get a recharge from extreme heat and cold, but before that he was constantly running low on power.

 

Thanks to everyone who posted.

I would like to discuss this further, but right now I have a car to fix, so I will be back later.

 

KA.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

 

 

Plus, whenever a characetr dies, it's always somebody's favorite, and we lose the future of that character. We aso get into the whole "can't kill the big players so only second stringers die" issue.

 

Which is a comics convention I have no desire to replicate. Death is a part of gaming characters whose main milieu is violence. There is no getting around that. To ignore it is to game a meaningless cartoon... might as well be playing cards.

 

 

Yeah. For example, you lost two players because they felt the deaths of their characters were arbitrary and unreasonable While we lack readership and stockholders (and Marvel wasn't public when Korvac was published, but it still had owners who wanted black ink, not red), we do have to cater the game to all players' (GM included) tastes. That's easier, of course, since we need only find common ground in a much smaller group of people, and can mix and match as needed to create that group, but it's still not a one man show.

 

Uhm... I've never lost players because their character's died. I'm not sure where that comes from, and to tell the truth, I've lost a helluva lot more characters in other folk's games than I've killed off.

 

Death is SUPPOSED to be disruptive and painful and not to be taken lightly. That is why it is... well... death. A player should feel a sense of loss, either because of emotional connection to the character (I've never felt this, but I know it happens) or because of loss of Story potential. But if a character dies during the telling of their Story... then that is powerful stuff.

 

The beauty of RPGs is that while a character may die... the important thing is the bigger Story (many stories) being told, and the PLAYER does not have to lose out, because they come in with a new character and drive the Story in a new direction.

 

A player has a right to be frustrated if they are just randomly killed... but facing off against a minor cosmic god is not random. That is what heroes do... they die fighting the good fight. Players may be upset, but as GM, I'd have made it clear "This is a no holds barred fight for all the marbles. Lose, and you could be killed. Dice go against you, such is the way. This is what it's all been building up to." Then, if they choose to run away, or avoid combat... fine, we now know the content of their character. (Pun intended.) Those who choose to fight anyway... they either die with honor or know the sweetest reward... the taste of victory truly earned.

 

As I read KA's question, however, it's "How many players will run the character in accordance with his personality, and take a heroic risk, and how many will game the numbers, submerging role play to gain tactical advantage".

 

If that was the question, I guess I read a lot more into it. You put it very simply. To that, I'm happy to answer that most of my players act "in character" vs. rule playing or metagaming 90% of the time, or better. When they do metagame, it is usually a sign to say, "Hold up. What's wrong? You seem to be out of character and really gaming the situation. Is something bugging you?" Most of the time they are just tired and not really into the situation for some reason... but sometimes it is miscommunication at the table causing frustration... while other times it can be the player feeling emotionally stressed by the situation (some of my players really get into the game) and they truly feel desperate and scared and are trying to avoid defeat. This is rare, these days... as we've gamed together for a long time... but such reactions are deeply ingrained to some.

[Kristopher]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

The BEYONDER? Jeezus... talk about the epitome of bad writing. I don't think I could have a legitimate discussion where the Beyonder was considered an example of genre... or if it was, then we are clearly not playing anything remotely like the same game, because the Beyonder would be the best example of something I would NEVER have happen in my games.

 

Now... if you are talking the classic Korvac saga... where all the Avengers were lying beaten after that... most near death and Thor had to become Don Blake in order to save them... that was one of the coolest situations that NEVER WAS. The very next issue, everybody is up and running about as if nothing ever happened... with no repercussions, no deaths, no slow recovery... in fact no mention of Korvac at all. (I think a new writer took over or something) but what could have been one of the best Avengers stories ever, turned out to be utterly without meaning or impact... and it was my first clue as a kid, that things in comics often really weren't written very well, and if I wanted good stories, I was going to have to tell them myself (through gaming) and without the lame cliches and bad plots and hackneyed events.

 

The idea of superhumans and individuals with great power and their effect on society and the world... these are grand concepts that comics have given us. The execution of such ideas... through bad writing in serialized format edited and controlled by committee and aimed at lowest common denominator audiences... well that stuff can just be tossed.

 

So much of what I see people describe as "genre" or "in character" is really just poorly executed stories intended to be disposable. Why copy that? Instead, make it better... more dramatic... more literate with more depth. Explore ramifications and cost and death and suffering and all those things that make the human condition fascinating and moving... just do it with demi-gods on a grand scale.

 

 

"That's boring, we want to play Superheroes!"

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

 

"That's boring, we want to play Superheroes!"

 

Succuctly stated. Depending on player expectations, there may or may not be a problem. From RDUNeil's comments, he's clear up front that death is a possibility, much more so than the likely genre expectation that heroes (especially first line heroes) are generally safe from mortal harm.

 

Running such a game for a group expecting Silver Age Supers is a GM error. Signing up for a campaign expecting to be unkillable when the campaign ground rules specify that death is a very real possibility is a player error.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

 

"That's boring, we want to play Superheroes!"

 

 

Uhm... I can't tell if you are agreeing with me, or making fun of me. Either one is fine I just need to understand.

[Guest C--]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Uhm... I can't tell if you are agreeing with me' date=' or making fun of me. Either one is fine I just need to understand.[/quote']

 

I think he's agreeing with you. Kristopher is not a fan of the Silver Age.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I think he's agreeing with you. Kristopher is not a fan of the Silver Age.

 

Oh... Ok.

 

Still, I don't think "Main Character Immunity" is something purely silver age. It is a facet of American mass produced serial stories. Iron Age or Silver... the main characters never seem to die. I don't like that in any Age.

 

I think books like the Authority lost their way when the same crap bits from the Silver Age (heroes always right... always another big fight... never really making any legitimate change... MAIN CHARACTERS DON'T REALLY DIE) and only changed the characters into mean spirited, violence mongers who slaughter their opponents rather than capture them with magic lassos.

 

For the Authority to have any... well... authority (legitimacy) as characters who are as hard and vicious... they need to be shown paying the ultimate price pretty regularly. Without that, they are just petty tyrants... just as pointless and disregardable as the four color cutouts they are supposed to stand against.

 

As supers, I think all characters should be a lot LESS LIKELY to die in combat... but it isn't a given. Being insanely hard to kill is part of what makes 'em super... by normal standards. But when they start to go against equals (supers of same/higher power) it should scale about the same. A super should be relatively immune to much of what a normal can throw at him... but another super... well, now you are back into a fight for your life.

 

That's my take on it... anyway.

[Storn]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I call it "as players, you need to know your GM's break points."

 

What breaks the game? If Vector (my main PC in RDU Neil's) goes busting into a hostage situation w/o a battle plan, do I expect Neil to cut me slack because I didn't want to think that night.

 

no.

 

Hostages get waxed, most likely.

 

If Drake busts in w/o thinking do I expect Neil to cut me slack.

 

Yes. Because Drake is impetuous, 1/2 dragon is all of 21 or 22. He has no military training and is simply a mystical martial artist studying to be a healer... there is a good chance if there is any life in the hostage, Drake can coax them to health. But I don't think Neil would expect me to come up with a plan of attack when playing Drake.

 

If Geist busts in w/o thinking, do I expect Neil to cut me slack.

 

No. Because Geist is an Intelligence Analyst.... who can talk to dead people. . Might be easier to get info from the Hostages about the Hostage Takers when I simply can command undead. Okay, I wouldn't do that... but it is always amusing to threaten that little gambit.... someday Neil is going to take me up on that... and it is going to be an ugly day.

 

...and I wouldn't want it any other way. I want my actions to matter and count. And I want them to be in not only the context of the greater RDU, but in the context of my characters... and all the characters at the table.

 

So Neil needs to know Storn's break pts too. And that only comes with experience and communication when new gamers play for the first dozen times. Each time a new player comes to RDU, we see them start the process of what is expected... and what isn't.

 

It is fine to go against the grain, to take huge risks, when you know that you are truly doing so. It is crappy when you go against the grain and you think it perfectly reasonable. That miscommunication is tough on a game.... and it is no ones fault. But it can slow the evening down... and great tragedies can happen from it.

 

We've developed somewhat of a short hand, of taking each other's temperatures, in the game.... if something seems really outta character, the GM will stop the game and say "are you sure? What motivates this action? What outcome do you see possible?" .... and sometimes that is all it takes. And sometimes, great stories and great ideas emerge from those intial halting pts.

 

Gotta know the breaks....

... then I can answer the question more fully of whether Stark should recharge his batteries or not.

[Kristopher]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Uhm... I can't tell if you are agreeing with me' date=' or making fun of me. Either one is fine I just need to understand.[/quote']

 

I was agreeing with you. The part in quotes, followed by the rolling eyes, is what I expected to read in response to you from the people who always tell me that because my setting isn't contrived and my characters aren't idiots, that I'm "not playing superheroes", I'm playing "guys who happen to have powers".

[Kristopher]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I think he's agreeing with you. Kristopher is not a fan of the Silver Age.

 

There's not really any one "Age" I'm a fan of. All have their parts that leave me less than enthused.

 

Why drink cheap beer?

Why date unpleasant women?

Why watch bad movies?

Why read bad books?

Why eat boring food?

Why tell cardboard stories?

[Vondy]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

1) the characters we play aren't always source material clones.

 

For strict simulationists this would be regarded as a Bad Thing . For others its an acceptable dichotomy. Personally, I wish hero's were more pragmatic on occassion. It would make them, and their stories, more interesting. Related to this is the notion that, while I may like iron man and want to play "cool power armor guy" I may not want to play Tony Stark. Or I may think spidey is cool and make a power facsimile of him, but I may not want to play Peter Parker.

 

2) the mechanics impose limitations that seldom exist in the source material.

 

Iron Man may be running low on energy, but the writer isn't sitting there looking at an abstact mathematical extrapolation and trying to figure out if he can pull of what the writer wants him to accomplish in the scene. Iron Man won't run out of power in the middle of the scene. The whole bit with low-energy is just writer schtick to make him look heroic. The player is sitting there trying to figure out whether they'll run out of power because it may actually happen to them.

 

The players don't have Tony Stark's plot immunity in this regard. As a result, they're operating under a different set of restructions and will, accordingly, make different choices. The GM can overcome this by either tailoring the scenario so that the players will feel they have the staying power to pull it off, or by not tracking endurance with much granularity. The mechanical realities of play will have an impact of the way your players play, and the tone and tenor of your world. Strict enforcement of the rules will lead to a "more realistic, gritty" style of play.

 

If Tony Stark didn't have plot immunity - he'd be more tactical too.

 

3) varying GM-Player expectations and establishing trust.

 

This is related to #2. The GM and players may have different expectations about what the genre entails, or what "fair expectations" within mechanical limitions are. The players may also hear what the GM tells them, but have a long experience with other GMs (often reactionary jerks who punish players for trying new things or actually playing their characters). If the GM wants to engender a specific style of play he needs to engineer the mechanics to support it - and then reward the players for rising to that style of play. If you want the players to charge into banks while low on power - then you'd better let them pull it off 4 times out of 5 or they'll learn, rightfully so, that failure is to be expected.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Which is a comics convention I have no desire to replicate. Death is a part of gaming characters whose main milieu is violence. There is no getting around that. To ignore it is to game a meaningless cartoon... might as well be playing cards.

 

You know - you're right. I'll just go quit Champions now - after all, every game I've ever been in is a hollow sham, might as well not bother.

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

The GM and players may have different expectations about what the genre entails' date=' or what "fair expectations" within mechanical limitions are. The players may also hear what the GM tells them, but have a long experience with other GMs (often reactionary jerks who punish players for trying new things or actually playing their characters). If the GM wants to engender a specific style of play he needs to engineer the mechanics to support it - and then [i']reward the players for rising to that style of play[/i]. If you want the players to charge into banks while low on power - then you'd better let them pull it off 4 times out of 5 or they'll learn, rightfully so, that failure is to be expected.

Amen. If you want the players to run heroes and not just tactical munchkins, you've got to make heroics something with a reasonable chance of success. The most popular and longest lived characters in the comics got that way by always taking the heroic route; not by thinking "The Hobgoblin's got my number and I'm down to half my Stun. I think I'll call it a night. Too bad about the hostages; but at least I can catch CSI: Miami tonight."

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Amen. If you want the players to run heroes and not just tactical munchkins' date=' you've got to make heroics something with a reasonable chance of success. The most popular and longest lived characters in the comics got that way by always taking the heroic route; not by thinking "The Hobgoblin's got my number and I'm down to half my Stun. I think I'll call it a night. Too bad about the hostages; but at least I can catch CSI: Miami tonight."[/quote']

 

It's tough to have sympathy for a GM who pounds PC's into the dirt (or just kills them) whenever they make a tactical errtor, then complains that his players overanalyze, or don't take risks, isn't it?

[Cybertooth]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

This is related to #2. The GM and players may have different expectations about what the genre entails' date=' or what "fair expectations" within mechanical limitions are. The players may also hear what the GM tells them, but have a long experience with other GMs (often reactionary jerks who punish players for trying new things or actually playing their characters). If the GM wants to engender a specific style of play he needs to engineer the mechanics to support it - and then [i']reward the players for rising to that style of play[/i]. If you want the players to charge into banks while low on power - then you'd better let them pull it off 4 times out of 5 or they'll learn, rightfully so, that failure is to be expected.

 

Damn, I've never heard it explained better than that.

 

I always tried to reward the players who would play in a heroic style. They were rewarded with XP, but also I fudged rolls, ad-libbed rules, and tailored the villains reactions as necessary so the players could pull it off.

 

Personally, the "story" was much more important for myself and my players than strict adherence to the rules. Many times the "heroic" endeavor oftentimes succeeded, whereas the well thought out tactical endeavor did not.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

I call it "as players, you need to know your GM's break points."

 

What breaks the game?

 

SNIP

 

If Drake busts in w/o thinking do I expect Neil to cut me slack.

 

Yes. Because Drake is impetuous, 1/2 dragon is all of 21 or 22. He has no military training and is simply a mystical martial artist studying to be a healer... there is a good chance if there is any life in the hostage, Drake can coax them to health. But I don't think Neil would expect me to come up with a plan of attack when playing Drake.

 

SNIP

 

And by "cutting him some slack" it can mean different things. From a GM perspective, it means I simply do not create such situations for Drake to face. I taylor the story to the character knowing that Drake's capital-S story is not likely to involve intricate, tactical hostage crises. The player should be confident that the GM knows the character and isn't setting them up to fail.

 

Now... if such was to come up... it would be my duty as GM to point out... a real metagame discussion... to say, "I am, on purpose, putting Drake in a situation where his normal attitude/strenghts may not work... I'm stressing the character, and I know this... and I want you as the PLAYER to understand this."

 

This way, they PLAYER understands that this is not a status quo game. This is challenging the character and player beyond the normal milieu. This is "outside the comfort zone" as the saying goes. This way... the player knows AHEAD OF TIME that if they play Drake normally, and he goes charging in (a legitimate role playing choice)... hostages might get waxed and thus Drake's normal method fails. This also could have the player decide to role play Drake's frustration at not knowing what to do, because he's out of his depth. It could result in legitimate character growth, where Drake is roll played to have a moment of maturity and actually stop and think... etc. Options are open on this.

 

The problems arise when the player thinks this is a status quo "Drake kicks ass" adventure... but the GM is thinking "Drake gets in over his head" adventure.

 

IMO... a player should be open to challenges that stretch their characters, or where their characters aren't really suited for the task... but the GM has ultimate responsibility for COMMUNICATING SUCH INTENT clearly, and not spring it on the player in a "Ha! Gotcha!" fashion.

 

...and I wouldn't want it any other way. I want my actions to matter and count. And I want them to be in not only the context of the greater RDU, but in the context of my characters... and all the characters at the table.

 

The above assumes more of a solo style adventure... but Storn makes a good point when he mentions "all the characters." In a group game, character types and personalities are vastly different... so a reckless character can be at a loss during a tactical moment... and the tactical planner can get left behind when full charge is needed... and this dynamic is very fragile. If players (including GM) have developed a level of trust that they understand that sometimes they are the focus, and sometimes they are in the background... ok. But if a player expects every situation to be one where their character is best suited to deal with it (in a group of varying abilities and talents) that just isn't going to work out... because they'll be frustrated as often as not.

 

So Neil needs to know Storn's break pts too. And that only comes with experience and communication when new gamers play for the first dozen times. Each time a new player comes to RDU, we see them start the process of what is expected... and what isn't.

 

It is fine to go against the grain, to take huge risks, when you know that you are truly doing so. It is crappy when you go against the grain and you think it perfectly reasonable. That miscommunication is tough on a game.... and it is no ones fault. But it can slow the evening down... and great tragedies can happen from it.

 

I think Storn is talking about (with the comment on miscommunication) exactly what I mentioned above.

 

We've developed somewhat of a short hand, of taking each other's temperatures, in the game.... if something seems really outta character, the GM will stop the game and say "are you sure? What motivates this action? What outcome do you see possible?" .... and sometimes that is all it takes. And sometimes, great stories and great ideas emerge from those intial halting pts.

 

Snip

 

Again... we have developed a form of "metagame" communication. This is very "Un-SIM" and much more Nar in preference, but it works in such situations to keep the level of anger and frustration to a low simmer. We simply understand that, even after 12 plus years gaming together, we still can't read each other's minds. You have to be explicit in communicating your intent when needed, so that a player and GM are truly telling the same Story during the game.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

It's tough to have sympathy for a GM who pounds PC's into the dirt (or just kills them) whenever they make a tactical errtor' date=' then complains that his players overanalyze, or don't take risks, isn't it?[/quote']

 

Now I feel like this is aimed at me... but it is completely unfair. I agree with this whole heartedly... but the fact being that there is no "all this" or "all that."

 

A game shouldn't have to be "All analysis and planning" anymore than it should be "All big, reckless action without consequence."

 

There is so much in between... and tactics is not the same as munchkining. A charcter who is beat up and half dead doesn't just have "attack head on" and "go home and watch CSI" as their two options. There are a million options in between.

 

What if... instead of Spider-Man swinging through a window and cracking wise to let the villains know he is there after being beaten half to death by Carnage on the way... instead Peter thinks it through... sneaks in quietly. Takes off the costume... poses as one of the hostages in order to lure the badguy near... then pops him hard and webs him up without a prolonged struggle that could cost civillian lives.

 

That is tactical in the extreme... but it is not munchkining.

 

It is heroic in the extreme... but it is not reckless.

 

It is clever and makes for a fascinating story... one that was driven by a player who knew (from the numbers) that his character wasn't at peak efficiency and thought of a different way to succeed. Numbers actually drive great role playing... hmmmmm... that couldn't be... could it?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Now I feel like this is aimed at me... but it is completely unfair. I agree with this whole heartedly... but the fact being that there is no "all this" or "all that."

 

Just for the record, it wasn't aimed at you. I've never seen you complain your players/characters won't take risks, nor do I see any indication that you run a "make a mistake at any time and you're flattened" game.

 

What I do see is a game whose parameters are well considered, and outlined at the outset so anyone playing knows what the game world is all about.

 

I also intuit (though I haven't seen it posted) that, if a player gives you a character whose personality/psych's/abilities screams "short lifespan in my game", you would tell the player this character is going to have trouble surviving in your game.

 

The rest of your comments are dead on, but I haven't reprinted them here as I have nothing of substance to add.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Player vs. Character

 

Just for the record, it wasn't aimed at you. I've never seen you complain your players/characters won't take risks, nor do I see any indication that you run a "make a mistake at any time and you're flattened" game.

 

What I do see is a game whose parameters are well considered, and outlined at the outset so anyone playing knows what the game world is all about.

 

I also intuit (though I haven't seen it posted) that, if a player gives you a character whose personality/psych's/abilities screams "short lifespan in my game", you would tell the player this character is going to have trouble surviving in your game.

 

The rest of your comments are dead on, but I haven't reprinted them here as I have nothing of substance to add.

 

Ok thanks.

 

Heh... screams "Short lifespan!"... yeah, I've had a few... but I I don't disallow them out of hand. Instead just let them know where there weaknesses lie. I've had players think about it and say... "Ok... I still want to play a reckless type... so what if I change the power set so that he is less vulnerable to insta-death... that way you can beat him up and kick him around a lot, without death being easy. A big tough guy would have reason to be reckless and overconfident, until he learns differently by running into people who can actually hurt him."

 

Those kind of characters are fun, because the player gets to play, but knows that such behavior is actually very dangerous, and is ok with that. The character's capital-S story is one of exploring how that overconfidence shapes his life and events... how it is a strength and weakness... etc. The idea is that we are open to exploring how the concept plays out in this game world... but it is not a "I still succeed 'cause I'm a PC, no matter how dumb my actions" anymore than it is "I always succeed because I'm a studious planner."

 

I guess, going back to the initial question on "in character" or not... that as a GM I do have the expectation of character growth and development within a consistent, causal world. I don't believe in static characters that exist just to play out some kind of schtick, or genre in a predetermined or stagnant way.

 

In some ways this is really it. Much of what (IMO, of course) people see in comics as "in character" is often just "current issue of two dimensional character doing the same thing over again that they have for the past 200 issues." Because comics have to protect some kind of status quo, logical extrapolation of ideas and events don't take place... characters don't really grow or change... and things become stale and pointless pretty quickly.

 

To take the original Iron Man situation... I could see, early in his career, Stark being a bit reckless and not topping off his batteries... as long as, over time, he learns from it. Instead of "running out of power" being lame writer macguffin... in my games it would be impetus for the character to learn how to overcome such a weakness or eventually succumb to it. Thus... it might be "in character" for Stark to be reckless in issue #20... but NOT in character by issue #200, where you'd hope he learned not to do that by now.

 

Again... move away from the bad elements driven by poorly written serials, and have character development over time that provides drama and a sense of accomplishment and growth to the player, GM and gaming world as a whole.