Things not covered/addressed in Hero

[Brian Stanfield]

2 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

If you want to encourage role playing, maybe something like "Drama Dice" (which I'm making up as I type)... say PCs have a pool of dice, separated (by color?) from their other dice. They can choose to add these dice to a damage roll, or have the subtracted from a skill roll, but the number of dice, or amount rolled on them would result in some kind of challenge or dramatic shift appropriate to the story... and the PLAYERS get to help come up with this outcome, not just the GM... so "We are getting smacked down by the Doominator! I go all in on this blast, 'cause we have to take him out!  (Rolls big dice pool with Drama Dice added... gets big numbers!) YES! Got him! But oh boy, look at all those drama dice... something... let me think... oh, I got it, you mentioned that school bus earlier!  Well my blast was so powerful, it cracked the bridge struts, and suddenly it is starting to collapse out from under that bus! We have to save 'em!"   

 

This is interesting. What do you see the drama dice numbers re-resenting? Are they trading off an advantage gained in exchange for a dramatic twist? Otherwise who'd want to roll those dice? I like the idea of a dice pool, I just can't get my head around it yet...

[RDU Neil]

4 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 

This is interesting. What do you see the drama dice numbers re-resenting? Are they trading off an advantage gained in exchange for a dramatic twist? Otherwise who'd want to roll those dice? I like the idea of a dice pool, I just can't get my head around it yet...

 

Yes... Advantage Gained vs. Dramatic Challenge.  As a kind of hamfisted example... say, the player, when they get the advantage (adding extra dice to an attack, or guaranteeing a skill roll, whatever) the GM (or even better ,the play group as a whole) get a chit or something symbolizing "Drama!" which will force a challenging, dramatic shift when played. So... now, the PC, having just gotten the bonus to make a really difficult stealth role, sneaks into the base... GM asks, "Ok... any ideas on the drama challenge?" and one of the other players says, "I have an idea... how about this... we see PC Lad sneaking into the base, but cut scene, not far behind him, dressed in black with a look of determination on her face, is LL Smith, Roving Reporter and PC Lad's DNPC, who'd followed him up to Storm Mountain in the hopes of a big story! She follows PC Lad's path, and thinks she's made it when out of nowhere, a net falls on her followed by six ninjas! She's captured!"  

 

So now the PC's DNPC has been invoked, providing dramatic challenge, and it was a group decision and interaction that brought it into play, not just the GM "screwing with" the player. Suddenly the game becomes really fun and engaging storytelling. You'll get players debating whether it is good or necessary to risk further challenge for a benefit now. You can limit the number of times you can invoke the benefit, making it a special, powerful moment in the story, etc.

 

Sure, if you have min-max munchkins in the group where they only want to demonstrate rule mastery and that they are 'better' at the game than others... well, they aren't going to buy into this. But if people want story and drama and character development and such, this kind of thing can give a structure to pulling them out of the group imagination, rather than just hoping people are all on the same page and engaged.

[zslane]

I sort of feel that narrative mechanics are best employed for situations that are difficult for most gamers to roleplay intuitively. For instance, most gamers who don't come from a drama background will have difficulty playing a slow descent into madness, stretched over many playing sessions, with all the various elements that might go into that. A game that offers guidance in the form of formal Sanity mechanics can go a long way towards capturing abnormal character behaviors that players have difficulty expressing themselves. But narrative mechanics that merely steer players towards roleplaying fundamental aspects of their characters (especially in a genre-appropriate manner) seems a bit too much like RPG "training wheels" to me, which is fine for beginners I suppose, but seems unnecessary and perhaps heavy-handed otherwise.

[Brian Stanfield]

2 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

Yes... Advantage Gained vs. Dramatic Challenge.  As a kind of hamfisted example... say, the player, when they get the advantage (adding extra dice to an attack, or guaranteeing a skill roll, whatever) the GM (or even better ,the play group as a whole) get a chit or something symbolizing "Drama!" which will force a challenging, dramatic shift when played. So... now, the PC, having just gotten the bonus to make a really difficult stealth role, sneaks into the base... GM asks, "Ok... any ideas on the drama challenge?" and one of the other players says, "I have an idea... how about this... we see PC Lad sneaking into the base, but cut scene, not far behind him, dressed in black with a look of determination on her face, is LL Smith, Roving Reporter and PC Lad's DNPC, who'd followed him up to Storm Mountain in the hopes of a big story! She follows PC Lad's path, and thinks she's made it when out of nowhere, a net falls on her followed by six ninjas! She's captured!"  

 

Ninjas always make things better!

[Brian Stanfield]

2 hours ago, zslane said:

I sort of feel that narrative mechanics are best employed for situations that are difficult for most gamers to roleplay intuitively. For instance, most gamers who don't come from a drama background will have difficulty playing a slow descent into madness, stretched over many playing sessions, with all the various elements that might go into that. A game that offers guidance in the form of formal Sanity mechanics can go a long way towards capturing abnormal character behaviors that players have difficulty expressing themselves. But narrative mechanics that merely steer players towards roleplaying fundamental aspects of their characters (especially in a genre-appropriate manner) seems a bit too much like RPG "training wheels" to me, which is fine for beginners I suppose, but seems unnecessary and perhaps heavy-handed otherwise.

 

Agreed. This is more of a "training wheels" approach to teach role playing to younger folks who have never really been challenged to do it. Introducing some sort of mechanic may help teach some of those meta-game roleplaying fundamentals. Ultimately, this is what Complications are designed to do. Anyone who feels that the GM is picking on their character by utilizing their Complications in the game have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the tradeoff is for the extra character points for building their character. The "drama dice" pool is another way to instantiate what is already suggested in the rules, as brought up by sentry0:

 

20 hours ago, sentry0 said:

You could always hand out a couple of on-the-spot HAPs if you use them.  I doubt good roleplayers would care about HAPs or any other incentive...they don't need an excuse to roleplay, just an opportunity.

 

Roleplaying opportunities can be tough to engineer in some groups but you can stack the deck in it's favor if you know the characters Psy Lims.  Complications in general are a goldmine in terms of understanding what types of situations you could setup to encourage roleplaying.  It's a little sadistic but I like finding conflicting Psy Lims on players and putting them in a situation that will provoke conflict between them...it has led to some great roleplaying in groups I've been in.

 

Edit: I should point out that don't set the players against one another unless you're absolutely sure they're mature enough to handle it

 

I'd forgotten about HAPs, and think that maybe that could be a great carrot-on-a-stick that is already addressed in the rules. So it looks like, perhaps, this is again something that actually is covered in the rules . . .

[zslane]

One thing I like about Complications is that they serve to remind players of a genre's most iconic conventions, and for those not very familiar with a genre they can serve a tutorial function. But I also think Complications go a bit beyond merely teaching how to roleplay, especially in a Champions (superhero) context where everything is cranked up to 11.

 

Complications are attributes of a character so potentially debilitating that you deserve some sort of compensation for agreeing to take them. Rather than viewing them as enforcing genre conventions and role-aligned actions (after all, they are entirely optional in the sense that every character is free to not take any), I find it more worthwhile to view them as reward vehicles for voluntarily taking traits that will cause real, and sometimes dire, difficulties for PCs. I see Complications as a vital part of the point economy built into the very foundation of the Hero System, and not merely as a means to incentivise roleplaying (that's just a side effect, in my view).

 

Another benefit of Complications is that they help GMs build plots that are PC-centric, which engage players far more deeply than generic plots with little or no direct connection to their characters. If Complications incentivise anything they incentivise PC-centric plot construction, which is full of win in my book because that helps intertwine characters with the game setting in a way that even writing an elaborate piece of fanfic as a backstory usually won't.

[RDU Neil]

5 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 

Agreed. This is more of a "training wheels" approach to teach role playing to younger folks who have never really been challenged to do it. Introducing some sort of mechanic may help teach some of those meta-game roleplaying fundamentals. Ultimately, this is what Complications are designed to do. Anyone who feels that the GM is picking on their character by utilizing their Complications in the game have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the tradeoff is for the extra character points for building their character. The "drama dice" pool is another way to instantiate what is already suggested in the rules, as brought up by sentry0:

 

 

I'd forgotten about HAPs, and think that maybe that could be a great carrot-on-a-stick that is already addressed in the rules. So it looks like, perhaps, this is again something that actually is covered in the rules . . .

 

No... just no... I use these  Narrative mechanics with people I've been playing  with for 35 years in places. These mechanics are not training wheels, they are as integral to making the game work as having mechanics for resolving whether a punch lands or misses. "If you are mature role players you don't need rules for that. You should just be able to role play the fight without mechanics." They guide the group and provide structure for group interaction.

 

Not at all. The mechanics make the game. Mechanics matter to what kind of imaginative additions can be brought in, under what circumstances, etc. 

[Beast]

On 4/11/2018 at 5:32 PM, zslane said:

A good GM will make use of those Complications for sure. Unfortunately, they require a certain degree of cooperation from the players. They have to "play along", so to speak, for that to really work, and some players just don't. There's only so much the mechanics can do in the face of an unwilling player. You can usually spot the non-roleplayers because they are the ones who get irritated when their Complications come up in play, and they are the first to ask how they can buy them off as quickly as possible.

 

If the player does not want to ,then don't force them and give the drama and face/limelight time to a player who will
when they ask why is so and so getting more limelight/face time you tell them you did not want it when it was offered and so and so is willing to play

[Hugh Neilson]

19 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

So now the PC's DNPC has been invoked, providing dramatic challenge, and it was a group decision and interaction that brought it into play, not just the GM "screwing with" the player. Suddenly the game becomes really fun and engaging storytelling. You'll get players debating whether it is good or necessary to risk further challenge for a benefit now. You can limit the number of times you can invoke the benefit, making it a special, powerful moment in the story, etc.

 

Maybe getting your Drama Di(c)e back requires resolving the challenge brought on by their last application. 

 

In a Champions setting, there's a challenge in that subtracting 1d6 from a resolution roll is way more powerful than adding damage of 1d6 - maybe a Drama Die used for damage multiplies based on the number of dice already in the pool - say, 1 Drama Die = 1/3 of dice being rolled, since that's the ratio for a 3d6 roll to hit or succeed on a skill.

 

19 hours ago, zslane said:

I sort of feel that narrative mechanics are best employed for situations that are difficult for most gamers to roleplay intuitively. For instance, most gamers who don't come from a drama background will have difficulty playing a slow descent into madness, stretched over many playing sessions, with all the various elements that might go into that. A game that offers guidance in the form of formal Sanity mechanics can go a long way towards capturing abnormal character behaviors that players have difficulty expressing themselves. But narrative mechanics that merely steer players towards roleplaying fundamental aspects of their characters (especially in a genre-appropriate manner) seems a bit too much like RPG "training wheels" to me, which is fine for beginners I suppose, but seems unnecessary and perhaps heavy-handed otherwise.

 

To flip that around, if the players are already good role players, then any role playing mechanics would largely fade into the background anyway, wouldn't they?  He's already role playing the SAN loss or terror invoked well anyway, so the fact a roll says he has to means nothing, really.

 

16 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 

Agreed. This is more of a "training wheels" approach to teach role playing to younger folks who have never really been challenged to do it. Introducing some sort of mechanic may help teach some of those meta-game roleplaying fundamentals. Ultimately, this is what Complications are designed to do. Anyone who feels that the GM is picking on their character by utilizing their Complications in the game have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the tradeoff is for the extra character points for building their character. The "drama dice" pool is another way to instantiate what is already suggested in the rules, as brought up by sentry0:

 

I prefer the 6e model that you get X points to build your character's mechanics and Y points to direct a portion of the challenges in the game, the latter being Complications, to the 5e and prior "you get more power if you accept being punished with disadvantages".  Similar to the comment above, I find Psychological don't chafe much when that is how you were going to role play your character anyway.  In fact, I see a lot of Psych's played to worse detriment to the character than a GM would necessarily enforce.

 

15 hours ago, zslane said:

Another benefit of Complications is that they help GMs build plots that are PC-centric, which engage players far more deeply than generic plots with little or no direct connection to their characters. If Complications incentivise anything they incentivise PC-centric plot construction, which is full of win in my book because that helps intertwine characters with the game setting in a way that even writing an elaborate piece of fanfic as a backstory usually won't.

 

Just so!

[Brian Stanfield]

13 hours ago, RDU Neil said:

 

No... just no... I use these  Narrative mechanics with people I've been playing  with for 35 years in places. These mechanics are not training wheels, they are as integral to making the game work as having mechanics for resolving whether a punch lands or misses. "If you are mature role players you don't need rules for that. You should just be able to role play the fight without mechanics." They guide the group and provide structure for group interaction.

 

Not at all. The mechanics make the game. Mechanics matter to what kind of imaginative additions can be brought in, under what circumstances, etc. 

 

No offense intended, RDU Neil. I should have been more explicit that the "training wheels" are for my case in particular, not for you or anyone else who may use this approach. In principle, zslane is right in that people need to want to role play in the first place rather than just problem solving. But I agree with you in that incentives are a great tool to keep people's heads in the game.

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Maybe getting your Drama Di(c)e back requires resolving the challenge brought on by their last application. 

 

In a Champions setting, there's a challenge in that subtracting 1d6 from a resolution roll is way more powerful than adding damage of 1d6 - maybe a Drama Die used for damage multiplies based on the number of dice already in the pool - say, 1 Drama Die = 1/3 of dice being rolled, since that's the ratio for a 3d6 roll to hit or succeed on a skill.

 

I was thinking about this imbalancing problem as well: perhaps the dice could count as xd6 to add to damage, so if you roll 3 "drama dice" a 1, a 5, and a 6, you add 12 to the damage. But when used for reducing skill rolls, penalties, etc., the body of the dice could be counted for the reduction. For instance, if you roll 3d6 "drama dice" to influence a skill roll, and roll a 1, a 5, and a 6, you'd get -0, -1, and -2 for a total of -3 to the skill roll. 

[RDU Neil]

1 hour ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 

No offense intended, RDU Neil. I should have been more explicit that the "training wheels" are for my case in particular, not for you or anyone else who may use this approach. In principle, zslane is right in that people need to want to role play in the first place rather than just problem solving. But I agree with you in that incentives are a great tool to keep people's heads in the game.

 

 

I was thinking about this imbalancing problem as well: perhaps the dice could count as xd6 to add to damage, so if you roll 3 "drama dice" a 1, a 5, and a 6, you add 12 to the damage. But when used for reducing skill rolls, penalties, etc., the body of the dice could be counted for the reduction. For instance, if you roll 3d6 "drama dice" to influence a skill roll, and roll a 1, a 5, and a 6, you'd get -0, -1, and -2 for a total of -3 to the skill roll. 

 

Ah... I get you. Thanks for the explanation.

As for drama dice, remember I was literally making up the idea as I typed, so I'm sure there are plenty of tweaks needed to keep it balanced and playable. I can always post my "Luck Chit" rules that I use for my game as well, since it is very much the Nar mechanic I layered on top of Hero. It works well and has been play tested for years, so I know where the balance is and where it tends to break. (Like any rule, it can be misused or break in certain circumstances, etc.)

 

One thing I personally have noticed is that Nar mechanics can heavily shift the play style of a group. It may not seem like much, but simply having a chance to re-roll once or twice a game can heavily influence how sessions play out, and the more players you have the more people can use their narrative power, etc. Missed activation or skill rolls, or even a missed attack when it really matters... now you have that "nope... reroll" chance, and things tend to reduce those outlier bad moments. My experience is that it gives players more confidence in their characters, because it lowers the "feels bad man" moments that pure dice rolls can generate. This is a plus for our gaming group, but is certainly up to each, depending on play styles.

 

 

[zslane]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

To flip that around, if the players are already good role players, then any role playing mechanics would largely fade into the background anyway, wouldn't they?  He's already role playing the SAN loss or terror invoked well anyway, so the fact a roll says he has to means nothing, really.

 

 

If all you're after is a pure roleplaying session, then you don't generally need mechanics at all. Aaron Allston's Champions group used to do this using a technique he called "blue booking". You really only need to break out the dice and the game mechanics when you need an impartial and consistent system to take over the element of chance and unpredictability inherent in most highly dramatic situations. And you really only need the numbers on a character sheet when it is important to compare characters with monsters or other characters in a logical and consistent manner. You can always throw out the numbers, the dice, and the mechanics completely, but then you aren't playing a game in my view, you are engaging in improvisational theatre, which is a related but distinct experience.

 

To bring this back to your example, the SAN roll in that situation would serve to confirm what the player is already doing, letting him or her know that they are in the right lane, so to speak, and mildly course correcting when the results differ dramatically from the way the character is being played. Remember, the dice usually represent forces outside the player's control, so when a SAN roll says the character should be more unstable and less sane than being portrayed, that is an indication that the situation has become more intense and dire (for the character) than the player realized from pure intuition.

 

At the end of the day, I don't see any controversy with the idea of using dice and mechanics to guide and shape roleplaying. That's not at all the same thing as robbing players of their agency. Part of playing an RPG is relinquishing a certain degree of agency to circumstances and forces in the game setting that nobody but the GM has control over.

[dsatow]

Personally, I think the mechanics of the game system work best depending on the personality of the players/GM.  I've found some people like rule intensive systems, some like narrative, and some like something in between.  I've run rather intensive role playing sessions (few dice rolls) and while some players really like the format, some did not.  I've also run all combat sessions and die rolls galore to the same situation.  I think it all boils down to personal taste and that's why the hobby has so many different systems for different people. 

[Hugh Neilson]

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:03 AM, zslane said:

 

If all you're after is a pure roleplaying session, then you don't generally need mechanics at all. Aaron Allston's Champions group used to do this using a technique he called "blue booking". You really only need to break out the dice and the game mechanics when you need an impartial and consistent system to take over the element of chance and unpredictability inherent in most highly dramatic situations. And you really only need the numbers on a character sheet when it is important to compare characters with monsters or other characters in a logical and consistent manner. You can always throw out the numbers, the dice, and the mechanics completely, but then you aren't playing a game in my view, you are engaging in improvisational theatre, which is a related but distinct experience.

 

This is a very valid point - what is an RPG beyond "let's pretend" with more objective, rather than purely subjective, task resolution? 

 

"I shot you - fall down, you are dead!" 

 

"No, you missed - I am not hurt."

 

is replaced with "My roll hits any DCV up to 9", so we can determine whether I hit or missed.  Then we will roll damage and see whether you are dead, or how injured you are, if you were indeed hit.

 

But the line gets drawn in different placed by different people.

 

On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:03 AM, zslane said:

To bring this back to your example, the SAN roll in that situation would serve to confirm what the player is already doing, letting him or her know that they are in the right lane, so to speak, and mildly course correcting when the results differ dramatically from the way the character is being played. Remember, the dice usually represent forces outside the player's control, so when a SAN roll says the character should be more unstable and less sane than being portrayed, that is an indication that the situation has become more intense and dire (for the character) than the player realized from pure intuition.

 

At the end of the day, I don't see any controversy with the idea of using dice and mechanics to guide and shape roleplaying. That's not at all the same thing as robbing players of their agency. Part of playing an RPG is relinquishing a certain degree of agency to circumstances and forces in the game setting that nobody but the GM has control over.

 

To take a more commonly debated mechanic, a great Charm or Persuasion roll by an NPC perhaps should be taken to indicate that my character should be more persuaded and willing to believe him than I, the player, wanted, or realized from pure intuition.  Rather than contradicting the dice when Slick Eddie rolls a 4 on his Persuasion roll, should I not relinquish a degree of agency to circumstances including Slick Eddie's social skills, and that great die roll, and accept that my character is seeing things Eddy's way?

 

If Slick Eddie had, instead, pulled a Saturday night special, and I laughed because I have a DCV of 10, and I know he has an OCV of 3, that 4 would still hit.  No one would side with me if I insisted that he should have missed instead of taking me out with a lucky damage roll.  Why should Slick Eddie's social skills should only affect me if I choose to allow it, or I am being "robbed of player agency"?  Just like, in CoC, the Sanity system will dictate just how hard my character's mental state is hit by shocking circumstances, and Cthulhu's combat stats will dictate whether how rapidly and gruesomely my character dies.

 

Note that I am intentionally flipping between "I/me" and "my character".  But I am not my character, and I should not conflate them.  I am playing a role in a game - hence the name of the hobby.  That is the role of my character, as my character interacts with the game rules. 

 

I am not being robbed of player agency when the dice do not go my way, and the mechanics dictate things do not play out as I may have wished.  I direct what I want my character to do in the game, be it resisting Slick Eddie's persuasive charms, dodging his gunfire, maintaining my grip when confronted with a shocking or terrifying event, or surviving an encounter with a Great Old One.  But my character's abilities, as compared to the abilities of those wishing to prevent my character achieving the goals I have set out for him, are adjudicated by the dice to determine whether my character successfully achieves the objectives I have given him.  At least, that is the way it works in a game.  When I see the results, I should be playing the role of my character as he responds to those results (or, perhaps, making a new character, depending on just how bad those results were for the present one).

[Doc Democracy]

There is a fantastic mechanic in FFG Star Wars called the destiny pool.

 

Instead of everyone having individual fate points or power points, there is a shared pool with a fixed number of points.  If it is set up with six points, three of them are dark, three of them are light.  At any time the players or GM can use a destiny point to improve a roll, add something to the story etc, just like most of these mechanics.  The twist is that when you use a destiny point as a player one of the White points turns black.  The GM can use them to alter dice rolls etc and that changes a dark point white but can also turn them over when the players achieve things, act heroically etc.

 

it is surprisingly effective especially when the GM constantly tempts you with what he will offer IF you want to spend a destiny point...the slow turn of white to dark actually ramps up the tension and there is a dynamic early in the game where the players are casual about using the points but really try to get it all or mostly white by the end, when things are heading to a climax.

 

Doc

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh to go along with your post, the problem can be people get too attached to their characters. Depending on the genre, I like the idea of templates for characters if the game is going to be really deadly.  For example, I always had it in my head to run Agents through an Aliens (movie) style game. Nobody wants to be outta a game early so I envision extras that could be used by players in a pinch. I figure though if the characters are prebuilt or quick template builds, then the players haven’t invested a lot of time that if death comes they shouldn’t be upset with it. 

[Hugh Neilson]

Ninja-Bear, way back, our group was largely playing Champions, D&D and CoC (Chaosium version).  It was noted that CoC characters required by far the least investment in time and effort to create and manage experience for, and rightly so.

 

We also had a player describe the games (and genres) as:

 

CHAMPIONS - if you play reasonably well, the characters will likely succeed in the scenario.  It's pretty much impossible they will be killed.

 

D&D - if you play very well, the characters will likely succeed in the scenario.  If you play reasonably well, the characters will likely survive, and may also succeed.

 

CoC - if you play extremely well, and the dice land in your favour, your character has a shot at surviving to play in the next scenario.  Don't get too attached.

 

Actually, I also find this is an answer to many complaints that players don't put in an effort to invoke personality in their characters.  No one wants to spend 4 hours working on a background and carefully crafted personality for a character who may not life for 4 minutes in the game.

[zslane]

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Hugh to go along with your post, the problem can be people get too attached to their characters.

 

Yeah, I've seen cases like that. Usually it is only one or two players who are afflicted with that condition though, and so the problem is really just with them and not the rules or the campaign style. I think that is better handled by trained professionals, not an accommodating GM. ?‍⚕️

 

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Actually, I also find this is an answer to many complaints that players don't put in an effort to invoke personality in their characters.  No one wants to spend 4 hours working on a background and carefully crafted personality for a character who may not life for 4 minutes in the game.

 

Characters who don't survive a single scenario in Call of Cthulhu are the result of players who doesn't understand the game/genre, possibly including the GM. If you approach CoC like D&D, you're going to fail/die fairly quickly. The goal isn't to kill the big bad monster, but to figure out the plot of the scenario and try to foil it by using your wits and your character's knowledge/skills. The price of success is a slowly eroding sanity, but your character should last several sessions at least. Players who understand this going in will have a lot more fun with it than those who don't. The latter will be understandably frustrated by their inability to solve every dilemma and crisis head-on. Hell, I've seen characters last longer in CoC than D&D simply because CoC forces you to be more careful and to use finesse in solving problems, whereas D&D players typically assume that every challenge is defeatable through sheer force, and will stupidly die trying to prove it.

[Greywind]

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Hugh to go along with your post, the problem can be people get too attached to their characters. Depending on the genre, I like the idea of templates for characters if the game is going to be really deadly.  For example, I always had it in my head to run Agents through an Aliens (movie) style game. Nobody wants to be outta a game early so I envision extras that could be used by players in a pinch. I figure though if the characters are prebuilt or quick template builds, then the players haven’t invested a lot of time that if death comes they shouldn’t be upset with it. 

 

Paranoia...

[Watchman Mk. IV]

16 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Ninja-Bear, way back, our group was largely playing Champions, D&D and CoC (Chaosium version).  It was noted that CoC characters required by far the least investment in time and effort to create and manage experience for, and rightly so.

 

We also had a player describe the games (and genres) as:

 

CHAMPIONS - if you play reasonably well, the characters will likely succeed in the scenario.  It's pretty much impossible they will be killed.

 

D&D - if you play very well, the characters will likely succeed in the scenario.  If you play reasonably well, the characters will likely survive, and may also succeed.

 

CoC - if you play extremely well, and the dice land in your favour, your character has a shot at surviving to play in the next scenario.  Don't get too attached.

 

Actually, I also find this is an answer to many complaints that players don't put in an effort to invoke personality in their characters.  No one wants to spend 4 hours working on a background and carefully crafted personality for a character who may not life for 4 minutes in the game.

 

Exactly what I dislike about CoC.  What's the point of roleplaying disposable characters?

[Lucius]

21 minutes ago, Watchman Mk. IV said:

 

Exactly what I dislike about CoC.  What's the point of roleplaying disposable characters?

 

"Life is good, be it stubbornly long or suddenly

A mortal splendor: meteors are not needed less than mountains"

 

Robinson Jeffers

 

Last sand grain in place

Days of prayer, careful work, now

Scatter to the winds

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Ask the palindromedary about yak butter

[Doc Democracy]

I am the big block to my group playing Cthulhu, I hate the genre with a passion(and more broadly to horror based games).  I would not stop the group playing but I will usually find an excuse not to participate when that kind of game is on the table.

 

I do however support disposable character style games (as long as we are up front about it).  In several games we played, including a dystopian superhero game, the idea was to work towards a satisfying death scene.  We had several excellent games that resulted in near TPKs where the dead characters players were happier than the ones that survived.  Champions, Pendragon, D6 Star Wars and Spacemaster all featured games where I grew and sacrificed a character in a most satisfactory way.  ?

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

On ‎4‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 5:53 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

Hugh to go along with your post, the problem can be people get too attached to their characters. Depending on the genre, I like the idea of templates for characters if the game is going to be really deadly.  For example, I always had it in my head to run Agents through an Aliens (movie) style game. Nobody wants to be outta a game early so I envision extras that could be used by players in a pinch. I figure though if the characters are prebuilt or quick template builds, then the players haven’t invested a lot of time that if death comes they shouldn’t be upset with it. 

 

I'll note this is easy to say, but not so easy to practice in all cases.  Look at how upset people get when characters in comic, book, TV or movie series die.  We tend to invest ourselves in our entertainment.

 

6 hours ago, Watchman Mk. IV said:

 

Exactly what I dislike about CoC.  What's the point of roleplaying disposable characters?

 

I have heard the reverse comment of "what's the point of a game with no risk of character loss".  There's a balance to be found.  Some players really invest themselves in their characters, and they don't want them to be disposable.  Others find the thrill of success enhanced when the risk of failure is greater.  Someone who despises a PvP aspect to RPGs will not want to play Paranoia, and a hack & slasher probably does not enjoy playing a boy scout superhero, or any game where there are restrictions on character actions like use of lethal force.  Some players dislike certain genres or sub-genres.

 

It's about being up front, accepting that different gamers want different things out of their games, bowing out of games we know we are not going to enjoy, and accepting a player bowing out for that reason.  Doc's group can play horror games without him, and your group can play a "disposable character" game without you.

 

 

[HeroGM]

On 4/8/2018 at 11:11 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

To be fair, besides book characters, has anyone in your group used it before?

 

I have in my games before, though it has been awhile. I tend to cut the limit at 64ft though, anything taller and it involves burnout, IEC, Side Effects and possibly Extra-Dimensional.

[massey]

When we played horror games, usually it was for a limited time.  Everybody knew that we would only have like 6 sessions or something, because Bob had finished running his game, and Mike wasn't quite ready to start yet.  Or Billy was going to get deployed overseas in a few months, and didn't want to start something long and involved.  Taking a break in the month of October to play a scary game was also a hit.  The idea of "normal guy versus the supernatural" has an appeal.  You just have to realize you're not Rambo.

 

For munchkin players, I found that giving them small scale stuff to fight keeps them happy for a little bit (you can kill a cultist, but the monster he summons flies away without seeing you).  The monsters should be established as clearly outside of their weight class, something that requires a special weapon or whatever to defeat.  1st level D&D characters don't charge dragons.  Even the most die-hard powergamer understands that.  In fact, I think the roll players (as opposed to role-players) are the ones most likely to react appropriately if they think the monster is too tough to kill.  Some Vampire the Masquerade player may love the idea of standing up to Cthulhu and delivering an impassioned soliloquy on how love conquers all.  A point-crunching munchkin is going to run like his ass is on fire as soon as he realizes the battle is hopeless.

 

But I didn't really put players in the situation where they were facing down hopeless odds.  Not in a combat situation anyway.  You find out that there are CHUDs living in the sewer below the city.  You fight one of them when it comes out for a stroll late at night.  It nearly kills you, but you manage to beat it to death with a lead pipe you grabbed in the alleyway.  You hear movement behind you, and when you turn, you see a dozen pairs of their creepy, glowing eyes coming out of the shadows.  You've lost a lot of Body and are barely standing as it is.  You have to run.  As long as the player chooses the clearly obvious action, he'll get away (they aren't interested in pursuing you, they're primarily interested in retrieving the body of their fellow creature).  But now he knows that he can't just slaughter his way through the things.

 

As far as playing doomed characters goes, it can be fun if you're in the right mindset.  The way I see it, in horror stories people usually have one terrifying experience and then it's over.  The sequels usually involve new people encountering the same monster.  It's rare for somebody to become an Ash, fighting the same things over and over again.  The character doesn't have to die by the end of the adventure, but you shouldn't expect them to keep coming back.  I found that leaving them "on the run" can be pretty enjoyable.  The players wonder what happens to them after the game ends.

 

I played in a game where I was a camp counselor.  Turns out the camp was a cover for a Dagon-esque cult.  I was supposed to be a sacrifice.  They already had a death certificate printed out for me and everything.  I found out a lot of the rich, old money families in the United States had traces of Deep Ones in their ancestry.  Sometimes, it manifests and one of the wealthy goes all fishy.  They get sent to live in the underground lake near the camp.  A lake with hundreds of half-fish men.  Most of the people who sent their kids to camp there were part of that elite group.  The movers and shakers of America.  So I found a list of names in the camp office, and jotted down as many as I could.  Names, addresses, etc.  I stole a bunch of money, set the place on fire, and ran.  I escaped the scenario successfully, but I still couldn't go home.  I was officially "dead" already.  A week later, someone ransacked my motel room when I went out for burgers.  The cult leaders at the camp were dead, but clearly there was somebody who figured out that one of the sacrifices had escaped.  So I had to keep moving.  The only way I could get my life back is to start picking off the people on my list.  They are out to take over the world.  I am going to be a hero.  If only they hadn't destroyed the list when they trashed my room.  But I'm pretty sure I remember who was on it.

 

We played that game like ten years ago, and I still wonder what happened to him.  From an outsider's perspective, he's absolutely insane.  He wants to kill all the fish people, the ones who secretly control the government?  Riiight.  From my own perspective, he's insane.  He's not even sure who was on the list anymore.  He's trying to do the right thing, but his perspective is skewed.  He's a half step from putting on a mask and murdering kids at some random summer camp.  At the very least, he's going to break into rich people's houses and shoot them as they sleep.  Maybe some of them will even be the right ones ("Swenson?  Swanson?  Oh, Samsonite, I was way off!").  Wondering about what became of him is way more fun than just saying that he went on to have a happy ending.