The role of organizations in RPGs
I would have thought that if your character wanted to become a Purple Dragon Knight (for example) then they would already want to adhere to the code/ethics/standards/alignment/whatever of the particular society.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
True, if in fact I was out to become a card-carrying member of the Purple Dragon Knights group.
But if I'm approaching it from the perspective of "this class as written suits what I have in mind mechanically for my character to a T except that I'd never want anything to do with the Society that backs it, I doubt they'd let me in and even if they did I wouldn't want to join; every one of their snooty members I've ever met has annoyed me to the point of rage and I probably have the same effect on them", then the society idea has failed its purpose.
Lanefan
I guess if you are just playing it for the mechanics first I could understand the annoyance.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Either mechanics-first or I've simply got a character of the wrong personality/profession/background/alignment for a prestige class that would otherwise be a fine fit were it not for its attached organization.
I can't remember the specific prestige class I was looking at in 3e but I do remember thinking it would have been a great fit for my character at the time (might have had something to do with leadership? - I know I'd taken the Leadership feat and was looking to expand on it)...except the class expected you to be Lawful and my character was about as Chaotic as they come. Or something like that. Having organizations attached that become gatekeepers to the prestige class only worsens that sort of problem.
Lanefan
I would be surprised if a prestige class designed for a lawful order is a good fit for a chaotic character.
For the purpose of defining organisations like Purple Dragon Knights and Red Wizards prestige classes would still be more effective then a flavourless combination of mechanical features though.
thanson02
Explorer
I hear that. I have a laundry list of things I had to homebrew in 3.5 just to make it work the way I wanted it to.
Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
Imaculata
Hero
For us it's not a case of having to homebrew, but wanting to. Standard 3.5 wasn't intended with firearms and naval battles in mind. So even with the aid of the book Stormwrack, we still wanted to add a lot of new things. But we didn't change anything about the core rules.
Emirikol
Adventurer
I'm currently running in Colonial Gothic RPG (Revolutionary war Cthulhu essentially). You've got several organizations potentially to add a layer of plot to the characters, but I think in some cases, it adds too much of a safety net and removes suspense. On the other end of the spectrum off ideas though you have that they might have contacts or some other motivation besides murder-hobo-fame-leveling.
In CG, your major players are:
Continental Military, British Military, Militia/Colonial governments, Rosocrucians, Masons, Occult Societies, Churches, Templars, Inquisition, Companies (Hudson's Bay, etc.), Native Tribes, etc.
Some players really get into the organizations and some could take it or leave it. D&D's Forgotten Realms or Pathfinder Society adventure factions seem really blah to me because they are just another way to min-max without really mattering much in the roleplay aspects. As long as they're not that generic, it's probably all good.
jh
In CG, your major players are:
Continental Military, British Military, Militia/Colonial governments, Rosocrucians, Masons, Occult Societies, Churches, Templars, Inquisition, Companies (Hudson's Bay, etc.), Native Tribes, etc.
Some players really get into the organizations and some could take it or leave it. D&D's Forgotten Realms or Pathfinder Society adventure factions seem really blah to me because they are just another way to min-max without really mattering much in the roleplay aspects. As long as they're not that generic, it's probably all good.
jh
innerdude
Legend
In my experience organizations aren't just flavor, or background, they're pretty much vital to a successful campaign. Every campaign that I've ever really enjoyed, either from the player or GM side, has had the PCs making major connections to organizations in the world. If a group truly wants to just kill things and take their stuff, well that's fine, but that had better be spelled out explicitly and clearly in the group social contract, the GM must create content that fits that agenda, and by golly the players had better be actively and aggressively pursuing that agenda, not just saying that they want that agenda and then just dinking around.
The problem occurs when players don't express any innate interest in anything related to the game world, and the GM has a set of intricate organizations established in the backstory thinking that the players will interact with them. Most of the time the players generally ignore this kind of setup. Since the GM isn't really giving them what they really want (a chance to just go kick butt and get rich), the campaign just stalls out in this nebulous, half-baked "plot," everyone sort of just gets bored (including the GM), and things sort of implode and the campaign dies.
This has happened so often in sooooo many campaigns I've joined (including the one I'm in now), that as a GM I've just adopted the rule that all PCs will either be recognized members of an existing faction, or be directly aligned with a current faction. This is not optional, and I make it very clear to the players during Session Zero that this is the case, and if they're not interested in that, they should look for another group. In my experience this has been a significant boon to my campaigns, as it has created a much greater sense of player engagement and involvement.
One of the major "root causes" for me taking this approach can be found in an OP so eloquently stated by @I'm A Banana (the former Kamikaze Midget) here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ver-The-quot-Rootless-Vagabond-quot-Archetype
The problem occurs when players don't express any innate interest in anything related to the game world, and the GM has a set of intricate organizations established in the backstory thinking that the players will interact with them. Most of the time the players generally ignore this kind of setup. Since the GM isn't really giving them what they really want (a chance to just go kick butt and get rich), the campaign just stalls out in this nebulous, half-baked "plot," everyone sort of just gets bored (including the GM), and things sort of implode and the campaign dies.
This has happened so often in sooooo many campaigns I've joined (including the one I'm in now), that as a GM I've just adopted the rule that all PCs will either be recognized members of an existing faction, or be directly aligned with a current faction. This is not optional, and I make it very clear to the players during Session Zero that this is the case, and if they're not interested in that, they should look for another group. In my experience this has been a significant boon to my campaigns, as it has created a much greater sense of player engagement and involvement.
One of the major "root causes" for me taking this approach can be found in an OP so eloquently stated by @I'm A Banana (the former Kamikaze Midget) here:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...ver-The-quot-Rootless-Vagabond-quot-Archetype
Last edited:
