Adventurers: "We don't want your kind around here."

[ptolemy18]

with the diplomancy rules set up and how easy it is to get a high modifier on that roll, I imagine the Pcs with be hereoes no matter what

On the other hand... who CARES what "numbers" you have to get to turn an "Unfriendly" NPC into a "Friendly" NPC? I know there are charts for this, but still, it's called role-playing, and players who try to calm angry NPCs with "I make a Diplomacy roll", without speaking some good lines of in-character dialogue, deserve minimal results.

Jason

 

[Mordane76]

I think that the actions of the general populous really helps set the feel for the game. Be sure you set one up that prompts actions that you like.

In settings that emulate the feel of the X-Men, you have to come at it from a different angle, though - it should never be about the feelings of the general populace, because people taken as a whole hate and fear you. In settings that have this "misunderstood, hated, and feared hero" backdrop, it should always be about the individual; trying to change the feelings of the general populace is like the fool who stands before the storm. The reward in these campaigns (at least outside of XP and treasure) should be about the changing of the attitudes of the few; if you can make just that one person see you're not so different from them, then you've made a difference.

 

[Krieg]

Funny you mention that. In my Eberron game, the party did get famous right around 5th level because of their heroics.

Of course any DM worth his salt will be sure that their sudden fame draws the attention of an someone or something that the PCs would rather not know their names.

 

[Darkness]

who CARES what "numbers" you have to get to turn an "Unfriendly" NPC into a "Friendly" NPC?

Do you insist players hit you when their PCs attack something?

 

[nameless]

Of course any DM worth his salt will be sure that their sudden fame draws the attention of an someone or something that the PCs would rather not know their names.

Naturally.

I'm one of the players, but the DM has been pretty dirty about people tracking us down. More than one assassin has come in the night for our personal rail cars. We're a pretty cautious bunch though... and I'm particularly proud of how my character used his fame as a weapon. He's a Phiarlan Favored in House, so he can pull some substantial strings. Since his hero persona was so popular and he didn't want to sully it or complicate it, he set it up so some distinguished actors from the entertainer's guild (the legitimate side of house Phiarlan) would play a dashing hero while the party did the dirty work. The icing on the cake is that it lets inexperienced potential spies get some experience under their belts. My character just adopted a new lower-profile appearance and takes disguises when necessary.

It confounded the bad guys for a while before they wised up, but the general populace is still fooled. And since "the hero" isn't a real person, the house can send out a team lead by an actor anywhere in the world to get business done and make headlines at the same time. Even if "the hero" dies surreptitiously, another one will inexplicably appear the next time he is needed. Only the bad guys know, but they can't tell anybody, or else the good guys will know who's out to get them.

And to top it all off, now that the bad guys know "the hero" is a fake, it's safe to pretend to be the hero... they're looking for the man behind the curtain.

Yeah, I love my character.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I really don't run campaigns involving "adventurers."

The last campaign I ran, the PCs started out as mercenary soldiers and eventually became the leaders of a rebel army.

In the current on, they're members of the royal secret police.

In both, they're not generally liked, although most people either fear or respect them.

 

[LostSoul]

It's just taking the heroics out of the game. It doesn't change the PCS it changes how people see and react to them. I've done it on occasion in the past but most of the people I game with want to be the heroes and don't enjoy this type of game.

Your definition of hero is not quite the same as mine. I think that a hero is determined by what he does, not by how others see him.

 

[LostSoul]

Well, or me, it's proven to be a large part of the difference between good and bad games.

You may prefer games where you are treated like the hero you are. I happen to like games where my character is an outcast. It's just as valid a style and has nothing to do with being a "good" or "bad" game - except that you don't want to play in a game that has a style you don't like.

So a bunch of guys playing anti-heroes can be an excellent game, just as an all-hero game would be.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

About the feel of an X-Men game. I played in one of those, we were a younger generation of mutants, on our own 'team'. And yeah, the general populous didn't really like us. This was the game where I spent upwards of half hours brooding darkly about the small-mindedness of people, and purposelessness of my actions. There was a lot of the team pulling together to help pull whoever was having a bad day out of the gutter. My character was leader of the team, and his main goal was to keep his sister and his friends safe, no matter what. It was a blast, but it was a sad, dark game. The is also the one where my 'calculating action leader' half turned evil, fell for a demented psychic, and joined Apocalypse's forces after the death of a friend.

Yeah, the game was a blast. But it was also set up for that dark brooding atmosphere, where we were all outcasts. We were all eachother had. So the world was set up for that. And we still got rewarded for playing into the game. I had a talk with Cyclops about leadership, that was cool. I got fighting tips from Wolverine. That was cool. "Good job, bub." We were still congatulated, we were still warmly encouraged. It just wasn't from the general populace (who, in this case, were mostly backdrop anyway). It was from the people important to us.

Now feedback is important, and, in every D&D game I've seen, there are two major social ways to get it. The first is from the populace. The cheer of the town as you come back proudly bearing the kidnapped children is a wonderful thing. The other tends to be from affiliated orginizations or patrons. This can be more satisfying, especially if the players care about what their patrons think. In all the games I've played in though, the patrons were a set of people who gave missions, and weren't really allies. Just a source of gold. So their opinion was pretty much out. That left the population. When we didn't get props from them, the game just got kind of depressing.

It's not such a big deal if you've got other ways of positive re-enforcement. But in the games I've run, seen, and played in, the most common sort of re-enforcement was via how people reacted to us.

In short:
1. Set up the world to maintain the feel you're shooting for.
2. Set up ways to reward the players for doing well.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

And, as a side note:
1. I did try running a game where the PC's (as members of an occupying army) weren't really trusted or given respect. Everyone ended up fairly miserable that game. Their CO's were like "Good job. Here's some new shoes, and an extra gold to spend at the Inn. You'll get your next assignment later." The townsfolk were more "Darn Imperial Army! Get out of the Frennish territories!"

2. Part of the popularity of the X-Men, I'd imagine is that almost everyone can relate to being an outcast, being disliked, and being treated unfairly. So the characters seem that much more believable. The world doesn't resolve for them, and it's unfair. And I think we've all dealt with some unfair situations. It resonates. It doesn't mean that playing a game where the deck is stacked against me is fun.

3. Done well, almost anything can be fun. Best of luck on working it out. And I hope something I said helped.