Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MGibster" data-source="post: 8505537" data-attributes="member: 4534">For the vast majority of games I run, I expect the PCs to be good guys.&nbsp; Well, more or less.&nbsp; While they don't have to be paragons of goodness, they're not going to side with slavers, shoot nuns, steal from orphans, or talk on their cell phones during movies.&nbsp; But when I typically write my scenarios, I do so with the assumption that the PCs want to do the right thing.&nbsp; Yes, that has bitten me in the butt on more than one occasion.&nbsp; The thread on Twilight 2000 has me seriously thinking of purchasing the game and I find it difficult to think about post apocalyptic games without thinking of the Fallout series of computer games.&nbsp; Well, at least the first two games in the franchise. For those of you unfamiliar with Fallout (the both of you), the game is set in California many years in the future decades after nuclear war has devastated the planet.&nbsp; Your character is a vault dweller, the descendant of those who went into fallout shelters to keep society alive until such a time as they could return to the surface.&nbsp; Your character goes on a series of quests to recover a much needed spare part for your home to survive and on your journeys you can be a cold hearted killer and thief or a paragon of virtue.&nbsp; At the end of the game, the narrator tells you the long term results of your choices during game play.&nbsp; And now I'm thinking of following a similar model for a Twilight 2000 campaign.&nbsp; I would set up the scenarios without assuming the characters will do the right thing or the wrong thing.&nbsp; If they hear cries of help over the radio from a settlement under attack from raiders what will the PCs do?&nbsp; They can ignore it, they can help the settlers, they can help the raiders, or maybe they wait until the battle is over, go mop up whoever is left, and then take the spoils of war for themselves.&nbsp; I'll just let their choices shape the future of the campaign.&nbsp; If they help the settlers, maybe they gain new friends who are able to help out with some food a few months down the road.&nbsp; If they help the raiders, maybe they get some new friends who help them pick some juicy targets in the future.&nbsp; If they defeat both the settlers and the raiders, they get a short term boost to their supplies, weapons, and ammunition.&nbsp; The thing is, I don't want to punish the player characters for doing the &quot;wrong&quot; thing or necessarily reward them for doing the &quot;right&quot; thing.&nbsp; I just want their actions to have an impact on the flow of the campaign.&nbsp; And and the end of the campaign I'd have an opportunity to tell them the long term impact of their choices.&nbsp; Does that sound like fun?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MGibster, post: 8505537, member: 4534"] For the vast majority of games I run, I expect the PCs to be good guys. Well, more or less. While they don't have to be paragons of goodness, they're not going to side with slavers, shoot nuns, steal from orphans, or talk on their cell phones during movies. But when I typically write my scenarios, I do so with the assumption that the PCs want to do the right thing. Yes, that has bitten me in the butt on more than one occasion. The thread on [I]Twilight 2000 [/I]has me seriously thinking of purchasing the game and I find it difficult to think about post apocalyptic games without thinking of the [I]Fallout [/I]series of computer games. Well, at least the first two games in the franchise. For those of you unfamiliar with [I]Fallout [/I](the both of you), the game is set in California many years in the future decades after nuclear war has devastated the planet. Your character is a vault dweller, the descendant of those who went into fallout shelters to keep society alive until such a time as they could return to the surface. Your character goes on a series of quests to recover a much needed spare part for your home to survive and on your journeys you can be a cold hearted killer and thief or a paragon of virtue. At the end of the game, the narrator tells you the long term results of your choices during game play. And now I'm thinking of following a similar model for a Twilight 2000 campaign. I would set up the scenarios without assuming the characters will do the right thing or the wrong thing. If they hear cries of help over the radio from a settlement under attack from raiders what will the PCs do? They can ignore it, they can help the settlers, they can help the raiders, or maybe they wait until the battle is over, go mop up whoever is left, and then take the spoils of war for themselves. I'll just let their choices shape the future of the campaign. If they help the settlers, maybe they gain new friends who are able to help out with some food a few months down the road. If they help the raiders, maybe they get some new friends who help them pick some juicy targets in the future. If they defeat both the settlers and the raiders, they get a short term boost to their supplies, weapons, and ammunition. The thing is, I don't want to punish the player characters for doing the "wrong" thing or necessarily reward them for doing the "right" thing. I just want their actions to have an impact on the flow of the campaign. And and the end of the campaign I'd have an opportunity to tell them the long term impact of their choices. Does that sound like fun? [/QUOTE]

Verification