You're doing what? Surprising the DM

[billd91]

Tying up the leader of the Rebellion (or at least one of the high ups), a general and the only Jedi in existence isn't costing the Rebellion resources? Really?

Not significantly, no. They may be three good leaders, but there are plenty of other around from Admiral Akbar, Wedge Antilles, Crix Madime, to Mon Mothma. Plus, they're all more integrated into the core structure from Star Wars on while the main characters have been a bit less reliably present. Nevertheless, that's not necessarily a huge problem for a secretive organization that's organized as an insurgency. Cellular structures and cellular independence are crucial elements of their security.

That's the veneer that's put in place to give it plausibility. Doesn't hold any real water on deeper examination, but, hey, it's Star Wars, it's not meant to hold a whole lot of water. It's about as deep as the average rain puddle. In a serious game where there are consequences to actions, spending significant time trying to rescue Han means that the Empire has that much more time to build the new Death Star. If Luke dies, the Empire wins.

...How long has it been since you've watched the movies? Luke keeps Vader and Palpatine's focus on himself, but you might notice that the rebels manage to blow up the Death Star, Emperor included, without Luke's direct involvement.

I'd also point out that the other main characters aren't exactly in the dark about Han's troubles with Jabba as Empire starts up. The other rebel commanders know Han has a price on his head. They're just caught a little surprised/disappointed that he's finally (since there's been some time between A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back) heading off to take care of it. From the perspective of the Star Wars Saga as an RPG, Han isn't trying to drive the action at all once the Empire attacks Hoth. He's reacting and improvising to get Leia to safety. And even before the attack, he's not leaving until the base is secure. It appears he's trying to head off for his personal issue resolution at a time convenient to the rest of the party. Of course, the GM has other plans like all RBGMs do and drives a better story as a result.

But, hey, all that doesn't matter. Our PC friend needs our help, so, off to help him we go because we are obligated to play out any and all complications at the table. Whether or not it's actually in character or makes any logical sense to do so isn't important.

Then think about it this way, if Han, Leia, and Luke's adventures are tying up precious resources as you state above, maybe rescuing one of those precious resources justifies risking the other two. After all, it's Han's guile that enables the rebel commandos to bring down the shielding that protects the partially completed Death Star from being penetrated and destroyed. Hate for them to lose on Endor, and thus the war, for want of that particular nail...

 

[N'raac]

A further thought - the question was raised, frequently, as to what the players, or the PCs, are invested in to motivate them to help out BobPC, or Han Solo.

After a bit of reflection, I would say that they are invested in their fellow players, and their fellow PC's, respectively. The PC's either began (with linked backstories) or became (through in game events that have now become part of their backstory) invested in their teammates.

The players are, or should be, invested in enjoyment for the group as a whole, not just their personal enjoyment. If the group dynamic detracted from, rather than adding to, the fun of the game, RPG's would trend much more to a "one player/one GM" model than the group activity they generally exist as.

For myself, others' role play, and others' characters, and the discovery aspect inherent in both, is a big part of my enjoyment of the game. Maybe that's why I have memories of other players' characters that are as vivd as memories of my own characters, perhaps even more so, from many games past.

 

[Lwaxy]

So my latest group, formed out of the leftover players of 3 others, recently started to play in the Bard's Gate world set up so I went with the Wizard's Amulet/Crucible of Freya combo for a start. Never used them before.

Now I fully intended to skip close to town after the battle on the farm, just as the adventure intends, too. However, my players insisted on taking care of the farm, the crops, the animals, then finding relatives and neighbors to take over until the time they manage to raise the slain farmer family. The paladin and the 2 clerics would have nothing of just burying them - they got slain by evil they more or less caused to roam the area, so it was their duty to make sure they would find their way back to life.

Wouldn't let me just tell them they found the relatives etc, nope, wanted to play it out. Surprised me because at least 2 of them I rather knew as the "skip to town already" players. Was fun, though, so not complaining. And well, they sure made friends in the area now, can't hurt in the future.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Now, Han has a backstory element - he owes money to Jabba The Hutt. But, let's presume, for the moment, that he wants to keep this secret from the rest of the group. He presents himself as a mercenary out for money with no real attachment to the Rebel cause. (...) Again, Han announces he's leaving because he's got to go see a man about a horse. The other players, by this point, are asking him why he's leaving, but, he remains mum about it.

I've seen several people talking about this portion of the thread by trying to talk about the actual Star Wars films. You should note that Hussar is explicitly not talking about what actually happens in the films. This is needlessly confusing and I'm not really sure why he thought it would make for a good example, but it's worth pointing out where the confusion is coming from.

I'm a little hazier on why he can't process any motivation for Luke ("this guy saved my life and he's my friend"), Leia ("I'm in love with him"), Chewie ("he's my best friend"), or Lando ("he's my friend and I betrayed him, so now I owe him") to want to save Han other than "PC halo". Maybe none of those things happened in this hypothetical alternate universe version of Star Wars he's constructed?

Note, everyone else in the group (apart from Chewie I suppose) has direct links to the Rebel Cause. This is what the campaign is going to be about.

"Reluctant rebel" doesn't seem like a radically unreasonable character concept for a campaign that's about the Rebel Cause. Is this related to your general allergic reaction to the idea of conflicts or obstacles between the PCs and their goals?

Why? Why would the player's investigate? They have zero investment in this.

They have zero investment in trying to figure out why people are trying to kill them and how they can stop them?

PCs that irrational are a problem. Fortunately, it's a problem which will quickly correct itself most of the time.

 

[N'raac]

"Reluctant rebel" doesn't seem like a radically unreasonable character concept for a campaign that's about the Rebel Cause. Is this related to your general allergic reaction to the idea of conflicts or obstacles between the PCs and their goals?

The prospect of any conflict within the party itself seems a sore point here. I consider it role playing opportunities, but my group has generally been able to work with the belief there is a lot of space between "this PC and mine agree on everything 100%" and "this PC is my mortal enemy and I must slay him".

They have zero investment in trying to figure out why people are trying to kill them and how they can stop them?

PCs that irrational are a problem. Fortunately, it's a problem which will quickly correct itself most of the time.

Dungeons and Darwinism! rep'd!

 

[Hussar]

No, actually, you haven’t. You assume the GM will include irrelevant, boring encounters if you don’t cut him off by circumventing his scenes (such as the desert). You assume that the other players will use any leeway you provide them to “hijack the game” or scene hog. I point out that it is just as possible to hijack the game or scene hog under your model, and you get your back up and accuse me of “jumping to the worst possible conclusion”, but you fail to perceive that you also assume the worst possible conclusion of any approach that does not match your preferred model.

No, I assume that I don't care whether the encounters are interesting or not. What the DM puts in the desert is irrelevant to our goals. Whether they are interesting or not doesn't matter. I'm responding to your examples of how a single player takes his background or his interests and forces the entire group to go along with it. The group has no investment in Bob's plots, but is forced to play through them.

And, as far as Star Wars go, yes, the point was I tried to use Star Wars as an example of how a secret plays out in game. Unfortunately, like many examples, people have insisted on moving away from what I presented.

The long and the short of it is, when a player keeps something secret, the player should not expect the DM to bring that to the table, nor should he expect the rest of the players to automatically go along with that secret.

 

[pemerton]

So my latest group, formed out of the leftover players of 3 others, recently started to play in the Bard's Gate world set up so I went with the Wizard's Amulet/Crucible of Freya combo for a start. Never used them before.

Now I fully intended to skip close to town after the battle on the farm, just as the adventure intends, too. However, my players insisted on taking care of the farm, the crops, the animals, then finding relatives and neighbors to take over until the time they manage to raise the slain farmer family.

<snip>

Wouldn't let me just tell them they found the relatives etc, nope, wanted to play it out. Surprised me because at least 2 of them I rather knew as the "skip to town already" players. Was fun, though, so not complaining.

That sounds like good GMing to me- responsive and fun.

 

[pemerton]

I still see no clear delineation between “siege” and “desert nomads” other than “Hussar likes one thing that delays entry to the city and dislikes another”. The acceptance of one and not the other actually renders his views less consistent than previous to the siege discussion, to me.

I think the key is that the siege doesn't delay entry into the city. It is itself an element of entering the city.

Of course, from the point of view of the PCs, it makes entering the city harder.

But Hussar is, at all times, looking at things from the point of view of the players. And from the point of view of the players, the siege is part of the gameplay process of entering the city. It makes entering the city more complex and involved, at the table, but when you're invested in the city that's not a bad thing.

 

[N'raac]

No, I assume that I don't care whether the encounters are interesting or not. What the DM puts in the desert is irrelevant to our goals. Whether they are interesting or not doesn't matter.

You have made it clear you are not interested in playing out the encounters. I take that disinterest as a clear statement the encounters are not interesting to you. However, if you will look at the section of my response which you quoted, you will find it indicates "You assume the GM will include irrelevant, boring encounters".

I'm responding to your examples of how a single player takes his background or his interests and forces the entire group to go along with it. The group has no investment in Bob's plots, but is forced to play through them.

The same group may have great interest in playing out certain scenes, but your model requires that the group which has an investment in a scene be forced to skip past them at the behest of a single player. Your focus on "exclusion good, inclusion bad" continues to puzzle me. But there you go. I also note that, once again, you assume the worst of Bob - he will force the group to play through plots which are of no interest to them, rather than create complications that engage the entire group.

I don't see Bob forcing play of plotlines that are of no interest to the rest of the group (under my model) being any more likely than Bob forcing the group to skip scenes that everyone else is invested in and wants to play out (under your model).

And, as far as Star Wars go, yes, the point was I tried to use Star Wars as an example of how a secret plays out in game. Unfortunately, like many examples, people have insisted on moving away from what I presented.

Please do not assume that an understanding of your point and a disagreement with your point are mutually exclusive.

The long and the short of it is, when a player keeps something secret, the player should not expect the DM to bring that to the table, nor should he expect the rest of the players to automatically go along with that secret.

I see...can you tell us, then, why this is not also a situation where the GM should discuss with the player and clarify what he or she envisions so as to deliver a game more consistent with the players' expectations and desires? Why is this a valuable tool which works under your model, but immediately cast aside under any other model?

 

[Hussar]

You have made it clear you are not interested in playing out the encounters. I take that disinterest as a clear statement the encounters are not interesting to you. However, if you will look at the section of my response which you quoted, you will find it indicates "You assume the GM will include irrelevant, boring encounters".

And your assumptions here are faulty. It has nothing to do with how interesting the encounters might be. I don't care. These could be the greatest encounters ever written. Encounters which your grandchildren will regale their grandchildren about, and I still don't care. The entire point is that the player has ZERO investment in these encounters. And, these encounters can never really be more than tangential to the player's goals because there is zero problem with skipping the encounters, so long as the players have the in-game resources to do so.

The same group may have great interest in playing out certain scenes, but your model requires that the group which has an investment in a scene be forced to skip past them at the behest of a single player.

But, in my model, there won't be ANY scenes where a given scene will not be invested in by the entire group. That's the point of a group template. Everything that happens to the group will be automatically relevant to every member of the group because every member of the group is inter-related and has inter-related goals.

Your focus on "exclusion good, inclusion bad" continues to puzzle me. But there you go. I also note that, once again, you assume the worst of Bob - he will force the group to play through plots which are of no interest to them, rather than create complications that engage the entire group.

How can Bob's secret plot complications engage the entire group? They are secret. None of the other players have any investment in these because they don't know about them. They can't be invested in Bob's plot because they don't KNOW about Bob's plot.

I don't see Bob forcing play of plotlines that are of no interest to the rest of the group (under my model) being any more likely than Bob forcing the group to skip scenes that everyone else is invested in and wants to play out (under your model).

Really? The wizard in your example forced the entire group to play out scenes that were of no interest to the rest of the group to the point where the other players complained pretty vocally about it. Why would Bob be different?

Please do not assume that an understanding of your point and a disagreement with your point are mutually exclusive.



I see...can you tell us, then, why this is not also a situation where the GM should discuss with the player and clarify what he or she envisions so as to deliver a game more consistent with the players' expectations and desires? Why is this a valuable tool which works under your model, but immediately cast aside under any other model?

Sure, there's no problem with the DM engaging Bob. That's pretty obvious. But, the DM cannot discuss Bob's secret plot with the other players under your model because Bob's secret plot is secret. If the DM discusses it, it won't be secret any more and you're now acting the way I would.