NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6122081" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I think the game needs some basic character generation ground rules.  That may be as simple as “altruistic boy scouts” or “cynical money-driven mercenaries”, but some guidance an agreement as to the type of game we will be playing and the kind of characters that will fit.  It does not have to be a joint/group character development system, nor is it essential that all, or any, of the characters have met before.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> </ul>For myself, 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.  But I doubt we’re going to get any closer to understanding each others’ views in that regard, so it’s not worth a bunch more discussion. I get criticized for assuming the worst of other players and the GM.  Then you toss out the “player is a useless lump” argument.  At the end of the day, a lot of these issues on both sides come down to trust.  I don’t need to set all the details of what will, and will not, arise in the game.  I TRUST the GM and the other players to add elements that will be interesting and engaging, and I do not need (or even want) all those elements laid out before me in a roadmap.  You TRUST the other players not to abuse their veto power, or skip scene power.  My view is that, if I lack trust in the former, I can have no more faith in the latter.  The reverse is also true. 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.  I assume that, if there is a jerk in the group who is able to, and willing to, dominate the game with secrets in his background, he will be just as willing to, and may still be able to, dominate the game with veto power, scene skipping power and “collaborative character generation” mechanics.  I do not believe either approach effectively deals with a jerk in the group, so I don’t rely on either approach to achieve this objective.  Out of how many that I may have put forward and had shot down?  Are you seriously going to tell me that my wish to have the Dark Cult plotline will be greeted with open arms and full buy-in if I tell everyone about it up front, but will be a boring waste of time if you have to find out about it a few sessions into the game?  I don’t see it that way but, again, I don’t find a group-generated plot railroad at all superior to a GM created railroad.  They are both railroads.  You keep talking about a collaborative game, but you also demand unilateral veto rights (“skip the desert as I am not interested”, for example).  The former and the latter are not, to me, consistent. Or he keeps playing through it because he continues to enjoy the game.  Not everything has to be about him, or linked to his background.  And what is he “directly invested in”?  To the point of the attack on Hoth, Han has done precisely two unselfish things in the entire series/game.  He saved Luke at the Death Star, and he saved Luke in the frozen wasteland (and what did that frozen wasteland, or the attack on it, have to do with the overall plot anyway?).  It seems like Han may not be as bitter and cynical as he likes to portray.  He has certainly found a soft spot for Luke. Oh, and how is the trip to Bespin NOT about Han’s background?  He is leveraging that Lando guy he won the Falcon from to resolve a challenge in the game. I don’t recall the PC’s knowing a second Death Star is under construction. Why would Luke be motivated to rescue Han?  Who saved Luke’s life in the Death Star trench?  Who saved Luke’s life in the frozen Hoth wastelands?  Gosh, you’re right - I can’t see how that could have engendered any loyalty to Han!  So Leia is falling in love with him – that wasn’t part of our agreed upon plot.  How DARE her player want her to actually develop and grow – just keep spending xp to enhance your Blaster and Diplomacy skills, chickie! In my game, it would not matter whether Han were a PC or an NPC – his actions would be judged by the PC’s, and THEY would decide whether they want to expend the time, and risk their lives, to rescue him.  They would not be railroaded into the “Defeat the Empire above all else” plotline – not by the GM, not by some preordained plan of the “collaborative players’ union” and not by one player who wants to skip that scene when the rest of the players want to play it through. In my games, the players would play their characters and make their choices.  Maybe they would decide that Han’s not worth it.  Sorry, buddy – your character is a wall hanging, so you need a new character.  Maybe one PC decides that continued activity with the Rebellion is more important – so maybe that player, who is out of step with the group, needs a new character. OK, just for the record, I think if you go back you will find my comment that I hate the “PC Halo”.  I expect Bob’s PC to be treated in accordance with his actions.  As I have said before, the PC needs positives to outweigh his negatives. Those positives need not (and, IMO, should not) be backstory driven.  If we write up our backstories that one PC is Bob’s younger brother who always idolized him as a kid, and a second is Bob’s old war buddy, does that require them to be loyal to BobPC through thick and thin, no matter what?  Or are they expected to role play?  Maybe BobPC is greedy and selfish, expects the other PC’s to risk their lives for him, and flees at the first sign of danger to himself.  No matter those backstory links, my character is not going to put up with that.  He’s endangering the group – he needs to go.   Maybe travel on the road is the first time my character met BobPC.  And, during that travel, danger erupted.  BobPC and my character fought side by side.  They risked their lives together, and have probably saved each others’ lives a dozen times over.  They have forged a bond as strong as any brothers.   BobPC is endangered by this cult?  My PC is there – BobPC has earned that loyalty. That paragraph could come out of backstory, but it relies on BobPC continuing to be played consistent with that backstory, and not as a selfish, greedy coward.  Or that paragraph could describe what has previously happened in play, in which case its consistency with the way BobPC is played has clearly been established.  To me, “established in play” is far more powerful. “Backstory” is what has gone before.  It may be unplayed, or it may have been played.  It lead the characters to this moment.  But a backstory that has been played out is more powerful, and creates more engaging characters, relationships, loyalties and motivations by far than a backstory that is a scrap of paper or a discussion before we started the game.  At least to me.</blockquote>

Verification