Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6122102" data-attributes="member: 6681948">If anything, I think this pre-fab background creates a “PC Halo”.  Despite the fact that BobPC, throughout every episode of play, is a cowardly selfish hedonistic bastard, my background says I am loyal to him, an so I will be. It seems like the Rebellion is a pretty loose affiliation, doesn’t it?  Maybe none of the players agreed this would be a game about being subject to orders in a rigid military structure, so that is not being imposed on them.  Or maybe the GM looked at the way the players were having a blast and decided not to toss in such an impediment (after all, when he tried that in the Star Trek campaign, the players pretty much blew off Starfleet and took off on their own anyway). What I see above is one player seeking to override the wishes of the group.  One player is saying "Because he's my friend is a bit much when we're talking about leaders of the Rebellion”, when the rest of the players are saying “Rescuing Han is what my character would do, and it’s a scene I want to play out”. And who made them “the leaders of the rebellion”?  Leia was a spy (the planet she was both princess and ambassador on was destroyed, remember?), and Luke and Han were there to pilot at Yavin IV.  They weren’t calling any shots on Hoth, other than Luke suggesting maybe we could use those cables to slow down the Walkers.  Promotions come pretty fast and thick – Han shoots a couple of Tie Fighters, now he’s a Captain.  He comes back after Hoth, volunteers for a mission on Endor, and suddenly he’s a General.  I wonder how many scenes we skipped where those ranks were earned! They weren’t calling the shots in RoTJ either – they mostly volunteered for the already planned mission on Endor, while Lando took his orders from fleet leadership. Actually, it seems to me “story now” was your/Pemerton’s mantra.  That was why we had to skip ahead to the city because “nothing in the desert could be overly relevant”. Reasons to help BobPC?  I don’t like evil cults.  I favour the underdog.  Pretty lightweight stuff at campaign inception – which is why a complication like this may not appear right at the outset. After a few game sessions, I may have more reasons to help BobPC.  He has proven himself a loyal comrade in battle.  Maybe he’s saved my life at risk to his own.  We’ve worked together for a period of time and I’ve grown to like him.  I get to learn about BobPC from his actual actions in play, not his assumed pre-play actions, which may or may not be consistent with his in-game activity. If the other PC’s want to cut BobPC loose, that’s their decision.  I like to hope that BobPC brings some positives to the table, and that the other PC’s are also a bundle of positive aspects and negative complications.  I would also note that, as a PLAYER, battle against that evil cult seems like a heroic challenge – while such a complication may be a negative to my PC, it stands to be a significant positive to the game play, and all the players.   In other words, I trust Bob, and the GM, to make these complications an interesting, entertaining challenge in the game, not a mechanism to punish all the players because one of them actually included some plot hooks in his character. Again, I’m not seeing the obligation.  We could certainly decide to cut BobPC loose, although I suspect that’s not what most of my PC’s would do.  But where I think we really differ is your need to have every game occurrence vetted  by everyone at the table before it may be introduced.  I value the mystery and uncertainty of unexpected complications, and I TRUST the other players and the GM to add in complications that will add to, not detract from, the game.  In a collaborative structure, I would have to have that same TRUST that authority vested in all the players and the GM will not be abused.  I don’t think I need any more trust under the collaborative system, but I certainly don’t need any less.  No.  Instead, they are obligated to skip things, based on your “if one player wants to skip it, we skip it” mantra.  I don’t find that a clearly superior playstyle.  Gosh, if we as a group are going to play Shackled City, I would expect to PLAY Shackled City.  I would not have read it beforehand, so for all I know, the Cult is part of Shackled City and the GM and Bob have integrated his PC into this aspect of the adventure.   But even if we agreed it’s the AP, and just the AP, and nothing outside the AP, I would then expect to play through the wasteland with is part of Shackled City, not have a player insist on bypassing it and get in a snit if he doesn’t get his way “just because” the rules don’t support his suggested means of skipping it.</blockquote>

Verification