5 Fallacies Every Role Player Succumbs To (sometime or other) | Forum

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

4. I'D RATHER DIE THAN BE CAPTURED

SYMPTOMS: The GM's got an idea for a scenario where the heroes get captured by the bad guys and they have to escape. Simple enough plot? Seen it or read it in countless adventure stories?

Well, role players seem to have never seen or read those stories because they will fight tooth and nail like a bunch of wild cats on cocaine being shoved into a burlap sack in order to avoid being captured. Even the old ploy of leading the party into a valley with one exit and surrounding them with 100 crack troops will just get the response of "I draw my weapon and CHARRRRRGGGEEEEE!"

Even if the enemy is honourable; the type that allows you to keep your sword for your parole, is going to have his kindness, generosity and wine cellar shoved back in his face by the characters. There is no way on God's green Earth that a RPG party will ever give up without a fight to the death.

WHY WE DO IT: Because being captured is a horrible admission of failure, even worse than actually dying. Being captured means you were outclassed, or perhaps even stupid. Getting killed means you can blame the GM for making things too tough...it's all his fault. Getting captured also means having to give up all that lovely kit and weapons you've spent ages collecting. To a gamer, it's like being naked.

WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT: Keep repeating to yourself "it's all a plot device, it's all a plot device". Actually, getting captured is a good thing because it means a) you don't have to trudge miles through inhospitable countryside trying to get the villain's headquarters; he'll bring you right to it b) you can get to find out his evil plan and c) you're going to be re-united with your stuff later so why worry?

Clair Umbo (1 month ago)

I did get reunited with my stuff, all of it, including my trowel and plumline and my soap and sewing kit. I mean, what kind or clean, archaeologist haberdasher would I be without it?

Ian Pearson (1 month ago)

I remember one of my favourite RPG characters. A tough, post apocalyptic born, 25 year old bruiser, with a reasonable brain and drop dead gorgeous looks (yes I know – it’s fantasy).

He could use a sword in the same way a drunk uses a fence post, but exceptionally well. He could also shoot the eye from a fly at a 100 yards with a bow. But what really started to get up the refs nose was his equipment rolls. He ended up with a medieval Japanese Katana, a tailored compound bow with lots of modern arrows and a set of excellent, skin fitting pre-ruin body armour. The sort of stuff impossible to get hold of now, let alone after the fall of civilisation.

With loads of hit points, luck and a careful player he was effectively un-killable.

The ref played it fair, but eventually he was captured and stripped of ALL his gear. I felt like giving up, but played the session and eventually escaped jumping from the back of a burning truck wearing nothing but broken chains and a loincloth. The ref was ecstatic.

Then on a whim, IGNORING the flames, checked under the long front seat and found his bow and sword (acquired by the now dead driver) and used them to kill the driver of the second truck who was wearing the armour.

I checked the refs notes later and it was all there and it would have been difficult to forge during play. (Yes – refs DO cheat).

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

And speaking of shit loads of equipment, this neatly brings me to:

3. BLAGGING & PHANTOM KIT THAT WEIGHS NOTHING

If you watch Ray Meares' Extreme World of Survival, he's always going on about carrying the minimum amount of kit into the wild and learning how to live off the land. This is the anathema to the RPG group, because RPG groups LOVE kit and plenty of it.

Traveller and most modern era games see the worst excesses. Mobile recon bases that take up 20 tons of cargo space and will be used once, if that. Low light visibility headsets, power boots, high tech palm pilots; after generating their characters, players will always demand to see the rulebook equipment list...and then complain about the prices.

So the art of blagging was born. "Look, I know the rulebook says that an advanced chemistry analysing kit costs $5000 but I'm a scientist, I would logically have one as standard equipment. Can I have one for free?" The other forms of blagging happen in game where players saunter into a remote trading post, run by mom and pop, and then start ordering Franchi-SPAS shotguns, tracer ammunition, dynamite, silver daggers and alchemy kits. When met with a polite "sorry, we don't stock them kind of things" players revert to "can you order some? Can they get here by tomorrow? I don't mind paying a little extra? Is there anyone else here in this one horse town that will sell me these things?" The more times a GM says no, the more the fingers and eyes start twitching. When denied these items, then comes the argument "but my character would logically carry this, at all times" in an attempt to apply the umpire referral system in cricket into a role playing game.

Once given all the lovely toys, players then assume they can carry it all without any penalties to their back and neck muscles. If denied the kit, then at some point a "wish list" makes its way back onto the character sheet and after a while people forget whether they actually paid for it or not. Any more magic items or kit found along the way, gets convieniently stowed in the multiple bags of holding the party all of a sudden are carrying.

WHY DO WE DO IT? Probably because we've all been traumatised by an early RPG experience where the players are trapped behind a door and the GM asks "anyone have any skeleton keys? No? Oh well, that's a shame because behind you come a swarm of giant locusts and you've got nowhere to go...if only you had a set of skeleton keys". Some hate being caught short and having to improvise a solution. Also, some players seem to derive some perverse pleasure in fucking up a GMs game by producing a palm pilot with a GPS programme so they can go straight to the villain HQ without having to do any pesky investigating or role playing. And encumbrance? Pah! I haven't got time to work THAT out!

WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT? Try running that Aftermath scenario where the players wake up....naked. Try blagging your way out of that!

Ian Pearson (1 month ago)

Ah, Aftermath: Operation Morpheous.

One of the best scenarios ever written. I've played it once and Refed it once.

If done PROPERLY, i.e. averge player physical stats are well BELOW those of the standard RPG hero and just because you have done Live Action Roleplay does not make you an expert swordsman, it's genuinely superb.

It's amazing just how much you value the pitted rusty revolver, with one bullet, that you found in a pool of slightly acid water. Especially when the words 'Intruder Alarm' echo over the intercom, accompanied by the sound of heavy footsteps around the next corner.

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

2. SELF-SUFFICIENCY

Previously the preserve of The Good Life and Stalinist economic policies, the drive for complete self-sufficieny has become a sideline for your average RPG group. If a role playing game system gave a character the ability to crap equipment and magic items, gamers would take it without giving the matter another thought.

GM's may spend hours, days or weeks creating vibrant worlds and cities populated by a myriad of interesting and exotic non-player characters...interactions galore and there are plenty of game adventures and supplements that give you just that: Villages and moon colonies where every resident is written up and their homes and businesses immaculately described...now watch your party completely fuck that up by insisting they don't need to interact with these people or go anywhere near their shops.

Science fiction characters will insist on sleeping on their starships even when in port. Fantasy characters will want a room at the inn, no board and thank you but I'll be cooking my own food in my room and Superhero characters will try to build their own gyrocopters (even if they only have the very basic skills and abilities to solder a circuit board let alone build a space-age helicopter from scratch).

Even in games where the characters are part of some government or private foundation for law and justice, the group is usually planning for the day where they can break away and go merc. Ah, the merc...other than in the pages of "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, role playing games seem to be the only other place where mercenaries are glamourised.

Groups don't like hiring NPC staff if they can help it; "Torgo will be your guide" says the old wise man. "No need for Torgo, we've got a map and Linton the Elf has good tracking skills...now out of our way" comes the party's reply. They certainly baulk at the idea of letting an outside company build them a base or a vehicle. Once someone is able to build their own ship/batcave/death ray or shit magic items, they'll do it and shut the gate to all those lovingly created NPCs. Keep out! Trespassers will be fireballed!

WHY WE DO IT: Because, just like with the "do you have the right bit of kit", we were probably traumatised by GMs who introduced us to interesting people only to have them betray and try to kill us down the line. Outside contractors will probably try to sabotage the work they did for you. That government agency will sell you down the river sooner or later. And none of them build you stuff just the way you want it. Burger King, they ain't.

WHAT DO YOU DO ABOUT IT? Try a campaign where the players are the organisation building stuff and the NPCs are parties of adventurers.

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

1. NO RELATIONSHIPS, NO SOLILOQUIES

A few years ago, my RPG group (after a marathon session of pounding each other into dust in "Champions") sat around thinking of things you rarely see gamers put into their characters. Other than "play a character of a different ethnic race", we came up with "never forms proper relationships".

Sometimes a game like Champions or GURPS makes you find a wife, sister or other loved one as a way of paying off disadvantage points. Now let that concept sink in...in these games, having a partner, sibling or friend IS A DISADVANTAGE. Now go up to your wife, girlfriend or boyfriend and say "honey, you're just 25 points of disadvantages I needed to pay for my powers". See how far you get.

When was the last time any of your characters went home to visit their parents? Or phone their sister? Or arranged to meet up with their brother? Unless the game has a specialist "family background table", do you even bother to give your characters a family? Some players write in a wife NPC at the start, but they're always tucked away in the background and placated with a post-adventure night at a resturant.

But it doesn't stop there with families. Do any of your characters have a best friend? Gaming groups are fraught with angsty heroes all just a whisper away from breaking the truce and pounding on each other. All adventuring parties carry this level of group mistrust bubbling under the surface with two characters in particular just ready to hack each other into pieces. So if you can't have PCs as best friends, how about NPCs? Again, no one ever seems to have a best friend NPC who gets referred to (or even seen).

If a character doesn't stipulate they have a spouse at the beginning of a game, then chances are they'll never meet anyone they'll want to get married to in game. Male characters seem to either go celebate for years, patronise prostitutes or else treat the damsel in distress as a prostitute you don't have to pay for...kind of like in a James Bond movie but without the dialogue.

Speaking of dialogue and disfunctional relationships, players have taken a leaf out of Scott Evil's book and try to blow the main villain away before he's had a chance to gloat or soliloquy. "Just the combat, ma'am" is the order of the day and if you're a GM with a particularly snide villain you've created, then don't bother having him invite the characters to share in a bottle of rare Chateaux Laffite Rothschild 1956 whilst he discusses why his evil plan is so brilliant because they'll only shoot him whilst he's looking for the corkscrew. As a consequence, most RPG villains are physically or magically maxed out because your Peter Cushing types don't stand a chance anymore.

WHY WE DO IT: Because there's something creepy about coming up with flirtatious dialogue with a same-sex GM whilst a largely same-sex RPG group watches you. And those so-called "best friends" will only betray you because that's what GMs do. And we hate soliloquies because they keep us waiting for the fight to start.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT: Champions came up with a lovely idea; you can't attack the main villain before you've taken out the minions first. And more female GMs wouldn't hurt either.

Ian Pearson (1 month ago)

Nick you should write a book ....

I remember DMing a six strong all girl group at Bushido. It was a joy!

They cooperated, kept in character, were VERY sharp and interacted with everything I had planned. They also kept me on my toes and would not let me get away with anything illogcal within the RPG universe.

Two of them even died well, for the right reasons - honour and loyalty. One of these was so perfect they got 5! Karma points for the next character.

The charater was a high ranking female in a noble household who moonlighted as a masked justice giver - you know the sort.

Then one evening she was attending a court function where EVERYONE was there and a bunch of heavily armed men burst in. Now she could have whipped out her concealed daggers and laid into them, but the SHAME, in front of everyone, prevented her. In fact, knowing this she DITCHED the daggers and spent the next few hours getting in the way of the bad guys, without revealing that she was the best fighter in the building.

In the end she dived infront of an arrow aimed at her Dymayo with NO attempt to knock it out of the way, just as help arrived. It really was true to the spirit of the game and so cinematic I wish it was on film.

Russell Bannister (1 month ago)

Nick, this was very entertaining and completely true but I can’t help but feel that it was written from a GMs perspective. From a players point of view these things look very different!

5. I AM NOW A GOD!
Player viewpoint: I am a 15th level fighter but still I get cheeked by the stable hand and the inn keeper makes me pay for my room in advance. I am close personal friends with an archmage and the most senior assassin in the kingdom. What is wrong with these people, do they not want to live? Plus I saved this village from orcs last week and I have a bag of holding full of platinum to spend here, can’t they manage to call me sir?

The only thing stopping me from killing them all and burning down their one horse, turnip farming, frontier town is the contents of the alignment box on my character sheet. They had better hope I haven’t had a bad day at work.

4. 4. I'D RATHER DIE THAN BE CAPTURED
Player viewpoint: Oh fantastic, another adventure based around having to escape from the royal dungeons. What happened to the tunnel I dug with a spoon two weeks ago when the king’s doppelganger took over? Does the GM honestly think I am entertained by an adventure that is based around being stripped to my pants, flogged and thrown in jail to be sexually assaulted by half-orc convicts.

Plus I am beside myself with worry about what has happened to my +3 sword Betsie, the only thing I have left that I care about after my characters entire family were beaten to death by the GM’s plot stick last week.

3. BLAGGING & PHANTOM KIT THAT WEIGHS NOTHING
The GM says “You go into the spooky old cave, have you got a torch? If it isn’t on your equipment list you don’t have it.”
“I go to the shops and buy one”
“The storm has flooded all the roads and the village store is closed. They ignore your calls for help or the $100 bills you push under the door.”
“FFS, the premise of this adventure is that I investigate the cave. I can’t see in the dark. I’ll ignore the absurdity of a 17 INT character setting out to explore a cave with no torch, but either you give me a light source or I sit outside the cave and wait for the world to end”
“OK, you find a 1” candle stub and two damp matches”

SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Player viewpoint: I’ve created a character called Thrud Orcslayer. I have three pages of combat powers, a sword of sharpness, and a back-story involving being orphaned by orcs. Why is the GM inflicting a scenario on me involving chatting to market traders in the town and hearing about their marital problems? Why don’t I stay at home and watch Eastenders, and save myself a two hour round trip to the game. Here we go, here come the halflings; now I have to sit through four hours of his repertoire of silly voices. Maybe if I just sit and read the players handbook he’ll get the message.

What! Now he’s docking me XPs for not interacting with the NPCs. If the adventure involved a dozen orcs guarding a chest I’d be happy to interact with them

1. NO RELATIONSHIPS, NO SOLILOQUIES
So the GM expects me to fill in the section of the character sheet marked “Family and connections”. I wasn’t born yesterday; why not call it “Hostages and emotional blackmail”. If I put a wife down, she’ll be kidnapped by mindflayers in the first session and used as a plot stick to force me to investigate the DeathTrap Dungeon of Endless Torment rather than doing the sensible thing and blocking the entrance with a rockslide. Of course she’ll be in the last room of the last level, where she’ll have fallen in love with a fellow prisoner, just out of spite because I rolled well in the final encounter. No doubt he has 18 Charisma, but he didn’t have to beat ten levels of the GMs poorly balanced encounters to get to speak to her.

Of course the other option of not putting down a wife is worse. It encourages the GM to devote a full hour of description to the red light district of every town we visit, with fully fleshed out NPCs straight out of his subconscious. But at least this isn’t as bad as him pretending to be a buxom serving girl giving me the come-on. That is just wrong.

Gary Yam (1 month ago)

Just to chip in - I can actually only agree with the first fallacy (?) - which I call "Let's just kill them". Personally, I think it arises from experienced players playing low level characters. A bunch of 1st level PCs walk into town and start throwing their weight around, bullying the NPCs and the comment that is guaranteed to pop up in every conversation is "Why don't we just kill them?" This happens because the players subconsciously know that (especially in a club game) the DM is unlikely to say - Ok,you start a fight, everyone else in town is much tougher than you - you all get lynched. Game over. It also happens because players are frustrated generally that they are not as mighty heroes as they ought to be, and its a lot safer to bully peasants than displacer beasts.

Related to this is "Assuming facts not in evidence", where a player declares that everyone will be bow down to their wizard simply because he is wearing robes and a pointy hat. In the Scales of War game, there was constant assumption that a certain Paladin was excessively intimidating beyond that which was empirically factual - simply because he was a Dragonborn - and Dragonborn "are all scary". That's the problem - trying to assume a power far beyond that indicated by the experience of actual capabilities of the character. Dragonborn are not all scary - they look like Velociraptors in drag.

And this new Magic Item for d100 games:

"Bucknard's Wondrous colour changing percentile dice"
The owner of these fantastic items rolls two single unit d10s, even though there can't be anyone that doesn't own a "tens" d10. The user is under no obligation to declare (as tradition dictates) which die represents the tens, and the items imbue the user with a hoot of joy as a variety of options for the actual result are presented. Even if the user does declare the die colours, he is under no obligation to honour earlier declarations if the alternative is more favourable.

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

Russell, you've given me an idea for The Adventuring Party As Rock Band. This is where the party is so experienced, so levelled up, they just don't have time to buy their own milk anymore...they just tour a series of trouble spots, destroy things and move on.

"Where are we this time?"

"Hommlet"

"Where?"

"HOMLETT!"

"Right, what's the gig?"

"Apparently we're booked in to trash the Temple of Elemental Evil"

"Played there a few years ago...it's a dump"

"Anyway, we're doing a gig there. And we're booked in at the Miller's Arms"

"Do they know our terms?"

"Yep, half the money up front, two fair village maidens for each one of us, suckling pig..."

"With a peach in its mouth? They know to do that 'cos I ain't eating no fucking baked apples"

"Yeah, they know about the peach clause. And they'll throw in some juicy magic items to sweeten the deal".

"Cool, wake me up when you need me to do any fighting"

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

In defence of the Intimidation skill:

To be fair to the much-maligned Kalibhan, he HAD learned the intimidation skill. It was not all to do with his sheer bulk and being a Dragonborn.

The skill, as I understand it (and I know Gary hates the Intimidate function in 4th Ed) is the skill to impose your will upon others, through force of personality. As far as I can see, it is very similar to the idea behind a Mexican Stand Off, or the contest of wills between two Samurai before they fight. Or how a bouncer on the door of a pub will try to make the drunk bloke back down, before violence becomes necessary (well, the best bouncers, anyway). If one of the opponents is scared and unsettled, he will be alot less effective, and will back down. If you disallow the Intimidate skill, why bother with any of the inter-personal skills? Diplomacy? Bluff? They all work upon the same thing, the psychology of your opponent, how to find its weak spots, and how to best use your own personality and force of will.

Much in the same way an actor will make believable that he is actually President/A Psychopath/Well-ard Geezer etc, despite us knowing that he is an actor, the Intimidate skill enables you to face down opponents with implied or actual threats of sudden physical violence. You are trying to convince someone that you are extremely tough and scary. And that getting violent, or arguing could get very painful. The facts that he was almost 7 feet tall, a humanoid Dragon (I think the art work for them, in the rules, suck) and carrying scary weapons/armour, were only part of it. The main thrust of intimidation is force of will (18 CHA goes a long way, as it should. Ever been to a gig? Or a political rally? The power that a good performer/orator has over a crowd is quite stunning), self-confidence (That would be CHA again) and knowing how to manipulate the fears of your opponent (that would be the skill) are all involved.
In short, he was able to intimidate because he knew how to use his own physical presence, his force of will and how to manipulate the fears of his enemies. Put in those terms, that seven foot tall guy, with reptilian features, black plate armour and a nasty looking sword becomes all the more intimidating than the perceived Velociraptor in drag. I know a growl from him would have me having second thoughts about my mortality.

In the end, the people he was intimidating were mostly lower level villains and monsters. The times he failed, it was against those who were most powerful, or just plain intimidating on their own merits.

As with most games, some of the skills and powers are a little unbalanced, or make little logical sense. I am not sure if Intimidate is one of them. But, after all, we are dealing with a FANTASY game. The Warlord power to heal, for example, just by offering encouraging words (Hey look, he is unconscious and bleeding to death....go talk to him, will you?) makes far less sense than being trained in how to intimidate people into backing out of a fight, IMHO. There are numerous abilities that suffer with this lack of believability (The Paladin holy challenge power, that does not depend on the targets intelligence. Holy Challenge on a Green Slime, anyone?) I just find Intimidate, as a skill, somewhat more believable.

Dave Brown (1 month ago)

Wow, this is fun 
Personally I like my adventures, either as a player or a DM to run like a movie or a book. Sometimes it’s a jolly fantasy romp, sometimes gritty drama, sometimes comedic, sometimes epic. I tend to dislike things that I couldn’t envisage happening in a well written story. I think it is the responsibility of both the players and the DM to forward whatever shared vision they have made for themselves.

5) I am a god now! – I think this behaviour has to do with the players getting out of hand. Often it’s the DM’s fault for not slapping them hard enough when they tried it the first time. If there are no consequences to the inevitable arrogance that comes with power, they will just be encouraged to become bigger bullies. (Admittedly this can be hard to do when your 10th level fighter can beat up the local duke and his guardsmen single handed.)
As a DM it’s probably unreasonable to arbitrarily insert a bunch of uber-powerful NPC’s to do the job of putting the arrogant back in their place by force, but you can still try to do it by affecting their reputation. Have well behaved PC’s adored by the locals, and badly behaved ones followed by children who throw vegetables. Above all, it’s up to the DM to have the NPC’s act reasonably – if they cheek the hero who has just saved their village then they deserve to be treated like the ungrateful wretches they are.

4) I’d rather die than be captured.- Very true I think. It happens in both A3- Assault on the Aerie of the Slave lords, and in the Sea of Blood module where the party is captured by Sahuagin and put into an arena. The big problem I have found is if you ‘go easy’ and let the party get used to surviving against ridiculous odds, then they see the encounter as one they ‘should’ win. (hey we always win, right?) If it starts going badly they pull out all of their ‘one-use’ special magic items/fate points etc. (It is often the loss of these that upsets the character who wanted to be heroic when there was *no* way to win.)
One trick here is to not be afraid to kill careless or unlucky players from time to time. It makes the survivors a bit more cautious and lets them know you are serious. You can also put in signals that the monsters are out for prisoners (the leader shouts ‘take them alive’ or throws a net over some of the party’s henchman)
The best way however is just to set up a heavily weighted encounter and let it run how it runs. If they are clever enough to beat your encounter, so be it – time to rewrite the scenario. (But it’s not hard to present ‘insurmountable’ odds as a DM now is it?)
In the Sea of blood I captured all the party except the girl who polymorphed into a fish and swam away. (thanks to the grapple rules :P) I had to run the split party separately and factor in her rescue attempts with the main plot on the fly. But hey -that’s why you get to sit in the Big Chair :P

3) Blagging + phantom kit. Lets face it – Encumbrance rules generally suck. My personal solution is to let players have ‘all reasonable kit’ as long as they don’t take the piss. When it’s going to be important, make them start to keep track. It doesn’t stop the story with endless minutiae bookkeeping.
As DM you know what the adventure is, so if you know a fun encounter will depend on how much rope they have available, ask them before they even get into the cavern. (You have to ask them about irrelevant stuff every now and again too, to keep them guessing –‘how many torches have you got ?– 6 each? Okay that’s minus 10’ move...’) If it’s a short encounter in a town, don’t worry about how many arrows they have, If they are stuck in a desert, make them declare it!
A common problem is overloaded characters. People think it’s ok to carry a sword, a two handed weapon, a spare mace, a couple of daggers, a backpack, a coil of 60 rope, a longbow and 40 arrows, 2 weeks food etc etc. (oh and I’m wearing chainmail) Bows and arrows are the worst culprits here.
I once dressed a player up (in re-enactment kit) as his character to show him how much he *really couldn’t* carry.
If players take too much, (after all its the character who is encumbered, the player is sitting down in a warm room eating crisps..) keep telling him how horrible it is travelling through the swamp carrying 40(!) arrows, with both hands full and a royal marines’ kit bag worth of stuff on his back. Then dock him some CON too!
Also, keep trashing their kit. Bowstrings don’t like water. Bows (and lutes) don’t like combat, climbing or tumbling. It is insanely difficult to carry a longbow along with anything else, especially if it is strung. 20 arrows is a shopping bag full.
I really like 3.5 dnd because it makes you spend time drawing weapons (or take the quick-draw feat)

2) Self-sufficiency. Hey if they have the power and the means, let them do it. Give the players their dues, but be consistent about it. If the characters have someone with a few points in profession:sailor, they can probably navigate at sea quite well. If they haven’t, feel free to have them go astray unless they are lucky or clever.
Make a big deal over the presence or lack of skills, but don’t be too harsh or too generous either way. The bonuses and penalties are yours to give out. I like the ‘take a roll of 10’ rule that allows you to automatically do straightforward tasks with no roll. It is not believable if your ‘computer expert’ (with 70% skill) can’t google something 30% of the time, or your thief-acrobat can’t jump over a wall one time in 20 or more.

1)No relationships, No soliloquies –
“So the GM expects me to fill in the section of the character sheet marked “Family and connections”. I wasn’t born yesterday; why not call it “Hostages and emotional blackmail”. This made me laugh a lot.

This is a really tough one to deal with in RPG’s, and I agree with Nick that it’s often done badly. I reckon it’s mainly a rollover from when (most of us) first started playing. Teenage boys don’t know much about serious relationships, and those that play Dnd often are not the best at social interactions. To the average teenagers dnd character friends aren’t worth having unless they are high level, women are conquests and not worth anything unless they have 18 charisma, and you roll a d10 +Con to see how many prostitutes you can lay at the brothel...
Hopefully we all have examples of ’more mature’ behaviour than that , but to engage in it you need to first have a campaign where deep emotional behaviour is acceptable. Much of the time we really just want to kill things and take their stuff..
Seriously attempting to roleplay ‘love’, ‘compassion’, ‘fear’ or ‘trauma’ is not only difficult, its sometimes embarrassing, so we often leave it to LARP or Vampire players.
It’s always easier to play a psychotic racist dwarf berserker than an emotionally conflicted utilitarian paladin 

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

Most of us are relating experiences in terms of D&D, but often other games see the worst excesses of what I described. I'll give examples.

I AM NOW A GOD! The worst case I saw of this was in a game of Champions. A couple of the heroes started to think of themselves more as deities than as average joes who just happened to have the ability to shoot fire out of their asses. One of them, said fire shooting person, started calling normal humans "mortals" (even though she was by far immortal) and the character who could heal through touch started touring hospitals, healing the sick and calling trained paramedics "inferiors".

I'D RATHER DIE THAN GET CAPTURED. Again, the Champions game saw some pretty desperate attempts at trying to stay free. A couple of times, a party of 5 characters would be down to the last hero standing; I hadn't planned on wiping out the group or having them captured, they just lost a fair fight, but the last guy was desperate not to put his hands up and say "take me to your leader". Likewise in a game of Privateers and Gentlemen, the group botched a fight with some French soldiers but the Frenchies were honourable and offered good terms if the barely living, out of ammo and with 3 players unconscious party would surrender. I played, as the GM, the old "you have done your Royal Navy honour, and I am proude to have been your adversary. I promise that you will be treated well in captivity" bit and was working out a follow up adventure where the group would investigate French HQ and escape. The lone standing PCs response? Snarl at the French officer and try to butcher him on the spot. I, shamefully, pulled a Deus Ex Machina and had a Royal Navy warship show up to rescue them. I should have had the bottle to let that last guy get killed for being crazy and taken the rest captive so they could then escape next week.

PHANTOM KIT THAT WEIGHS NOTHING: Don't get me started on the excesses of Traveller groups. It probably has the largest equipment list of any game in existance but just because you can buy something, doesn't mean you have to...mind you, we are talking about gamers here. I ran a Top Secret game a few years ago where I wanted the group to investigate the disappearance of a top scientist and it was meant to be a low key mission so no rocket launchers, no wrist watch lasers and no automatic weapons with the agency just issuing pistols to the group. The group's response? Derail the mission by going on a whole evening session long quest for illegal firearms markets in Eastern Europe. Again, I should have been tougher as a GM on that one.

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

I'D RATHER DIE THAN GET CAPTURED. Again, the Champions game saw some pretty desperate attempts at trying to stay free. A couple of times, a party of 5 characters would be down to the last hero standing; I hadn't planned on wiping out the group or having them captured, they just lost a fair fight, but the last guy was desperate not to put his hands up and say "take me to your leader".

Ermmm...guilty as charged on that one. I can only blame a shite day at work, and a few drinks.

:-D

Gary Yam (1 month ago)

The problem with the Intimidate skill is two-fold. Firstly, its effects are not reproduceable by monsters, the party can force monsters to flee or surrender, but no-one can force the party to flee or surrender.

Secondly (and much more importantly) as an effect, Intimidate-in-Combat is out of all proportion to any other attack in the game. Can anyone name a single daily power at any level with the same power as Intimidate? A rechargeable at-will/encounter power that forces all bloodied enemies to surrender (effectively forcing them out of the game)? Not only that, it can be used by any class, repeatedly. Paladin fails? Let the rogue try. Rogue succeeds, as soon as someone else is bloodied, he can try it on them too.

I just find it ridiculous that such a power exists. You're locked in deadly combat with an opponent, hacking one another to bits - all of a sudden you stop fighting and posture a bit, or shout a bit - and they run away.

It also takes no account of the bloodied state of the attacker, relative strengths of each side etc. The stock answer is: the DM should adjust the DCs - but then you may as well disallow the whole rule, as DCs would almost always be insurmountable. If the DM thinks the monsters are doing so badly - he'll have them run off.

I've never had anyone try it in a game I've run, but I wouldn't allow it unless it was central to the plot of a scenario. And it would have to change to have some kind of cost for using it. I would have Intimdate provoke an opportunity attack, and if you fail, you give up CA.

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

*Disclaimer: I was not aware of the exact combat use of initimidate in the 4th ed rules.

Fair comments, Gary, but the skill was never used in that way in Carl\'s game. It was used to bully the occasional NPC out of the way, in order to speed up the game.

I still think the skill has it\'s place (as do any of the interpersonal skills), but not as written. That is way overpowered. Is the use of Bluff to gain combat advantage (a massive bonus for any rogue, and a decent +2 for anyone else) not similarly overpowered?

I think the use of intimidate in non-combat situations is a fair use of the skill (given that the players have role-played a situation, and a skill roll is made to gauge success, á la bluff or diplomacy skills). On occasion, if the PCs are winning a fight, but the monsters have not broken and run, an intimidate roll (with the right role-playing added in) could at least force a morale check (am not too familiar with the rules as they are in 4th ed.) Also, the character forcing the check should lose his attack, at the very least. And, if taking a prisoner, he is going to have to guard it (otherwise, we have an escapee on the loose), pretty much taking both out of the fight. The player could tie up, or manacle the prisoner, but that\'s not ideal in the middle of a fight, is it? Attention elsewhere in this case, would give combat advantage.

On the subject of what players can do that monsters cant, what about monsters re-charging powers? Players cannot do that (with your houseruling being the exception). As it stands, I think the 4th Ed. is a system with flaws, but then, most RPGs are.

:-)

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

I know of 3 RPGs where an intimidate skill works, and that the designers have properly thought out what it can and can't do.

Deadlands has it, and its use is not in combat, but as a way of staring down a torch bearing posse of locals or scaring a kid gunfighter who wants to test how fast you are.

Top Secret (original) had it but it was based on a skill v skill roll between the character and the NPC.

And James Bond RPG had it, but again it wasn't a combat skill or ability and it was only useful against a certain type of bad guy...certainly not your Bond villains and their henchmen.

In all those cases the skill was of limited use and not designed for combat but rather during interpersonal bits of the scenario.

Back to the 5 "fallacies", the self-sufficiency and character relationships aspects are more important in certain types of games than others. If your frame of reference is just D&D, then relationships aren't really important because the game is designed for characters to be iternerant wanderers. However, superhero games rely on characters being tied to a locale or community and thus the idea that the PCs are isolated and self-sufficient doesn't really work. Without those NPC contacts, the inside man in the Mayor's office or even the loved ones that the heroes are sworn to protect, then the game just becomes "punch up of the week" where there's a bank job and this week the villains are Ogre, Slamburglar and Destructo-Man to beat up.

In my previous Champions campaign, a lot of fun was had from one particular character who had a whole dysfunctional family circle to deal with and it was done really well and gave that character motivation to do what he did. One time he put biffing up a bad guy ahead of rescuing his brother, with disastrous consequences. As GM, I didn't plan on that but we worked it naturally into the game and it paid off in plot twists for many follow up games.

It's a pain in the ass for some GMs to have PCs spurn any chance of building contacts and relationships in the game because it kind of cuts short the chances for players to gain information and support. If, in a game, I write in that the group will meet this millionaire who will in turn help them build a new base or helicopter (which will become important down the line), and they refuse to meet him that puts a spanner in the works of my adventure planning. If the chopper is going to be crucial to the game, I'm going to have to introduce it, Deus Ex Machina style and I hate doing that.

In other modern games, the group will need contacts, informants and a network of allies to work with...it's better that they are introduced and grow into the campaign naturally rather than have a long winded exposition from the GM that drops the characters into the action without much thought to the hows and whys.

I'm not of the school of giving the players a chunk of exposition and then setting them loose against the enemy. I prefer colour and story to my games and I'm going to back up Dave with what he said earlier. The funny thing about kit in D&D is that it's the game that sees the fewest abuses, mainly because there isn't that much kit to have in D&D. Get a weapon, armour and your basic adventuring stuff and that's it really. The trouble comes when players sneakily use a 2 handed weapon and a shield and hold a lantern and have a gazillion rings on their fingers. I do like the way 4th ed. has slots for each magic item on the character sheet to curb these excesses.

And solliloquies? Well, in one game the villain was having a climactic battle with one of the PCs and he was gloating about how the hero couldn't stop him. I hoped the PC would respond with some of his own banter but he went into pure combat mode, just pounding on the villain until he was defeated. All the rest of the players agreed with me that his single minded combat mentality killed the atmosphere of the game. I give out extra XP to those who get into character and give that bit more and who respect the genre conventions.

Gary Yam (1 month ago)

Re: No Relationships

Nick, I have to disagree on this point. Not because I don't think you're essentially correct, but because I think it misses the point. Whenever I have played or refereed RPGs, its intended to highlight the adventures of the characters - the high water marks of their lives. The personal lives of those characters falls well outside that. Even in a campaign game, I tend to look toward the adventuring. If my character is having a divorce or a bad relationship with his mother, I don't want to bore the other players with it. D&D is about hitting monsters and taking their loot. CoC is about poking around in cupboards and then fleeing in terror. Whilst I agree that character development makes a game colourful and vivid, I think the line has to be drawn at backstory - and personal relationships should go no further. Any in-game relationships either with NPCs, or indeed other PCs are bound to trigger sabotage attempts from either other players, or possibly the referee.

Secondly, I feel that in-game personal relationships are impractical in RPGs. As a player, I want to blow up hordes of skeletons. I do not want to sit next to someone describing developing an embryonic relationship with a girl his character has met in an inn. Also, this becomes an extension of the meta-game problem. We take it for granted that RPGs are generally about fantasy. None of us have any real experience of tackling tentacle-faced horrors from the stars, or have super powers, or are secret agents or indeed have slashed our way through a subterranean complex full of monsters. Our character sheet takes over, and the stats and imagination take over as a surrogate for our practical experience. How does the same process work with roleplaying the pursuit of personal relationships? Should we just roll a combination of skill checks and declare that someone has indeed done well with a new girlfriend - or do we want to sit down and make someone roleplay out pursuing a sexual relationship?

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

Well, I'm trying to draw from the experiences from over 15 different RPGs that I own and from wildly different genres and most responders are framing everything within D&D.

D&D is for itinerant wandering troubleshooters who are on the make. Very little room for relationships and friendship building.

So let's leave D&D for a moment. Let's travel over to the Superhero genre. Now, in your comic books relationships are central to the characters, especially in Marvel. Spiderman wouldn't be who he is without Peter Parker and his on-off relationship with Mary Jane, or the counsel of his Aunt Mary or his fear and loathing with J. Jonah Jameson. It's built into the Champions system, and also features in Marvel Superheroes, DC Heroes and the newest one Mutants and Masterminds that PCs will have a network of Significant Others, colleagues and other NPCs to protect and interact with. In superhero games, the fights aren't just about biffing the bad guy of the week, it's about fighting for something important to the PCs and fighting for values as well.

Pendragon takes this a step further; it's built into the game that the PCs will form these relationships, alliances, allegiances and emnities that last not just for one adventure, but for generations to follow. The more a player puts into their character in terms of non-combat role playing, the more the game rewards you.

I can think of lots of other games that go beyond merely trashing the monster of the week. Call of Cthulhu works differently because on the surface it's all about thwarting (not necessarily defeating) the threat of the moment but some of the more rewarding games have had more depth in them and have seen character growth that goes beyond just boosting skills at the end of an adventure. Cthulhu doesn't have that itinerant wandering aspect to it that D&D has and I've been in some excellent games where contacts at Miskatonic keep recurring and characters get developed more.

I'm that kind of gamer and GM: It's story and characters first, mechanics and combats second. The fights serve as any fights do in an action story: They punctuate the story to give excitement and serve as a climax. But then again, I've played games of Champions where there is no enemy to fight, but a disaster to avert or help the victims of. Likewise, I've been in many excellent games of Traveller where there wasn't any combat at all. And the Star Trek games (in all their forms) often have more emphasis placed on the interpersonal rather than the violence.

D&D is a fine game, but it's not the only one that floats my boat and likewise, there is more to role playing than combat of the week.

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

I think the whole problem is the level of trust, between player and GM ( and even other players), not to abuse the system.
We've all been in games where it has spiralled out of control (too much kit, 'God-complex' characters, GM destroying favourite kit/loved ones and even other characters doing the damage to a favourite/irreplaceable piece of kit, or causing the death of family) so there is the tendency of a lot of players to minimise the damage, so to speak.

(In one Star Wars game, for example, my young Jedi had his lightsaber stolen from him, whilst asleep, by one of the other characters, and taken apart. It was the only thing the character had of meaningful value, and the only reminder of his father who had died saving his infant son (yeah, it's melodrama, but that's Star Wars!). The excuse was "If it's found, we'll all be executed by the Empire". Now, IMHO, the GM was at fault as much as the other player, as according to the rules, I had no chance of detecting the sneak thief, finding where it was disposed of, or even of making another one.)

That's just one example of things being screwed up. If it happens too many times, some players start to refuse to play ball, even in other games, with differing players and GMs.

Dylan O'Donnell (1 month ago)

On the "phantom kit" issue: everyone's seen the relevant "DM of the Rings" strip, right?

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=984

Gary Yam (1 month ago)

Jon:

What you're describing is the "Stealing from own side" problem, which as anyone who has played the game knows; often rears its head in D&D - mostly because of the "thief" class. Although how someone has managed to justify it in Star Wars, I have no idea.

I have played a thief in the past, and to a high level too- and have at no time ever been tempted to steal from my own side. This is because the party is a unit, and thieves are part of that unit for their skills in certain situations - not because the rest of the players feel like dragging a kleptomaniac around a dungeon with them for the crack.

After experience of this kind of thing in the early days, as a DM - I ask the uncooperative player one simple question. "If you were an NPC, how long do you think your character would last?"

I agree - its totally destructive to the game. Reasonably, I would have stopped the game and asked everyone to press the reset button. Because, if your character had been allowed a roll to see if he detected the steal, where would that have reasonably led? Violence or not, there would certainly be a breakdown in the party - which would reasonably lead to the failure of the game as an RPG campaign.

For all this type of stuff, which players sometimes feel obliged to do in town etc- Paladins helping little old ladies across the road, thieves carrying out burglaries, Space Marines going to Spaceport bars and starting brawls.....it sometimes seems such an RPG cliche, and we should have gone past that and left it in 1987. Surely, in town the paladin should just say "I go and do Paladin stuff". The thief goes and does thief stuff etc. Because going into detail of acting "in-character" surely doesn't add anything to the game as we all know its just a process of following well-trodden footsteps for the sake of it.

If a character has anything genuinely interesting to do "in town" as the result of backstory or a side plot - then all power to the players and DM. If its looking for a long lost uncle or trying desperately to find the final piece of a set of magic items - great.

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

Players have itches they need to scratch for their characters. Sure, it's fine to say "I go do paladin stuff" but that's a little drab. You don't have to go to the other extreme and plumb the depths of a scene involving helping little old ladies but there is a balance that can be struck. For example, in the Bushido game, we went into some detail but not excessively so about what we'd do in the city. There are certain schools of learning and fighting which are important for characters to go to.

The best games I can remember involve players being more than combat machines and had them rising above their mere in-game designations. The ones where players had difficult choices to make, who found personality and motivation for their characters. I can't remember much about the Scales of War campaign...can't remember the combats at all...except for that moment where we thought we'd lost Lindrel for good as the waters rose up to engulf him. The decision, to go back for him or to go on...and characters made their choices.

As for thieves, well it's pretty unimaginative to constantly play a stereotypical D&D thief with stealing from the party and just being around to open doors and check for traps. I've seen a few players again rise above that simplification and give their thieves a bit more. I've had more problems with magic users casting sleep spells on the party and stealing stuff.

As a GM, I like to give each character a bit of time where they're the star. I'm not so fond of those games where the group is just a personality free blob, where NPCs address everyone as the same and where it doesn't matter who that character is as long as they can kick ass in a fight. That's the D&D I found when I started playing at the age of 14 and I've moved on from that.

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

Gary, like I said, that particular incident was between characters. There have been incidents in other games when the GM has decided to do much the same. My point was, that any incidents like this, whether it is player or GM that does it, erodes trust in the next GM to tell the story. And to make it an enjoyable experience.

In short, going back to the main thrust of what I was saying, players don't want their characters to be abused and stomped on. Tell the story, and allow the characters a chance to come back from adversity. Arbitrary 'stomping and stealing' decisions help no-one. That needs trust from both sides. And a clear understanding of the rules and what abuses can be tolerated. In most AD&D games, for example, characters are allowed a reasonable level of equipment, without taking the mick (an 'abuse' of the rules, but a tolerated one). Encumbrance rules slow things down to a tedious crawl.

Discuss what the players and GM want from the game. You wanna kick butt all the time? Great. So long as everyone wants to play that sort of game, that's perfectly workable. Other players like the interaction with NPCs and the role-playing. After all, combat is just an exercise in dice rolling (with a few modifiers for creative thinking, depending on the GM). If your group is a mixed bag (and let's face it, most are) then tolerating each others gaming styles is a must.

Also, players should work with the GM to work a good back story or recurring themes that crop up. No-one wants everything slowed to a standstill because Superdude's parents show up every ten minutes. But, allowing each character a little 'out of adventure time' adds layers to a campaign. To me, it is more interesting to have a reason for going on an adventure if the character has more motivation beyond "I need 600xp for another level, and 4k gp for that magic sword I want."

IMHO, "I'm doing Paladin things" is just plain lazy and avoids the whole point of playing a paper and pencil RPG.
We all want our characters to kick butt in combat, but we are talking RPGs here, and not some tedious point and click MMORPG where the mission is "Kill 'X' creatures to gain 'Y' gold and items". If I want to mindlessly kill hordes of nasties in a dungeon, with little or no interaction/reasoning (beyond financial rewards) or role-playing, I can play any of the online games or something like Descent (4th Ed without any pretense of RP'ing! Good fun, but NOT an RPG).

It seems to me that, if a GM has put in some effort to add some colour to the game (even if it's just a few local guards that seem pedantic and annoying), the very least that one could do is to actually interact with the NPCs. It does not take too much effort, really. And can add non-tangible rewards (favours) and other incentives too (talk to that family member/girlfriend/pesky kid that hangs about all the time and gain clues, solve the problem, get help later on, get a discount/rumour/transport of this barren rock, or whatever).

:-)

Russell Bannister (1 month ago)

I have been enjoying reading the posts on this thread. Thanks to Nick for starting it off. I just want to add a few of my random thoughts. Hopefully it goes without saying that neither this nor my first post was intended to be a criticism of any games run by anyone likely to be reading this website.

5. I AM NOW A GOD
I’ve never encountered this as an issue personally, but I am interested to see that other people have. Assuming the players are all reasonably polite people in real life sure this is just a disconnect between the player’s and DM’s opinion of the character’s power / status. Surely an out-of-character chat would clear this up?

4. I’d rather die than be captured
I’ve played several adventures that start with the players being thrown into prison and didn’t really enjoy any of them, having said that I see this as a trust issue (as Jon mentioned). If players trust the GM not to kill or humiliate them they will surrender if it is appropriate. They are even more likely to do it if they believe that the GM is going to come up with some entertaining scenes because of it.

3. BLAGGING & PHANTOM KIT THAT WEIGHS NOTHING
Dave’s solution would seem to solve the problem here:

“My personal solution is to let players have ‘all reasonable kit’ as long as they don’t take the piss.”

I think equipment is an issue for three reasons
(a) The GM is a dick, e.g. makes you die of thirst if you haven’t got a waterskin on your equipment list.
(b) The player is a dick and wants to shortcut the GM’s plot or get a mechanical advantage over the other players e.g.
“Right so you are lost in the Desert of Despair dying of thirst, when…”
“Actually I have a compass on my equipment list, and ten waterskins, and a camel…”
(c) The players and GM have a difference of opinion whether the game is meant to be a story or a simulation of reality. In a narrative the characters have whatever equipment is necessary to make an entertaining story. In a simulation the consequences follow from the input. If the character is in a desert and has a camel on his equipment list then he escapes the desert safely, the fact that being lost in the desert may make for a fun story is seen as irrelevant.

2. SELF-SUFFICIENCY
In my experience the players are usually happy to make connections with NPCs just as long as it isn’t forced. I played one WFRP game where the GM introduced an NPC and tried to insinuate him into our close-knit party. In the RP that followed we took a dislike to him and so we told him to go away. He then kept popping up everywhere we went, until we threatened to kill him. Finally the GM explained he had to join us for “plot reasons” and so we let him tag along. Although we tolerated him he was at best an annoyance, and no character ever felt anything towards him but irritation. In contrast in Gary’s out of club D&D game, the party has adopted a level 0 guard as a hireling / apprentice. Because this choice was made by the characters not the GMs or the plot he was a welcome member of the party, and my character at least was pleased when he survived the session.

As to the issue of the intimidate skill, personally I see no problem with using skills to add a structure to social interactions. They don’t need to replace roleplaying but they should define the capabilities of the characters. A character with low persuade skill is not persuasive no matter how articulate the player is. Otherwise all interactions are based on GM fiat alone which in my opinion tends to crush player input into the game. In the example of the intimidate skill Gary and Jon clearly have a difference of opinion on how intimidating Dragonborn are. The phrase:

“they look like Velociraptors in drag”

cracked me up.

Given that Dragonborn are purely fictional this conflict of imagination is reasonable. The conflict is resolved by reference to the character sheet which defines exactly how intimidating the character is. I

1. NO RELATIONSHIPS, NO SOLILOQUIES
I couldn’t agree more with Gary on this one. I don’t have any interest in romance or sex as part of a roleplaying game. I have no problem with it as background colour, but playing it out is at best mildly embarrassing and at worst sinister. I appreciate that this is a matter of personal taste and I am not trying to say that there is anything inappropriate with including it in a game by mutual consent.

Nick Hughes (1 month ago)

Whenever sex or romance rears its head in one of my games, I take the Rated PG approach: Start with some flirtatious banter with the NPC, a clinch and then cut away to another scene....we can imagine the rest. Actually, sex and romance are pretty much unavoidable in Pendragon and James Bond but you have to do it right as a GM.

Anyway, I wanted to talk about the refusal to banter with the enemy. In a heroic flavoured campaign, just rolling dice and thumping the boss villain with no banter is the difference between gaining the minimum XP for the adventure and getting a nice role-playing bonus!

Watch out, in a future game I might say something like "hey, my uncle Fred lives near hear, I think I'll call in on him and say hi"

Dave Brown (1 month ago)

My 'group back home' have one nice way of dealing with backstory /minor social interactions. During the 'downtime' between adventures you have the option of posting something on the website - often a little story with some background flavour. Usually these just serve as a bit of insight into the motivations and personality of your character, but sometimes they can be used later as adventure hooks. You can write within reasonable limits, and include NPC interactions, or other players (a bit like the writers of the collaborative 'Thieves world' books)
For the players who are not writers, you can just say 'I run my business' or 'I socialise in bars' or whatever.
I've not tried a superhero game. I'd like to sometime.

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

"In the example of the intimidate skill Gary and Jon clearly have a difference of opinion on how intimidating Dragonborn are."

I'm not saying that ALL Dragonborn are intimidating. The point I was trying to make was that someone that is big, armed to the teeth, with a strong personality, confidence will and has the training and knowledge how to project themselves is going to some across as fairly intimidating if they want to. That the individual is a Dragonborn is secondary.

Having said that, the average Dragonborn is going to be more intimidating than the average human, according to the 4th Ed. rules just because Intimidate is based off of the Charisma stat.

:-)

Dave Brown (1 month ago)

On the 'sex and romance' theme, I was in a campaign once that ran for many years where one of the themes ended up being the growing relationship between my goody-goody bleeding-heart-but-a-bit-stuck-up paladin, and my friends macho-hero-with-a-heart-of-gold barbarian. As the years went on, we judged they gradually warmed to each other, and eventually they did the decent thing and got married. It's kinda weird playing through a courtship like that but I didnt find it uncomfortable because I usually think of my roleplaying as writing the story 'for my character', rather than saying pretending I am that character and having to say what 'I' do. It didn't really detract from the action, and was a bit like the 'Han Solo and Leia' story (so not too soppy)

Some people dont feel comfortable playing female characters at all though. Most female characters I have seen being played by men are either completely non-sexual, utter prickteases, or complete slags. :P
Again I think it is easier to play dysfunctional characters because their traits produce more obvious behaviours.

Russell Bannister (1 month ago)

Jon,

I don't disagree with your argument here at all. Any 7' tall, heavy armed character is intimidating.

My personal opinion is also that Dragonborn are probably naturally scary, given that they are anthropomorphic crocodiles. The point I was trying to make is that personal opinion doesn't come into it because the rules define how scary they are. The rules aren't a straitjacket they are just a way of regulating a shared imagined world.

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

Russell: I sorta kinda guessed that :-)

On the subject of sex/romance in RPGs, I think Nick's hit it on the head. Most of the time, it's better to cut-away from the scene once things seem to be going okay between the NPC and PC (or both PCs for that matter). Get to the initial hug or kiss, and then back away. It's not fun for most players and can feel very uncomfortable.
Some games call for it to be present (Pendragon is the only game I know with rules for families etc), but it is handled tastefully in that.

With the whole surrendering/being captured thing, I think it is a genre thing, too. In a 18th/19th century period game, if the characters are officers then offering up your blade and weapons for parole is perfectly honourable, and in most circumstances expected. An honourable surrender, having fought the good fight is not frowned upon. It will save your ship/troops etc. And, any officer or POW is perfectly entitled to make his escape should there be an opportunity.

Dave: This is one of the reasons that the hobby needs more lady players. To add believability to the female adventurers. Oh, and they tend to look a lot prettier than the average male gamer, too!

:-D

Clair Umbo (1 month ago)

I never thought about the whole family thing in D&D. I guess I like it for the sole reason you can be someone else (someone whose family does not cause them untold amounts of grief). Now that i think about it i may try to introduce some sort of relationship element (friendship probably-although not with other members of my party-they is evil) for Waywatcher. I'm worried she might be lonely.

And I would dispute Mick's comment about friendship, Wilderness and Bob the Younger are fantastic friends and watch each other's back every step of the way. There is complete trust that one will never 'loot the body' of the other.

Gary Yam (1 month ago)

Of course, I agree that a game without any interaction would be boring or mechanical, that's why in my games you do have plenty of interaction between the PCs and the NPCs - and backstory etc is a feature of the campaigns.

Where I have to draw the line is at the trivial and banal. Saying "I just do paladin stuff" is most certainly not "lazy roleplaying" it's showing respect for your fellow players by not boring them with your vanities; and not wasting their precious leisure time with irrelevance and cliche.

Take a typical D&D campaign. The party has been together for several play sessions. The party goes into town. So, the fighter gets drunk on dwarven spirits and starts a brawl. The paladin feeds some orphans, and the thief starts pickpocketing merchants. This is what I would term "fighter stuff", "paladin stuff" and "thief stuff". It's certainly not what I would consider imaginative nor valuable.

Like I said before - if the campaign is going to feature a load of side treks and interesting stuff for PCs to pursue, or if the PCs are going to invent their own interests that can impact on play - then fine. But if its going to be a case of The Farmer Wants a Wife, or just doing the same old same old - I see no point.

And to me, the whole thing with the personal relationships is just one step beyond the scope of the games in the sense that it trades on the banal. Players can't save the world in reality - so they play parts in games where they can. What kind of indictment is it on players if they have to simulate intimacy in the same way that they simulate acts of superheroics?

I think Russell's right, these things range from the embarrassing to the sinister. And the idea that we need more of such "roleplaying" in the same sentance as needing "more female gamers" sends me into despair.

I've put salacious and sleazy topics in some of my games - pornography, prostitution, sexual deviancy and fetishism; but this is to provide background, atmosphere, entertainment and comic relief. It's not there to provide opportunities for interaction for the sake of interaction.

In the Wretched Earth game, the Coast Guard party had been in prison in the Shadowfell for a year or more. It would have been "good roleplaying" to play out their visit to a brothel to work out their frustrations. But we didn't. Why? Because that would have been beyond creepy - and it would have made no contribution to the story. The Delta Green campaign featured one of the characters going undercover and negotiating terms with a street hooker - this was an essential part of the scenario and in keeping with the backdrop of the game. I can't imagine a game that would have developing casual romance as an essential part of the backdrop.

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

"Of course, I agree that a game without any interaction would be boring or mechanical, that's why in my games you do have plenty of interaction between the PCs and the NPCs - and backstory etc is a feature of the campaigns.
Where I have to draw the line is at the trivial and banal. Saying "I just do paladin stuff" is most certainly not "lazy roleplaying" it's showing respect for your fellow players by not boring them with your vanities; and not wasting their precious leisure time with irrelevance and cliche.
Take a typical D&D campaign. The party has been together for several play sessions. The party goes into town. So, the fighter gets drunk on dwarven spirits and starts a brawl. The paladin feeds some orphans, and the thief starts pickpocketing merchants. This is what I would term "fighter stuff", "paladin stuff" and "thief stuff". It's certainly not what I would consider imaginative nor valuable."

Doing the obvious and pointless stuff, as per your examples, is also what I would term 'lazy role-playing'. Anyone can do that sort of mindless gaming, but it's hardly stretching one's creativity, is it? And I think that each player likes a bit of 'my time' to indulge in a little vanity etc. Doesn't each player want to have some impact on the game? And a good GM will pick up on seemingly small details, and I've known a few to spin entire plots and devices from the seemingly trivial.

"Like I said before - if the campaign is going to feature a load of side treks and interesting stuff for PCs to pursue, or if the PCs are going to invent their own interests that can impact on play - then fine. But if its going to be a case of The Farmer Wants a Wife, or just doing the same old same old - I see no point."

I whole-heartedly agree. Trivia, for trivia's sake is pointless. But worthwhile interactions are well worth pursuing. Any group can say 'We do [class] stuff, when we get to town', but better groups do worthwhile stuff, not just the ho-hum, same-old stuff.

"And to me, the whole thing with the personal relationships is just one step beyond the scope of the games in the sense that it trades on the banal. Players can't save the world in reality - so they play parts in games where they can. What kind of indictment is it on players if they have to simulate intimacy in the same way that they simulate acts of superheroics?
I think Russell's right, these things range from the embarrassing to the sinister. And the idea that we need more of such "roleplaying" in the same sentance as needing "more female gamers" sends me into despair."

Injecting a little player-NPC relationship stuff is not bad, so long as it is not taken too far. My 'we need more female role-players' was a jest. However, most of the female rp-ers I have known have been the best at creating the most believable personas for their characters. Far better than a lot of their male counterparts, that's for sure!

"I've put salacious and sleazy topics in some of my games - pornography, prostitution, sexual deviancy and fetishism; but this is to provide background, atmosphere, entertainment and comic relief. It's not there to provide opportunities for interaction for the sake of interaction.
In the Wretched Earth game, the Coast Guard party had been in prison in the Shadowfell for a year or more. It would have been "good roleplaying" to play out their visit to a brothel to work out their frustrations. But we didn't. Why? Because that would have been beyond creepy - and it would have made no contribution to the story."

Totally agree with this.

"The Delta Green campaign featured one of the characters going undercover and negotiating terms with a street hooker - this was an essential part of the scenario and in keeping with the backdrop of the game. I can't imagine a game that would have developing casual romance as an essential part of the backdrop."

So, negotiating a dalliance for money you can envisage....sans money is not possible to see in a game? Can't see that working in, for example, a James Bond style setting? I can.

:-)

Stefan Lerbech (1 month ago)

Its late in the night, and with work tomorrow I will be brief:

Players are gods syndrome:
I love the Eberon setting, as it has done up with the: I am a king therefore I must be level 25½. Instead of the king being all powerful and good at bashing stuff, he has his loyal bodygurad who have lived just as long as the adventurers, and seen just as much action...if not more.
The lowly innkeeper might be level 2, but his bouncer who spends every single day fighting, is 9 levels above the party.

Intimidate:
In my opinion it is VERY important that intimidate is threats and insults. Intimidate is not making you any friends at all. In the old reaction modifier rules, my danish group have always played with the fact that: Intimidate might make people do what you say for the next action/5 minutes, but from then on your reaction against that person will always start out at hostile/enemy.
So you might intimidate the City guard to let you in, but the next day 20 bruisers show up, and the guard is nowhere in sight.
Also intimidate DOES work on players. I dont mind at all a GM telling me "the dragon who just tore the head off your friend tells you to run...unless you can fail a wisdom check...you do what it says"

Relationships:
In gary's D&D I tried to build a relationship with the poor blacksmith who had lost his wife. But in a game with 7 other people, there is just no time for 1 GM to have a 20 minutes conversation with 1 player. It would be selfish of me to have "hogged" Gary-time from the rest of the group.
I really like the downtime idea that your group uses Dave.

Retorts and witty remarks:
Nick you are fantastic at comming up with good remarks, you are very eloquent and I really admire you ability to play your current bard, and to roll 3 songs out of your sleeve. It would be an awesome session and combat if witty banther and quick retorts could be slung across the table...but not all of us have the gift of gab, or mastery of language.
If I was to try and make good come backs in combat situations, I fear I would start using "oh yea? your mum!" or "Im rubber, youre glue!". But I know my limits, and build my characters around that. If the GM start penalising me by docking XP, or rewarding everyone else extra XP (same thing really) for my flaws as a person, Im not sure its the friendly atmosphere that I as a gamer like to exist in. As I see it there is a reason we have stats and character sheets. :)

Jon Burfoot (1 month ago)

Intimidate:
In my opinion it is VERY important that intimidate is threats and insults. Intimidate is not making you any friends at all. In the old reaction modifier rules, my danish group have always played with the fact that: Intimidate might make people do what you say for the next action/5 minutes, but from then on your reaction against that person will always start out at hostile/enemy.
So you might intimidate the City guard to let you in, but the next day 20 bruisers show up, and the guard is nowhere in sight.
Also intimidate DOES work on players. I dont mind at all a GM telling me "the dragon who just tore the head off your friend tells you to run...unless you can fail a wisdom check...you do what it says"

Hell, if the Dragon is ripping characters up, and it gives you a chance to live...who needs a Wisdom check? lol

Relationships:
In gary's D&D I tried to build a relationship with the poor blacksmith who had lost his wife. But in a game with 7 other people, there is just no time for 1 GM to have a 20 minutes conversation with 1 player. It would be selfish of me to have "hogged" Gary-time from the rest of the group.

Like I said. No-one is going to complain about 5 minutes of game conversation, esp. if it is entertaining. The whole 'chat' with the cursed berserking axe was moderately funny, and did not really advance the game as such. But it was fun.
:-)

I really like the downtime idea that your group uses Dave.

Ditto.

Retorts and witty remarks:
Nick you are fantastic at comming up with good remarks, you are very eloquent and I really admire you ability to play your current bard, and to roll 3 songs out of your sleeve. It would be an awesome session and combat if witty banther and quick retorts could be slung across the table...but not all of us have the gift of gab, or mastery of language.
If I was to try and make good come backs in combat situations, I fear I would start using "oh yea? your mum!" or "Im rubber, youre glue!". But I know my limits, and build my characters around that. If the GM start penalising me by docking XP, or rewarding everyone else extra XP (same thing really) for my flaws as a person, Im not sure its the friendly atmosphere that I as a gamer like to exist in. As I see it there is a reason we have stats and character sheets. :)

I think this goes back to Russell's comment. The skills and stats describe just how witty/smart/trained a character is. Any role-playing of 'wit' is good, but we are not all song-meisters, poets or skalds. Our characters are, though. And we all have days where our wit fails us, so the stats and dice come to our aid.

:-)

Dave Brown (1 month ago)

It's quite right that we shouldn't be too quick to give *major* xp awards 'for roleplaying' to people who are naturally good writers, or actors. I would suggest minor xp bonuses for players who make any good contribution to the game, like making a map, keeping an 'in character' journal etc.
It's hard to distinguish between rewarding the character and rewarding the player. If you focus rewards on players then you might be in danger of biasing towards your best mates. Best to keep those rewards small.

How about having the occasional 'man of the match' award where the players decide amongst themselves who gets the 100 xp bonus? They can vote/alternate/roll dice however they see fit.

I once gave out an xp bonus for a guy whose Norse Cleric was standing on his altar in his high temple fighting off baddies and getting his ass kicked. He really needed a good roll so the player went outside and poured some of his beer up a tree as a libation to Odin. Odin must have had one of his ravens in the tree, because sure enough.. natural 20 on the next roll!
Mind you this is the same player who I judged automatically failing a 'turn undead' for forgetting the name of his god..."Back! foul fiends of hell, in the name of...er..um..oh yeah Odin!"

We also used to give out xp bonuses to the person who made the tea!

Clair Umbo (1 month ago)

I do not like that plan. My cleric has a god whose name I can't pronounce.