Reply With QuoteI agree with that. I just dont agree with some of the people saying that it is plain bad GM'ing or bad character play. There should always be circumstances that cause it
Bad people are everywhere, and it does bring an authentic feel... but so does real life and ultimately gaming is an escape from that. It does depend on your group, but if you have consistent betrayals and Player on Player deaths, thats not fun for people unless they agree ahead of time. A lot of players don't like the feeling of broken trust and lack of respect between characters because they are seeking out something more epic than a mirror of office politics or real world conflict. So while i agree that its a reality, i also think the GM does have a responsibility to run a game that reflects what the group expects in terms of player interaction... and to worlk (along with the players) to keep the betrayals down to plot devices instead of allowing random disruptive behaviors to put a damper on trust and respect.
Incarna; Role-Playing Game System
www.incarna.net
Running: 3+ campaigns set in single custom milieu world.
I agree with that. I just dont agree with some of the people saying that it is plain bad GM'ing or bad character play. There should always be circumstances that cause it
totally. The only time it happens now in my games is where it is part of the plot line. Otherwise, characters which don't fit well never make it into the group or end up leaving the group and are replaced - turning on your fellow players for fun does not want to make them have you back.Originally Posted by Panthro82
Incarna; Role-Playing Game System
www.incarna.net
Running: 3+ campaigns set in single custom milieu world.
To All,
I have allowed in game fighting in the past and all it caused me was grief and regret.
You will end up seeing your players worrying more about eachother, especially defeating eachother, than paying attention to the game, storylines, or missions.
The party I was running became really seperated and major anamosity formed, to the point we had to sit down and have a long, long talk to realize it was my fault as a DM for allowing in-game fighting in the beginning.
Plus, if you are like me and design your own dungeons, you will find that when you design a dungeon, even at the correct CR, it will be even harder because players who play as individuals and not as a team won't know how to work together or have their characters prepared to make up for what the other one lacks.
Trust me and heed my warning... Don't allow player characters to compete against eachother or fight eachother. (You can't help domination spells)... and really try to stop the smack talking of one player to another before it starts the first domino falling.
Member
My first game session of 2nd edition Shadowrun was to join a large already running group in mid-story. That night of 15 pc's (yes, that's fifteen), half died in an in-group shootout over whether they were going to turn on a group member for the large bounty on his head. I was the guy who ended up shooting him (which 18 years later, he still argues with me about) and got myself blown up because he'd rigged his Blitzen with a pound of C4 after I stole his keys off his dead body.
He and I both made up new characters and played in that campaign for more than 2 years. Oh and to the health of the group? That game grew from 15 when I joined to 24 when I left for college.
Last edited by PhishStyx; 05-23-2009 at 12:04 AM.
omfg 24 PC's?!?!?!?! I could never be in a group like that. How did the DM get anything accomplished? The storyline must have been very stunted. You guys couldn't easily sneak around, seeing as how you were large enough to form a marching band or professional sports team. LOL Oh man, that must have been insane.
Member
How can you not allow such a thing? It not only adds depth to the game but to their characters aswell. Such things should happen in every campaign from time to time, not only does it mimic real life but it is escentral for a well rounded campaign.
That is of course with the understanding that the evil doer will get "theirs" at some point.
"It's too late. You've awakened the Gazebo. It catches you and eats you."
you would be willing to DM a 24 pc campaign? or just be a pc in it? I would happily be a pc in it, but I would never want to DM something like that.
Member
I believe he meant the original thread topic. But me? Sure, if I had players who could be focused on the game and not trying to shout me down in favor of their own conversations (which has happened to me in more than one much smaller game session).
That would be annoying! As a DM I might have to throw a dragon at them if they did that to me
You should really post this in a different forum - i think its a worthy question.
I would not, however i do have a world with three campaigns running in it. A total of almost 15 main PC's and another 5-6 secondary/alternate PC's. Each group's game is taking place in the same time line, same starting point. So, juggling how events may impact each other is difficult - its not a position thats easily managed... but i built the world, so i have that singular advantage. I love it actually, i think its really cool and a great challenge to me. As a player, i would not want to fight for time with 23 others!
Incarna; Role-Playing Game System
www.incarna.net
Running: 3+ campaigns set in single custom milieu world.
Member
Well, it was a community college in the middle of the day when noone had classes, and we gamed in an open area where pretty much anyone could sit down and jabber away. I was told repeatedly that since it was a public area, there was nothing I could do about them.That would be annoying! As a DM I might have to throw a dragon at them if they did that to me
I definitely learned a lesson there and don't play with those people anymore (well, I kept 2).
If handled properly, it can lend a lot to the game. I had a character captured and replaced by a doppleganger whom I allowed the original player to run. It led to a fantastic adventure with lots of things seeming to go wrong for no reason. The doppleganger escaped, having never been discovered and the original character was found and rescued. The group never quite trusted that character completely again, though (which to me, and the player in question, was a good thing, adding dimension to the campaign).
I would add that it an be a good way to "write a character out". Sometimes a player has to leave a group for whatever reason/s, or decides they want to play a different character. In such a case, the GM can arrange with the player a betrayal and a reason for it. When the plot is unveiled, the PC might be killed off or made into an NPC villain. This has worked out quite well for me before, and keeps the players on their toes. It also makes that villain a lot more personal for the PCs.
Last edited by Harwel; 05-29-2009 at 03:50 PM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks