Thread: Questioning chirine ba kal

Originally Posted by Greentongue

What is the consensus about using NPCs to "guide" players actions.

I have plenty of those! Savants, sages, sorcerers, sacerdots, slayers-for-hire...patrons, clients and servants more demanding than some patrons,
The players just have to ask for advice, you know.
If you mean someone who keeps the PCs in line, though: No. They can get a wealthy patron that demands they do some things a certain way, but that's different. They can hire city guides, too. Again, not the same thing.

Providing correct options and answers to the situations and puzzles that confront the players?

What is "correct"?
I mean, is it good to avoid a fight with a duelist from a rival clan? Yes. Is it good to run so people would notice you chasing him, then kill him and then ask for shamtla because you were attacked without provocation? Again, yes. But if you had the "correct" answers to the first question, you wouldn't get to do that!
So, which one was the correct action? What would such an NPC advise?

Should an effort be made to "save the game" by NPC intervention?

Save...from what? Even a TPK is just the beginning of a new game.
Like, here's the story of a game that ended in a TPK.

Originally Posted by MetroLyrics

"Billy The Kid"

I'll sing you a true song of Billy the Kid
I'll sing of some desperate deeds that he did
'Way out in New Mexico long long ago
When a man's only chance was his own forty-four
When Billy the Kid was a very young lad
In old Silver City he went to the bad
'Way out in the West with a gun in his hand
At the age of twelve years he did kill his first man

There's Mexican maidens play guitars and sing
Songs about Billy, their boy bandit king
'Ere his young manhood has reached his sad end
With a notch an his pistol for twenty one men
Was on a sad night when poor Billy died
He said to his friend, "I'm not satisfied
There's twenty one men I have put bullets through
Sheriff Pat Garrett must make twenty two!"

I'll sing you how Billy the Kid met his fate
The bright moon was shinin', the hour was late
Shot down by Pat Garrett who once was his friend
The young outlaw's life is now come to an end
There's many a man with a face fine and fair
Who start out in life with a chance to be square
Just like poor Billy they wander astray
They'll lose their lives in the very same way

Marty Robbins - Billy The Kid Lyrics (MetroLyrics)

So, what happens after this?
Well, easy: you play a character who hears the song and decides to top his idol's prowess-and maybe put it to better ends. Who says this is worse than playing Billie the Kid?

Are the days of "win or lose on your own merit" long past?

Not just no, but (swear-of-your-choice) no! It's the natural way to play, and nothing natural can be suppressed for long (for good or ill).

This Saturday we're going on a session with a new GM. He has played a grand total of two session before, with me and has never GMed. During those, the guy also gave a run for our money to me (17 years of playing and Refereeing - Gronan, Chirine and Bren, please remember that I'm among the first generation/start of the second generation of Bulgarian players who actually had access to RPG books), another player who has started maybe a couple years after me, and totally eclipsed the guy who "only" had about 10 years of experience with RPGs.
I've asked him how he thinks people should run games. In response, he told me more or less that that they should be Referees, and present clues and opportunities if the players seem to wonder what to do next...

I'm confident he would do well.

How do you feel playing in a game that if you really get in over your head the GM will save you?

I wonder why we're using those dice and rules.

EPT's "Save or Die" type of rules make random chance deadly.

True that. But first, that applies to your enemies as well. And second and more important...you don't have to use EPT if you don't like those rules. Bethorm is right there as an available alternative. 10 minutes of Internet searching will avail you a no small number of conversions to other systems if you prefer something different.

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

I am not sure what type of random chance you are specifically referring to. Do you mean Saving Throws, or are you referring to random encounters in general? I personally think that there should always be a chance of a character dieing in a game. After all, the same rules apply to the NPC’s and monsters. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Shemek.

One of the reasons I like old school players is that they don't find such statements controversial. They shouldn't be, IMO, but there you go...

Originally Posted by Hrugga

Funny I was taking a break today and read this...GM's Guide To Adventure Writing by James Raggi,


http://roleplayingtips.com/readissue.php?number=489

It seems the way to go would be as nuetral as possible. Lord Asen and Lord Shemek bring up good points as well. Good luck.

H:0)

I believe you mean Lord Bren and Lord Shemek, since I hadn't posted yet, but otherwise, I agree with your message. Neutral is best, IMNSHO. (Even if you have to join either a Stability or a Change temple, you can still remain Neutral...)

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

Absolutely not should NPC's "save" the "game."

The game is whatever happens. If the players make a bad choice and all the PCs die, so be it.

And like Bren said, "save" it from what? Once you start talking like that you are nearing the idea of the referee deciding how things "should" go, which notion should be consigned to the corrupted, worm-ridden filth of Sarku's lowest hells.

I'm sure you meant "the corrupted, worm-ridden filth of Sarku's lowest bowels", right?
(I'm also sure you'll get why I think it's a better way to put it).

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Well, that is my method of play but was wondering if, since I don't play all that much, maybe I wasn't "doing it right".

Since we don't play with you, it's hard to tell.

The real challenge is making games with lower level characters fun.

Step 1: give them opportunities.
Step 2: profit.

If you start them higher, it is assumed they know more, when they don't.
Then you get the crash and burn from bumbling.
Leaves a bad taste IMHO.

Then don't use levels.
Yes, I'm serious. If you don't want them to be bumbling incompetents, start them at higher point totals, representing young prodigies.

Originally Posted by Bren

The only area of possible confusion to one new to Tekumel should be in regards to what the form of execution would be, not the fact of an execution.

Some people, I've found, refuse to understand setting-related causal relationships. And then they complain that they got what they've brought on their heads.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

That type of players seem to be in short supply these days.
I've found the more common reaction is, "Lets play something else."
Having a million other choices makes doing something else much easier.
=

Challenge them. Tell them Gronan's story and challenge them.
If they don't even react to that...well, yes, they're past saving. Recruit better ones!

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

Again, like I mentioned above, I present the situation in an unbiased manner, and if a player gets into a situation where they are over their heads well so be it. I will never maliciously place them there. I remember once I had a very experienced player who was new to Tekumel. His character was a foreigner in Jakalla (kind of a barbarian in a boat), and I and the rest of the group spent some time giving him an overview of what Tsolyanu was like, the type of society, etc., He refused to accept the notion that in such a well ordered society one cannot walk around like it�s a typical D&D frontier town. He left the foreigner�s quarter (without permission), robbed and assaulted some wealthy individuals, publicly defaced a temple of Vimuhla, slandered the religious institutions as whole, and tried to take on the city guard. He was quickly subdued, and summarily impaled by the local captain of the city guard. He complained bitterly about how stupid the situation was that I �presented� him with, and that there was no way that his character had even a slight chance of survival. The fact that his character�s demise was totally of his own doing, and that he intentionally put himself into the situation where his guy was going to executed, after being warned by the other players that what he was doing was not a good idea was irrelevant to the player.

Shemek.

I'd like to revisit this, if I may; Bren is right - this guy is up for the high ride, assuming that the city guard gets to him before the outraged clans, outraged temple guards, and the Imperium itself do. This is an incredible catalog of bad decisions, and what I find astounding is that he chose to ignore the other members of the group and their advice. I would expect that the party told the raging mob that came to get him that they'd never seen the guy before in their lives.

I will admit; if I had a player like this, I would have run the game session out - mostly for the rest of the group - and then once I'd said "Game Over" I'd have to tell him that he'd been a jerk to his fellow players and that he/she/it was no longer welcome in my house or game group. I have no patience for this kind of thing, and I will admit to having a very short fuse.

Incredible. Simply incredible.

Originally Posted by Greentongue

Well, that is my method of play but was wondering if, since I don't play all that much, maybe I wasn't "doing it right".

The real challenge is making games with lower level characters fun.
If you start them higher, it is assumed they know more, when they don't.
Then you get the crash and burn from bumbling.
Leaves a bad taste IMHO.
=

Very true. I start them lower, and dangle plots that they can handle. Seems to work.

Originally Posted by Gronan of Simmerya

You and me both. Do I need to bring any tools over or do you have it covered?

Let me look in the workshop. Table saw, two band saws, two circular saws, one sawz-all, three jigsaws, one Rotozip saw, four Dremels, four corded drills, three cordless drills, bench sander, orbital sander, four 50' triple tap mains leads, four 25' hex tap mains leads, three chests full of hand-tools, and a garage full of lumber.

I think I got it covered.

(And it's all left-overs from my time in theater and event production. I have enough to fully equip a huge crew...)

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

Let me look in the workshop. Table saw, two band saws, two circular saws, one sawz-all, three jigsaws, one Rotozip saw, four Dremels, four corded drills, three cordless drills, bench sander, orbital sander, four 50' triple tap mains leads, four 25' hex tap mains leads, three chests full of hand-tools, and a garage full of lumber.

I think I got it covered.

(And it's all left-overs from my time in theater and event production. I have enough to fully equip a huge crew...)

I'm not sure. It'll be close, but I think you'll be able to pull it off.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

I'd like to revisit this, if I may; Bren is right - this guy is up for the high ride, assuming that the city guard gets to him before the outraged clans, outraged temple guards, and the Imperium itself do. This is an incredible catalog of bad decisions, and what I find astounding is that he chose to ignore the other members of the group and their advice. I would expect that the party told the raging mob that came to get him that they'd never seen the guy before in their lives.

I will admit; if I had a player like this, I would have run the game session out - mostly for the rest of the group - and then once I'd said "Game Over" I'd have to tell him that he'd been a jerk to his fellow players and that he/she/it was no longer welcome in my house or game group. I have no patience for this kind of thing, and I will admit to having a very short fuse.

Incredible. Simply incredible.

This was a strange situation. To me it seemed as if he were intentionally trying to sabotage the game, although I have no proof of this. For some reason he just couldn�t wrap his head around the fact that he was adventuring in a very old, very traditional society with well established laws and institutions. I tried to explain it to him after the fact by comparing Tsolyanu to our modern society. As I said to him: �What do you think would happen to you if you went downtown, robbed and assaulted some people, broke the windows of some churches, or synagogues, or mosques, ran into a religious service and told the worshippers that they were wrong in their beliefs and their God didn�t exist, then decided to take on some cops while carrying a big knife or gun in your hand? The end result would be the same: a dead idiot.� He tried to justify his actions by claiming that he was playing �in character�, and as a �hero� he and the party should always be given the benefit of the doubt. When I asked him what doubt he was specifically referring to there was only silence. When I asked him in what world is robbing and beating up an innocent man considered heroic there was even more silence. Like one of the original players from my group told him: �Play like a retard. That�s what you get.�
By this stage of the game the core of the group had been playing together with the same characters for 13 years, and they knew that there were always consequences if they acted foolishly in the game. Furthermore, the party was in Tsolyanu secretly and magically disguised, on a mission, undertaken at the behest of the Temple of Ksarul that was never sanctioned, let alone commissioned. They weren�t going to risk exposure and the corresponding repercussions by sticking their necks out for an obviously insane miscreant (from the characters� perspective). The group considered quietly trying to offer some inducements, but in the end they realised that it was a lost cause, and quietly slipped away after vociferously baying for the blood of the offending character, and ensuring that he was silenced.
As the above mentioned player shouted to the City Watchmen "Stick three poles up his arse without any grease!" While another one of the original players so eloquently said to the local Captain after the offending character had been apprehended: �Somethin�s gotta be done about these disgraceful forner rabble. Comin� in the Empire an doin� whatever they wants (noisily spitting on the ground).� While a third player/NPC surreptitiously cast a spell ensuring that the apprehended couldn't talk if interrogated. Amazingly, a magistrate who just happened to be in the area at the time of the arrest (and a follower of Ksarul) was able, after hearing the facts, to quickly and "legally" pronounce judgment: "Captain, have your men deal with this immediately" he officiously commanded. "I will not have it be said that we Tsolyani do not follow the laws of our land even when dealing with barbarians". Funny thing though, later no one could seem to recall who this magistrate was, but all were in agreement who witnessed the events that the accused's silence, when questioned by this most efficient and wise arbiter of the law, obviously indicated his guilt.
Back then my players were heavily involved with certain unknown societies in the Doomed Prince's Temple. Looking back at it now it's actually "funny" how quickly the group adopted the mind set of people whose very lives were a deception. Some of the game sessions from this period of the campaign are very dark indeed. Even though the above mentioned incident was an absolute absurdity, the party's reaction to the event was handled brilliantly.
That was the first and last time that this guy played in one of my games.

Shemek.

Originally Posted by Shemek hiTankolel

This was a strange situation. To me it seemed as if he were intentionally trying to sabotage the game, although I have no proof of this. For some reason he just couldn’t wrap his head around the fact that he was adventuring in a very old, very traditional society with well established laws and institutions. I tried to explain it to him after the fact by comparing Tsolyanu to our modern society. As I said to him: “What do you think would happen to you if you went downtown, robbed and assaulted some people, broke the windows of some churches, or synagogues, or mosques, ran into a religious service and told the worshippers that they were wrong in their beliefs and their God didn’t exist, then decided to take on some cops while carrying a big knife or gun in your hand? The end result would be the same: a dead idiot.” He tried to justify his actions by claiming that he was playing “in character”, and as a “hero” he and the party should always be given the benefit of the doubt. When I asked him what doubt he was specifically referring to there was only silence. When I asked him in what world is robbing and beating up an innocent man considered heroic there was even more silence. Like one of the original players from my group told him: “Play like a retard. That’s what you get.”

[snipped, if that's all right...]

That was the first and last time that this guy played in one of my games.

Shemek.

What you said to the guy. There's, to me anyway, a huge difference between a player not fitting in with the group, and this kind of thing. In the former case, we'd all simply agree that things were not working out, and we'd part ways pretty friendly.

What this guy sounds like is just what happened in the very early days of Phil's campaign; see also Gary Fine's book "Shared Fantasy" for an account. Some of the original players in Phil's group played things just this way, which is why we split off from them in the middle of '76. Back at that time, there was a play style that Gronan's mentioned, trying to deliberately 'break the campaign'; this sounds just like it. I don't know how many times over the years that I have heard "I'm just playing in character" used as an excuse for very bad playing. Likewise "I'm a hero" as a reason to escape the consequences of his own actions.

I'm still utterly astonished that this guy didn't seem to want to listen to the other players. I mean, in the circles in which I travelled, if you were the new guy in the group is was always considered polite to pay attention to 'the regulars'; and it was also smarter, as they usually knew what not to do in the world-setting.

I keep a list of people I will not game with. This guy is typical of the people on that list.

Originally Posted by chirine ba kal

What you said to the guy. There's, to me anyway, a huge difference between a player not fitting in with the group, and this kind of thing. In the former case, we'd all simply agree that things were not working out, and we'd part ways pretty friendly.

What this guy sounds like is just what happened in the very early days of Phil's campaign; see also Gary Fine's book "Shared Fantasy" for an account. Some of the original players in Phil's group played things just this way, which is why we split off from them in the middle of '76. Back at that time, there was a play style that Gronan's mentioned, trying to deliberately 'break the campaign'; this sounds just like it. I don't know how many times over the years that I have heard "I'm just playing in character" used as an excuse for very bad playing. Likewise "I'm a hero" as a reason to escape the consequences of his own actions.

I'm still utterly astonished that this guy didn't seem to want to listen to the other players. I mean, in the circles in which I travelled, if you were the new guy in the group is was always considered polite to pay attention to 'the regulars'; and it was also smarter, as they usually knew what not to do in the world-setting.

I keep a list of people I will not game with. This guy is typical of the people on that list.

He was an odd fellow in many respects. Although he may have been a poor player he sure was a pretty good DM. One thing though, I know for a fact that he would not have allowed those shenanigans in his game. This is why I think his behaviour was a deliberate attempt at wrecking my game. Perhaps it was an attempt to dominate the group and the steer the story in another direction, or maybe he was hoping to get some new players for his group? Maybe he was just being a prick? Sometimes the easiest explanation is the closest to the truth. He definitely was not invited to any future games after this little episode.

Shemek.

"Most people are booger-eating morons" explains an amazing number of situations.