You are playing with jerks with an attitude problem in an evil game (which gives jerks license to be total arse hats) and you are surprised when they off the drow PC after they warn you that they were going to do it....
Not only this you throw a new player to the wolves.
Look I have played for a long time and my group is mature enough to handle an evil game.
It's not for everybody and especially not for new players.
You are playing with jerks with an attitude problem in an evil game (which gives jerks license to be total arse hats) and you are surprised when they off the drow PC after they warn you that they were going to do it....
Not only this you throw a new player to the wolves.
Look I have played for a long time and my group is mature enough to handle an evil game.
It's not for everybody and especially not for new players.
Um, I don't think any of that happened. Nobody's character got "offed," no new player was "thrown to the wolves", etc.
Wait, is this about what I wrote, or the bar-scene Shifty came up with? It sounds like you're referencing my example, but at this point this thread is a mess.
Look I have played for a long time and my group is mature enough to handle an evil game.It's not for everybody and especially not for new players.
Evil games are tricky enough at the best of the times, all too often they bring out some really nasty behaviour from players, not just to be 'evil' but to be plain destructive and nasty.
Really takes a lot to manage them and a lot of agreements between players.
Slightly off topic:
To date I've only had one racist incident playing D&D (or other p&p games): My Boston/Irish DM drunk dialed me on July 4th and left a message that included calling me "the N word" 17 times. I was confused because I'm not black, and I had no idea what he was mad about. I mention Boston/Irish because that was his rationilization for using language like that. It's "just how they talk up there".
Only too true, alas.
Look I have played for a long time and my group is mature enough to handle an evil game.It's not for everybody and especially not for new players.
Evil games are tricky enough at the best of the times, all too often they bring out some really nasty behaviour from players, not just to be 'evil' but to be plain destructive and nasty.
Really takes a lot to manage them and a lot of agreements between players.
I've always found it depends on the players. When I play an evil character, wanton destruction or making the group uncomfortable are never on my to do list. Killing gods, achieving life goals, and a different outlook on life than the good guy characters are however very likely to be on the to do list. On the other hand one of my best friends always goes out of his way to make other people squirm, and one of my least favorite teammates instantly jumps on the "Lets kill every npc ever" bandwagon some people tend to. YMMV.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even evil games are funner if you don't have to worry you will be coup de graced in your sleep over the matter of a few gold coins. The move to permanent No PvP was the wisest move our groups three GMs ever made.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.
"I don' trust that thing as far as I can throw it!"
|
Even evil games are funner if you don't have to worry you will be coup de graced in your sleep over the matter of a few gold coins. The move to permanent No PvP was the wisest move our groups three GMs ever made.
I think a No PVP in an evil game would encourage better roleplaying, trying to do something other than a crazed homicidal maniac. While that's a perfectly fine stereotypical evil dude, it's not really condusive to any sort of lasting group play.
I played in a game were we started out as Chaotic Selfish, and grew into Negligently Evil. It was rather organic, well roleplayed, and we were still a tight unit that worked well with each other. We were friends, and loyal to each other - but killed and betrayed people without much in the way of remorse if we felt we could get away with it, and they were in the way of one of our goals.
We wiped out an entire town once, but...that was an accident.
Well...mostly. My character killed the last survivor on pupose...
One of the reasons I so like Way of the Wicked is the contract system in place - no one who wants to keep there skin willingly breaks that contract, so all the PC's work together...more or less, in my case.
A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."I don' trust that thing as far as I can throw it!"
"With your back you shouldn't be throwing any computers."
Like, for example, an agreement between these two particular players and the GM to not gank the new player's Drow on sight in a one-shot module?
If the two players agree, for sure! If they don't, and you go ahead and do it, then you bring it on upon yourself as you aren't reaching agreement - unless you have a GMSO card.
I'm glad we all agree.
Having No PvP is restrictive, if you are going to allow players to be evil you shouldn't force them not to play to their natures.
Usually the party learns how counter productive killing their own party members is early in the game.
especially when you hit them with an encounter that could have been made easier by the character they just ganked.
Like I said before set up expectations at the beginning...
Having No PvP is restrictive, if you are going to allow players to be evil you shouldn't force them not to play to their natures.
It seems strange to say 'you can eat babies and stuff, but you have to be friends with each other' with no actual organic reason for them to be. No collective organisation (guild etc) nor a common long term foe (otherwise they could turn the second the foe fell) - you can play evil, but it really really needs a framework.
'No PvP' seems really at odds with the notion of Evil play, and simply removes the greater challenges of that style of game - the need to make yourself indispensable, the need to foster strong alliances, the need to ensure contingency plans 'in case' etc.
All it leaves are the really poor behaviour aspects of people just trying to outdo each others 'nastiness' on NPC's and quickly becomes a different flavour of bland.
Deadwood is a good example of 'evil campaign' done well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Laws against assault and murder are restrictive too, but they do make life more managable and enjoyable.
I mean, when I GM for an evil group, I don't think these rules are overly restrictive:
It prevents people from getting ganked from the get-go or derailing into "roving pack of litttle Caligulas" territory. I'd rather players be able to be at ease and count on each other rather than constantly looking over their shoulder or worrying that the game is going to derail into "player horror stories thread"-land.
It seems strange to say 'you can eat babies and stuff, but you have to be friends with each other' with no actual organic reason for them to be. No collective organisation (guild etc) nor a common long term foe (otherwise they could turn the second the foe fell) - you can play evil, but it really really needs a framework.
I don't know what Deadwood is?
Anyways, the framework can be pretty loose. I've played in plenty of groups that don't have a feel of why I should work with them, but there's that bit of meta that brings you altogether. I do prefer a feeling that you all have a reason, but I don't think its that much harder with a group of evil PCs than any other group.
You have to give a damn about something other than yourself, even if it's just your fellow party members.
Pfft, my anti-paladin cares about a lot of things! That's part of being a personality. Having interest is why your adventuring! The important thing is that you know what's important. Making the world a better place!
So, about that misogyny and racism. Did we stop talking about that?
Having No PvP is restrictive, if you are going to allow players to be evil you shouldn't force them not to play to their natures.It seems strange to say 'you can eat babies and stuff, but you have to be friends with each other' with no actual organic reason for them to be. No collective organisation (guild etc) nor a common long term foe (otherwise they could turn the second the foe fell) - you can play evil, but it really really needs a framework.
'No PvP' seems really at odds with the notion of Evil play, and simply removes the greater challenges of that style of game - the need to make yourself indispensable, the need to foster strong alliances, the need to ensure contingency plans 'in case' etc.
All it leaves are the really poor behaviour aspects of people just trying to outdo each others 'nastiness' on NPC's and quickly becomes a different flavour of bland.
Deadwood is a good example of 'evil campaign' done well.
Exactly
What happens is alliances are formed, and a pecking order is established one or two PCs die in the first hour or two, while the party is sorting out who is boss. Revenge and plots simmer away, and various attempts to shift the balance of power are made through the game. It makes for an interesting and tense game because you are fighting external threats, but you are constantly negotiating for party resources and having back up plans for when somebody betrays you.
|
|
In a one-shot module game?Having No PvP is restrictive, if you are going to allow players to be evil you shouldn't force them not to play to their natures.It seems strange to say 'you can eat babies and stuff, but you have to be friends with each other' with no actual organic reason for them to be. No collective organisation (guild etc) nor a common long term foe (otherwise they could turn the second the foe fell) - you can play evil, but it really really needs a framework.
'No PvP' seems really at odds with the notion of Evil play, and simply removes the greater challenges of that style of game - the need to make yourself indispensable, the need to foster strong alliances, the need to ensure contingency plans 'in case' etc.
All it leaves are the really poor behaviour aspects of people just trying to outdo each others 'nastiness' on NPC's and quickly becomes a different flavour of bland.
Deadwood is a good example of 'evil campaign' done well.
Exactly
What happens is alliances are formed, and a pecking order is established one or two PCs die in the first hour or two, while the party is sorting out who is boss. Revenge and plots simmer away, and various attempts to shift the balance of power are made through the game. It makes for an interesting and tense game because you are fighting external threats, but you are constantly negotiating for party resources and having back up plans for when somebody betrays you.
A one-shot module game that is a new player's first real dip into tabletop gaming, at that.
A one-shot module game that is a new player's first real dip into tabletop gaming, at that.
Are we then suggesting that an Evil campaign as a one shot module is most likely a rookie move that will only end in grief as people realise that the most banal of their actions will be free of follow on consequences?
Yeah that's what I think, I accept differing opinions.
Evil does work, but played long, like Way of the Wicked.
I don't know what Deadwood is?
Excellent TV show, truly excellent.
In a one-shot module game?Having No PvP is restrictive, if you are going to allow players to be evil you shouldn't force them not to play to their natures.It seems strange to say 'you can eat babies and stuff, but you have to be friends with each other' with no actual organic reason for them to be. No collective organisation (guild etc) nor a common long term foe (otherwise they could turn the second the foe fell) - you can play evil, but it really really needs a framework.
'No PvP' seems really at odds with the notion of Evil play, and simply removes the greater challenges of that style of game - the need to make yourself indispensable, the need to foster strong alliances, the need to ensure contingency plans 'in case' etc.
All it leaves are the really poor behaviour aspects of people just trying to outdo each others 'nastiness' on NPC's and quickly becomes a different flavour of bland.
Deadwood is a good example of 'evil campaign' done well.
Exactly
What happens is alliances are formed, and a pecking order is established one or two PCs die in the first hour or two, while the party is sorting out who is boss. Revenge and plots simmer away, and various attempts to shift the balance of power are made through the game. It makes for an interesting and tense game because you are fighting external threats, but you are constantly negotiating for party resources and having back up plans for when somebody betrays you.
Yep in a one shot 3-4 sessions. They were a lot of fun and the players asked for them.
We would never throw a new player into one though.
While external threats and the mission/goal gave the players frame work to cooperate. Internal threats, resource negation and secret goals provided by the GM added the suspense and tension.
|
|
A one-shot module game that is a new player's first real dip into tabletop gaming, at that.
Are we then suggesting that an Evil campaign as a one shot module is most likely a rookie move that will only end in grief as people realise that the most banal of their actions will be free of follow on consequences?
Yeah that's what I think, I accept differing opinions.
Evil does work, but played long, like Way of the Wicked.
I don't know what Deadwood is?Excellent TV show, truly excellent.
wat
Then again the guys I play with love boardgames like Sparticus...
Deadwood is pretty damn good.
So to bring this topic back from the abstract to the concrete, how about this situation?
Player 1: " So I'm going to bring a gay character into the game..."
Players 2 and 3: " WE HATE GAYS! IF YOU BRING A GAY CHARACTER INTO THE GAME WE'RE GONNA KILL THEM!"
So let's see a show of hands- how many people are on Player 2 and 3's side? How many people think the GM should calmly discuss it with them, and then disallow the gay character if they aren't reasonable?
I've seen similar situations in games, justified because "It's what my character would do", or "Because that's what medieval society was like", or " Because that's what Edger Rice Burroughs or HP Lovecraft or John Norman wrote, and hey, it's just a game, why are you getting all upset?"
I've seen too many incidents of harassment and bullying, insensitivity to gender, and casual racism. And it's bad enough when the players are pulling this crap- when the GM's the problem, you get stuff like the first time player who's character got raped by a hundred orcs "Because she failed her Hide in Cover roll".
So let's see those hands people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's... Flamebait waiting to happen. That said, I've seen a lot of gay NPCs played flamboyant or obnoxiously by gay or straight players alike. Not sure what to say. I'd say it depends on the situation. Groups are different and also... just gonna grab that and put that there. Yeah. Measuring something...
Gays are Drow or are Drow gay?
I am confused.
So to bring this topic back from the abstract to the concrete, how about this situation?
Player 1: " So I'm going to bring a gay character into the game..."
Players 2 and 3: " WE HATE GAYS! IF YOU BRING A GAY CHARACTER INTO THE GAME WE'RE GONNA KILL THEM!"So let's see a show of hands- how many people are on Player 2 and 3's side? How many people think the GM should calmly discuss it with them, and then disallow the gay character if they aren't reasonable?
I've seen similar situations in games, justified because "It's what my character would do", or "Because that's what medieval society was like", or " Because that's what Edger Rice Burroughs or HP Lovecraft or John Norman wrote, and hey, it's just a game, why are you getting all upset?"
I've seen too many incidents of harassment and bullying, insensitivity to gender, and casual racism. And it's bad enough when the players are pulling this crap- when the GM's the problem, you get stuff like the first time player who's character got raped by a hundred orcs "Because she failed her Hide in Cover roll".
So let's see those hands people.
That's what medieval society was like, is entirely valid if you are playing a medieval society game. As in, I shiv the merchant but spare the cleric because I fear for my immortal soul, and he'll owe me one.
Now if you are playing hard medieval narrativism and some dark as night weird thing strolls in, and it is like something out of Scottish myth (where Drow comes from), you are going to flee or grab your Claymore (or equivalent) and get to work.
Of course mostly it won't be so rigid, and it'll be the usual pastiche fantasy, yeah miss, play a drow if you want. Here it didn't work though.
So to bring this topic back from the abstract to the concrete, how about this situation?
Player 1: " So I'm going to bring a gay character into the game..."
Players 2 and 3: " WE HATE GAYS! IF YOU BRING A GAY CHARACTER INTO THE GAME WE'RE GONNA KILL THEM!"So let's see a show of hands- how many people are on Player 2 and 3's side? How many people think the GM should calmly discuss it with them, and then disallow the gay character if they aren't reasonable?
I've seen similar situations in games, justified because "It's what my character would do", or "Because that's what medieval society was like", or " Because that's what Edger Rice Burroughs or HP Lovecraft or John Norman wrote, and hey, it's just a game, why are you getting all upset?"
I've seen too many incidents of harassment and bullying, insensitivity to gender, and casual racism. And it's bad enough when the players are pulling this crap- when the GM's the problem, you get stuff like the first time player who's character got raped by a hundred orcs "Because she failed her Hide in Cover roll".
So let's see those hands people.
Wait what? Your character got raped by a hundred orcs?
So to bring this topic back from the abstract to the concrete, how about this situation?
You are a few days too late really, this discussion has already been had in full. Recommend you read back through the last few pages and coming back with any specific questions you might still have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to bring this topic back from the abstract to the concrete, how about this situation?You are a few days too late really, this discussion has already been had in full. Recommend you read back through the last few pages and coming back with any specific questions you might still have.
What was the conclusion?
Other than Drow are the most hated race (in real life) and that Strawmen are fun. Since many of the posts have been deleted for jerkish comments.
Drow being the most hated race isn't even true in all settings, though.
In Golarion, hardly anyone aside from the Duergar and Elves even know of them.
There was no consensus, there never could be on such an issue - what you do have is a smorgasbord of opinions, from 'on drow' to the peculiarities of GMSO armour.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always miss the deleted posts... makes me wonder what was said?
Basically lots of yelling between Shifty and Josh M. Nothing worth noting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A far as PvP in an evil game... YMMV
In my experience players have very little self control and evil games end in a gory mess when the PCs turn on each other. No fun was had and everyone walks away with bad feelings. No PvP solves that NOT by making them all into sparkling BFFs hugging each other as they do bad things... in fact it puzzles me that anyone would act that way in an evil game. Wait, that was another of shifty's straw men wasn't it? What no PvP does is force the players to come up with concepts that are NOT sociopaths. You know the kind that despite talking shit to each other still function as a viscous and competent team. Often working toward the same or complimentary goals.
Drow being the most hated race isn't even true in all settings, though.
In Golarion, hardly anyone aside from the Duergar and Elves even know of them.
I meant in real life. So many people hate Drow with a passion, just see this entire discourse. It wouldn't happen if it was Orcs or Demons.
Paizo should have just made Drow like lollipops and rainbows to subvert the entire thing :P