Difference between revisions of "Talk:Angel of Death"
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
--[[User:Edmiao|Edmiao]] 08:49, 16 June 2008 (MST) In Jin i tried putting some pvp in with a traitor in the midst. in this game i won't make a player the killer.... or will i? mua a a ahhh. no, seriously. PVP will be up to the players, if someone wants to have a secret agenda or a crisis of faith, that is their business. other question....it could be a ninja, who knows? however the fact that i state that i do not aniticpate combat may be a hint. | --[[User:Edmiao|Edmiao]] 08:49, 16 June 2008 (MST) In Jin i tried putting some pvp in with a traitor in the midst. in this game i won't make a player the killer.... or will i? mua a a ahhh. no, seriously. PVP will be up to the players, if someone wants to have a secret agenda or a crisis of faith, that is their business. other question....it could be a ninja, who knows? however the fact that i state that i do not aniticpate combat may be a hint. | ||
| + | |||
| + | BEN: I really don't like PvP. We have enough trouble getting the group to be unified. If I should anticipate the possibility of other characters turning on me, it's only fair that I don't overlook my character's suspicions in the interests of group unity. I can think of at least two occassions where I thought "well, its another PC, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt so that we don't completely shatter the group" and in both cases it turned out later that the character was a traitor. If a GM would prefer that players act on such suspicions (aka that PvP is acceptable in their game) I'd like that to be made clear from the start. (which you did, Ed, I'm just ranting) | ||
Revision as of 10:59, 16 June 2008
BEN: I think this sounds interesting. Then again, I'm down to try most things. I think that both this and Dieter's potential game will be good things to slot in when werewolf has run its course, since Gabe seems to have suggested that our campaign has a few more months on it and then thats it.
--Dieter the Bold 10:22, 15 June 2008 (MST) I find this idea interesting and would be interested in playing it. I'd be cool with either FBI or with organized crime. The only two questions I have are: 1) Would there be any intentional PvP threads? I don't mean different agendas among the characters, but those that would definitely lead towards direct opposition?, and 2) Can the secret force behind all these deaths be a ninja? I think a short-shot trying to take down a real ninja would be awesome.
--Edmiao 08:49, 16 June 2008 (MST) In Jin i tried putting some pvp in with a traitor in the midst. in this game i won't make a player the killer.... or will i? mua a a ahhh. no, seriously. PVP will be up to the players, if someone wants to have a secret agenda or a crisis of faith, that is their business. other question....it could be a ninja, who knows? however the fact that i state that i do not aniticpate combat may be a hint.
BEN: I really don't like PvP. We have enough trouble getting the group to be unified. If I should anticipate the possibility of other characters turning on me, it's only fair that I don't overlook my character's suspicions in the interests of group unity. I can think of at least two occassions where I thought "well, its another PC, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt so that we don't completely shatter the group" and in both cases it turned out later that the character was a traitor. If a GM would prefer that players act on such suspicions (aka that PvP is acceptable in their game) I'd like that to be made clear from the start. (which you did, Ed, I'm just ranting)
