Difference between revisions of "Talk:Angel of Death"

Revision as of 12:50, 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)

JASON: Even though its unlikely I would be in this game, I have to say that I think Ben is right. If a game were to allow PvP, it needs to be stated up front. Certain kinds of treachery are ok, like when its driving story arcs and isnt getting anyone killed, but in general, I think thats for video games, board games and other competitive endeavors. Tabletop RPGs work best as a collaborative effort. Plus, GMing PvP can easily get peoples feelings hurt when they think you play favorites (whether you do or not).

--Edmiao 10:09, 16 June 2008 (MST) agreed, then i'd go with no pvp.

--Gdaze-- This sounds fun, but with one problem for me, and that is I've read about... half the series this is based on and know how things work (To everyone else, don't look up the series!). That said, I'd be happy to be a NPC or something? As for when you want to run this, lets at least do one more of Werewolf, things are really about to heat up. While I agree, pvp sucks unless it is the focus of the game doubt will be an important part of this game, right Ed?

I remember when Sher Khan left the party, I'll have you all know he did ask "I won't have to fight or harm my friends will I?" He may be a money hungery bastard, but he wouldn't off his ol'crew!

JASON: Maybe this doesnt go here, but I think PvP is ok when its GM initiated. Example: Bad Enemy mind controls Dietericus Maximus to sabotage party plan A. Dieter as a player then gets to do whatever he can think of to sabotage said plan. For this to work, however, there must be clues the party can discover to learn that it wasnt really Dietericus Maximus, but instead someone else controlling him.