Talk:These Things I Believe
JASON: 3 and 6 YES. 7, not so much. Thats player immaturity in the majority of cases. Look at good literature and movies. In Chinatown, LA isnt changed at all, its Jake who has changed. If players can only judge their effectiveness by the amount of chaos and/or destruction they have wrought on the environment, thats a pretty lame story. Good stories are usually about protagonists accomplishing something worthwhile and discovering something about themselves in the process.
Edmiao agreed with all points. Jason, i think on #7 gabe means that the players will have an impact on the game world, not that they will make the game world chaotic and crazy. I might disagree with point #2, cus then i would not be able to make up silly names to call the npcs. Goldfarb, anyone? from now on all NPCs will be called Hans.
--Gdaze 12:45, 30 October 2009 (MST) Ed. I don't think anything can stop you from coming up with silly names. The English langauge has been trying but so far has fallen short.
And I think I was trying to say a combo of both of what your saying. I mean, I think a reason we like RPGs is that we can try out crazy shit that we'd never think of trying in real life. Players will have their characters, generally speaking, not follow all the rules. And have stats that set them above other people. So yes, they change, but they change the environment around them too. Not saying it HAS to be chaos, I was more trying to elude to the idea that every player brings something different to the table and it is hard to predict how they will solve a problem.
BEN: I actually still don't really understand point 6. Maybe some examples? you already said you don't think all NPCs should be mooks. In Gemini I can believe that you may have thought there were too many "bad-ass" NPCs. But should a character like Lyra Stoneheart be kept doddering/weaker because she threatens the PCs on some "coolness" level? Are you saying that if the PCs decide to throw down, they should be able to defeat any NPC they meet?
As to point #1: I agree, but see my comment on my discussion page: this isn't possible if the players don't acknowledge the GM as a significant authority.
--Gdaze 13:14, 30 October 2009 (MST) It is not that it threatens the PCs, it is that it takes the focus off of them. It is how much time is said NPC's actions getting vs. players' actions. I don't mean it as players should always beat NPCs. It is more about screen time.
Also powerful NPCs that kick the players' asses then ask them to do something. Its like why? There are other ways to get players to do things, but having a powerful NPC or NPCs that basically blackmail or bully the players into action makes the players feel like pawns. "I have a cool character" *ass kicked* "Now go do this, even though I'm clearly better then you!" That is okay if it is the theme of an adventure arc.
And yes there have to be SOME NPCs that are more powerful. But if the game is overall full of amazing NPCs, the players will just feel like they are passing through.
Also, a GM will tend to favor his NPCs as they are his creation. They have unlimited points, no restrictions on the players, and so can cause envy or resentment.
A balance is needed.
Well I guess I already assume the "GM has the final say in rules" is always in place, that metioning players acknowledgement of a GM's authority as something that needs to be discussed is like stating the obvious. If none of the players listen to the GM, at all, then the game shouldn't be played. This is what happened for the supers we tried to run at Jason's once. And while the GM might have ideas for how a story will go, he has to realize that the players will take that idea and might go somewhere else.
