Hello/Question

[Galfraxas]

Hello Everybody,

I'm new to the forums here, and I just thought I'd see if I could get some advice out of my first post here. I'm starting a campaign in about 2 1/2 weeks. Unfortunately, I have no idea what I'm going to run. Usually when a group gets together to decide to play a campaign they decide what to play, right? Well, in my case, we got together, and they told me that they didn't care what I ran, as long as it wasn't anything extreme, leaving me with the task of finding something for them to play. Anybody have any suggestions? I already own quite a few games, and live near a store where I can reliably order stuff if I need to, and in this case, I may just order something completely new, and use this opportunity to introduce it to the group. Oh, and a little background on the group... they're all standard gamers, and they couldn't care if it's a hack and slash dungeon crawl or a very tense political scenario, as they can all role play and roll play. The only stand out problem I can see is that in every game I've ran/played with them, at least 1 PC was killed by another.

Thanks,
Galfraxas

[james_west]

Galfraxas -

I suspect your players are not nearly so tolerant as you may imagine. If I were you, I'd come up with some method of actually gauging what they want, 'cause otherwise their ideas of "not too extreme" may get bent ...

             - James

[Ian O'Rourke]

On 2001-08-04 00:09, Galfraxas wrote:

The only stand out problem I can see is that in every game I've ran/played with them, at least 1 PC was killed by another.

Sorry, but I found that last sentence funny, as it was just dropped in there and I think it probably says a lot. To be honest anyone could recommend any game as your post does not rule anything out. It's hard to comment on so little information but I would say this:

If your players have a hankering for killing the other player characters, and they have no real investment in what they want to play the chances are you could probably play anything - but the return you'd get for you investment in time may not be good.

This depends on what you want out of it all of course, but that's not mentioned in the post either.
]

[Uncle Dark]

Galafraxas,

Try Paranoia.  It's fast, easy, and allows for a lot of inter-PC conflict.  Further, it will either end up weaning your players off that kind of thing (how many times can you hose your fellow PCs before it gets old?) or they'll find ways to role-play the setting.

Lon

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I cannot speak for your players and your situation exactly, obviously. I have seen many examples like it, though, so I'll comment based on what happened with those.

1) When players say they "don't care" what's going to be played, it means they are resisting any commitment to it. Using the jargon, they will not "Explore," which is the first requirement of role-playing.

2) When player-characters kill one another, it is a sign of boredom and frustration - they are not interested in what's happening or in their characters' actions, so they are basically playground-pummelling.

Or, more positively, they like the fun and frenzy of poking their friends, and that's more important to them than role-playing itself. I am not criticizing this outlook - but it's not going to be fun for the GM.

3) The players are uncomfortable with the balance of power with the GM. They have accurately discerned that they "cannot win" against the GM, and so they feel like sitting ducks. Essentially, by attacking one another, they are really saying to the GM, "You can't push us around," and turning their attention to one another, away from any material that might be happening external to themselves.

4) I don't think any RPG, whether Paranoia/funny or not, is really going to be an effective venue for such players. If they're not into the imaginative and interactive side of role-playing (which includes combat!!), then they'll find a way to disrupt it. In the case of Paranoia, they might start logic-bullying the GM.

Again, please don't think I'm analyzing your specific group from a distance. These are merely the situations I've seen myself.

Best,
Ron

[Galfraxas]

Well, I started with a list of about 20 different games, and now, with about a week and a half left until the campaign is supposed to start, I have managed to whittle it down to a list of 5 games. They are, in no particular order: All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Legend of the Five Rings, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu (Delta Green), and Dying Earth. Beyond that, I'm stuck. I think I may go with Shadowrun though because that's what the players have the most experience with.

[Ron Edwards]

Galfraxas,

The phenomenal diversity among your five titles boggles the mind. It's hard to imagine any group that could have equal degrees of fun across that diversity, in the long term.

I'm not sure if you've perused the responses to your initial post, but one thing I'm seeing across them is a degree of surprise and fear, on our parts. If your situation is anything like what I've observed in the past, and so far it sure looks like it, then ANY game you pick is going to run into the very same hassles and intra-party slaughter.

If you want that, fine - enjoy. But if you don't, then I strongly suggest NOT beginning with the system, but considering instead the social and personal goals of the real people, especially in terms of commitment to what's going on in-game.

Best,
Ron

[Valamir]

I've gotta concur with Ron here G.  

Your group gave you the lose / lose task of choosing for them a game to play based on no criteria other than "as long as its not extreme".

I personally can't imagine the group whose experience lies mostly with Shadowrun who would not define Dying Earth as "extreme".  I don't mean that in a bad way, but the two are so radically different in design and purpose that I can't begin to imagine how they both wound up on your whittled down list (I am rather curious about your criteria).

In the game I am currently working on with Mike Holmes we center on the concept of a "social contract" where players agree (or at least discuss) what their goals and intentions are for the coming game.  It can cover everything from specific details on how much table talk and other interruptions will be tolerated in the game, to things more important but less definable like what it is the players are hoping to experience by playing.

Starting by choosing a system is likely an exercise in futility.  I'd start by having a serious "no you can't leave the room till you answer my questions and 'whatever' isn't going to cut it" talk with your players.  THEN armed with that start finding a system and play style to match...or a new group.

[Damocles]

On 2001-08-07 12:51, Galfraxas wrote:
Well, I started with a list of about 20 different games, and now, with about a week and a half left until the campaign is supposed to start, I have managed to whittle it down to a list of 5 games. They are, in no particular order: All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Legend of the Five Rings, Shadowrun, Call of Cthulhu (Delta Green), and Dying Earth. Beyond that, I'm stuck. I think I may go with Shadowrun though because that's what the players have the most experience with.

I'd choose CoC here. It's fairly simple to get into. Percentage roles are pretty intuitive for everyone, and the players don't need to learn any setting information. Plus, you can fairly easily set up the PC group as an FBI team or something like that. Your players should realize that members of such a team would not tend to kill each other. Except if they become insane, of course, but that's kind of a different issue.... If you play Shadowrun, my guess is that you'll again have players killing each other. It's not all that unreasonable within the setting, and if your players are used to doing stuff that way....
Of the other games, I'm not really familiar with Legend of the Five Rings, but it always struck me as kind shallow. All Flesh Must Be Eaten and Dying Earth don't really seem like the right kind of thing for your group, at least not for long-term play. The former might offer too many excuses to turn on the other players, and the latter is probably a bit too strange for people who want a standard rpg, more or less. You could easily try out either of those with a one-shot, maybe with pregenerated characters. Which is a good idea anyhow if you want some more time for preparation.
Unless you're set on your list, you might also consider Feng Shui. Lots of action and the whole action movie atmosphere might discourage players turning on each other.

[Galfraxas]

I've managed to get at least two people to give me a better guideline to work with as far as what to run. I realize that the 5 games I mentioned in my last post are rather diverse when it comes to setting and system, but I'm getting bored with D&D and Star Wars. The two players that have expressed ideas on what to run basically, in a nutshell, want to avoid traditional fantasy and anything involving a close to modern day setting, and stuff that requires odd task resolution methods, which I'm taking as a sign that they still want to chuck dice once in a while. Although it isn't really a guideline as to what to run per se, all 6 of them have expressed an interest in trying a new game altogether, which in my and the groups case, is best represented by Dying Earth, since I have yet to actually sit down and read through my copy yet, and they've never heard of it, except for when I told a few of them that I bought a copy. It seems like maybe with a little more coercion, I might be able to get them to help make the decision. On another note, it seems that I didn't make myself totally clear about the PC/PC killing thing. What I should have mentioned in my first post is that they don't decide before hand that they're going to haul off and kill another PC during the game, but when it happens, it's either accidental or a spur of the moment decision. I may have solved the PC/PC killing problem, however, as I called them all on the phone and asked that they avoid killing each other if at all possible, or suffer in-game penalties, which they all agree on. Now, if a PC kills another PC accidentally, say due to some sort of area damage effect, be it a spell or a bomb, that's another issue. I won't penalize them for that. Accidents happen, even in games. I think I may try to get them to decide the next time I see them, which should be tomorrow, when we get together to play Diplomacy.

Thanks again,
Galfraxas

[Henry Fitch]

Ron - you seem to be leaving out the possibility that player-killing can be positive behavior. It might be the logical thing for the character to do, or it might make for a great story element, etc. This probably isn't the case if they do it all the time, but it's possible.

[Mike Holmes]

Ron - you seem to be leaving out the possibility that player-killing can be positive behavior. It might be the logical thing for the character to do, or it might make for a great story element, etc. This probably isn't the case if they do it all the time, but it's possible.

I think that Ron's point was that G seemed to indicate that it was a problem in his games. Which can speak volumes as to the probable causes, most of which are specific sorts of dysfunction. The other option is that G just doesn't want that behavior. Which can be a valid concern.

In general terms, PC killing isn't of itself bad, no. But it can be a potential indicator of problems, and a highly likely one in this particular case.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Folks, check out the starting date for Tim's post. This thread ought to be allowed to rest in peace, eh?

If anyone wants to continue the killing-characters discussion, a new thread would be fine ... it could be in RPG Theory for a general topic, or in Actual Play for discussions about a real group in a real game.

Best,
Ron