[LoL] New Player and New GM equals bad mojo

[Josh Roby]

Most of the player's objections centered around us being in this town for another day and not wanting to get caught/worse just so he could try his new doodad.

What's so bad about getting caught?  (He asked innocently.)

[dindenver]

Hi!
  We were in a small village of only 500 Trolls. We were leaving with a caravan in the morning. So we had to be on our best behaviour for a few hours more. And I don;t think the players quite understand just how powerful they are, they might have been afraid that they would get overwhelmed.
  I guess the prob's I have are as follows:
- First real action of a new Roleplayer was not so heroic in our heroic game
- Whether or not my game encourages this sort of banditry (of course I put Dominate in there to be used, but was hoping that it would be used against evil)
- Whether or not I gave the GM enough tools to decide the outcome in a way they prefer (after talking to her, I feel that it went they way she wanted)
- Whether this is a "dangerous precedent" or a larf
  So, that is where I am coming from...

[Judd]

Hi!
  I did not let the player bring a thiefly character.
  There is no "Thief" built into my game. It's classless. Andonly one skill that could only be used by a Thief (pickpocket)

If you didn't want the skill to be used in the game, why is it in the game? 

If you don't want the players to use Dominate against each other, how about some rules depicting great risk or consequences for doing so.

[nsruf]

As to the overall arc of the rules, they reinforce heroic play to a point. There is support for Villainous play. And it does not require Genre rules or optional rules or anything like that. They key difference is that players vie to accumulate Negative Reputation instead of Positive.

So how did the reputation rules come into play in the scam scene? Or if not, why not?

From your objections to the scene, I gather that you want the rules to encourage heroic behaviour - or at least force a conscious decision between good or bad behaviour. So why did this not happen? Could it be that your reputation system is basically "tacked on", instead of being an integral part of the rules? What I mean is: does a character's morality have a direct impact on his actions, or does the GM have to remember to even invoke the reputation rules as an afterthought to a scene?

For example, I consider the humanity rules in the old Vampire, the sanity rules in Call of Cthulhu, or the honor rules in Hackmaster to be basically "tacked on". Each of the games claims to put a lot of emphasis on the subject, but instead of making it an integral part of resolution, they use vanilla task resolution and leave it to the GM to maybe add or subtract a few points once things are done. Since this basically amounts to extra book keeping and has no meaningful impact on character effectiveness and tactics, it tends to be forgotten.

If you really want these decisions to matter, try to make them the first thing a player considers before deciding on a course of action, instead of the last. E.g., you could have a "morality score" that adds to your chance of success for good acts andis  subtracted for evil acts (negative morality enhances evil). Or even use attributes based on morality ("selfish", "loving", etc.) instead of the usual physical/mental competence stuff.

[Valamir]

- First real action of a new Roleplayer was not so heroic in our heroic game
- Whether or not my game encourages this sort of banditry (of course I put Dominate in there to be used, but was hoping that it would be used against evil)
- Whether or not I gave the GM enough tools to decide the outcome in a way they prefer (after talking to her, I feel that it went they way she wanted)
- Whether this is a "dangerous precedent" or a larf

Good summary.  Fortuneately I think there is a pretty easy solution to all of it.  And that is to give your reputation system some real teeth.  Perhaps you could summarize how your reputation system works now for us.

I'm thinking off the top of my head that reputation should have an immediate and heavy impact in the game, so much so that if you gave the player the option to increase any one of their characters attributes, the one they'd be most likely to increase is reputation.  To that end you have to make sure that having a high reputation has as much effect (or better...more) than having a high strength or high dexterity.

I'm thinking things like:
Allies:  As your reputation increases important people want to be your friend.  Gain both more allies and more important allies as your reputation goes up.  People who WILL help the character to the best of their ability (in full expectation that the character will also help them).

Cheap Goods: One of the best parts about being a celebrity is all the free stuff people give you.  Perhaps the easiest way to account for that in a game is just to make things cost less for those of high reputation.

Legal Aid:  Every body knows the rich and famous don't have to obey the same laws as everybody else.  With a high enough reputation jail terms and time in the stocks can be dealt with with no more than a trifling fine.

On the down side you can reverse many of these.  Instead of allies willing to help you have rivals wanting to get you or blackmail you.  Instead of Cheap Goods things cost more because no one wants to deal with you and you have to bribe shopkeepers to not throw you out or use the black market.  Instead of Legal Aid, you're wanted and the authorities actively pursue you.  The fines to avoid jail time are enormous and will likely bankrupt you.


You could probably think of better ones more closely tied to your setting.  Point being, make reputation something VERY useful (I recommend doubling what you're first inclination is with regards to how useful) and then make guidelines for obtaining reputation that adhere to your standards of heroic play.  Players will see reputation as something valuable, they will do what they need to to get it. 

Its then a relatively simple manner to outline how different people/cultures/factions in your world react to different levels of reputation.

Something like that should take care of all of your above issues, and set your game apart as something more than normal fare.

[Josh Roby]

If you really want these decisions to matter, try to make them the first thing a player considers before deciding on a course of action, instead of the last. E.g., you could have a "morality score" that adds to your chance of success for good acts andis  subtracted for evil acts (negative morality enhances evil).

Or have two scores: Righteousness and Cynicism.  Every time the player rolls the dice, they must say whether the act is righteous or cynical, and the opposite score acts as a negative modifier to the chance of success.  So your high-righteous guy has difficulty bringing himself to parlay with the assassins, and the high-cynic guy has trouble saving the day without demanding a cut for himself.

The specific mechanics of it are irrelevant; what matters is that every roll the player has to think about whether he's being a hero or not.

[Callan S.]

  The new character walked in, and hypnotized the cashier to give him a bag of silver. Another character created a distraction and she decided to let it go down successfully.
  I was shocked, but she wass happy and he was happy, but it just seems wrong to me...

I know you were in the bathroom, but when you got back, were there any signs of rapid planning and social feedback having happened? Like the players were sort of looking at each other like they'd hatched a plan together and felt pretty damn pleased with themselves as a group (including the GM)?

Rather than rules, I'm wondering about the actual agenda.

[dindenver]

Hi Cal!
  No, was not a real plan. In fact, I remember asking (my char is a Monk and didn't partake of the gambling so I couldn't do anything about it except kibbitz) "What if he gets spotted using his power?" And only after the new player had started figuring out what he needed to add/subtract from his roll did another player, who's char was already gambling, volunteeered to be a distraction.
  My char wasn't there and I figured my Wife was the GM, so I stopped objecting. It seemed like the new player was more interested in taking Dominate out for a spin than telling a cool story or accomplishing an in-game goal. I guess if he has been playing San Andreas, this was pretty tame in comparison, lol

  Om a side note, I think the Rep system will prolly do it's bit. He'll take a hit and if he is jerky "in game" then he'll have to go through the no man's land of low rep (most chars start with between +6 and +8 positive rep) until they start reaping the perceived benefits of negative rep.

[Callan S.]

Hi Cal!
  No, was not a real plan. In fact, I remember asking (my char is a Monk and didn't partake of the gambling so I couldn't do anything about it except kibbitz) "What if he gets spotted using his power?" And only after the new player had started figuring out what he needed to add/subtract from his roll did another player, who's char was already gambling, volunteeered to be a distraction.

That is the sort of real plan I'm refering to, when one player hears what another player is doing and chips in what resources/tricks they can, to help out. When you found out the other player volunteered, did he tell you? Did he have a bright spark in his eye and spoke about it quickly, like this came to him in a natural and fluid way?

  Om a side note, I think the Rep system will prolly do it's bit. He'll take a hit and if he is jerky "in game" then he'll have to go through the no man's land of low rep (most chars start with between +6 and +8 positive rep) until they start reaping the perceived benefits of negative rep.

With the information so far I'd bet he starts giving to charities or doing 'good' deeds, not as a way of depicting a hero or telling a good story, but as a way of micro managing his reputation so as to remain 'safe' while honing his reward reaping skills despite the impediment of the rep system.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Dave,

You mention in your first post that half your players wanted to play Thieves. You say your game is skill based and not class based, this lead me to two thoughts that I didn't see mentioned.

1. Something about the skills of the Thief makes those skills either seem cooler, or something about the system suggest those skills may be more effective.
2. Your playtesters may have no interest in being heroic.


I'm also curious, are you using a stat plus skill type system of resolution? For instance pick pocket + dexterity or some similiar idea?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  In order to gain reputation, all you have to do is help others. To maintain it, all you have to do is not harm others (or more accurately, not get caught).
Gaining Reputation requirements Table
Reputation--Witness--Witness Involved--Effected Not Involved--No Reward
-10 to 2-----------Y----------------Y/N-----------------------Y/N-------------------Y/N
3 to 5--------------Y------------------Y------------------------Y/N-------------------Y/N
6 to 8--------------Y------------------Y-------------------------Y---------------------Y/N
9 to 10------------Y------------------Y-------------------------Y-----------------------Y
Witness – The minimum way to gain positive Reputation is to have a witness that can recall the helpful deed.
Witness Involved – If there are witnesses that had a stake in the aid provided, the word will be spread further and wider, and higher Reputation Stats are possible.
Affected Not Involved – If the character was able to help and prevent the effected witnesses from having to exert any effort, the gain in Reputation will be even better.
No Reward – The only way to gain the ultimate levels of Reputation are to help without any desire for apparent reward.
  It effects interpersonal skills. It moves slowly, so micromanaging is not required. But it does effect the game world. And being in and around 0 (so called neutral) has no benefits...

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Dave,

If that was directed to me, I don't feel you answered my question. Perhaps I'm missing something? It did make me wonder something else. You say that the highest level of reputation can only be gained by the character helping someone without thought of reward. What I would like to know is who judges this criteria?

If the Gamemaster does then you can have a serious situation of deprotagonization if the Gamemaster says the condition hasn't been met when the player thinks it has. If the player judges then it's not really a condition as the player will receive the award when they say they receive the award.

[Sydney Freedberg]

This is an interesting system. But Clyde's right: if the GM is the only person who decides whether or not the criteria are met, this could easily become "get a reward for doing what the GM likes and get punished for doing what the GM dislikes."

Also, while it makes sense that characters can only earn or lose points in "Reputation" from things they do that people find out about, that doesn't map to "heroism" very well. Think of how much of the most heroic action in The Lord of the Rings or Star Wars happens without witnesses, with only two or three people alone together (Luke, Vader, the Emperor; Frodo, Sam, Gollum) -- not all of whom even survive. A "did anyone see you?" system doesn't encourage people to be heroic in such situations; it encourages "don't do good deeds, when no one's watching you!"

Maybe you have another system where players get rewards for doing the right thing when no one's watching -- Inner Strength points, or whatever. But if Reputation based on witnesses is all you've got, then you're actually encouraging unheroic, cynical play.

[dindenver]

Hi!
  Sorry Clyde, that rep post was for Cal.

  Prolly the second option. One of the Thief wannabes always tries to play evil in our campaigns (sometimes well, sometimes not so evil, but never in a way that is disruptive to the group). The others I am not sure about, except to know that they are not 100% on the heroic vibe (more anti-hero-ish). It strikes me as odd mostly because my book has a whole page explaining why Theives aren;t alkways a good match in most parties, lol In fact, some of the players have made Warriors with tons of Thief skills, lol

  Yeah, it is Roll, plus skill, plus Ability mod, plus circumstantial mods vs TN/Opposing roll

[Josh Roby]

One of the Thief wannabes always tries to play evil in our campaigns (sometimes well, sometimes not so evil, but never in a way that is disruptive to the group). The others I am not sure about, except to know that they are not 100% on the heroic vibe (more anti-hero-ish).

Are you sure your friends should be playing this game, Dave?  It sounds like you're trying to make some guys who only like Vanilla Ice Cream try out your Caramel Ripple Fudge.