twilight2000-digest Wednesday, August 4 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 061 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: PC Motivation Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC Motivation Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:31:30 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC Motivation Chuck Mandus wrote: > > Twilight has no analog to the Shadowrun concept of Karma, so if you were > to > > require players to document a psychological profile for each PC, how would > > you go about "punishing" them for veering from that code, or "reward" them > > for sticking to it even when disadvantageous to the PC? > > Sometimes in life bad deeds are rewarded, at least in the short term and for > a great price. If the PC's go AWOL, using the examples here, they wouldn't > have to answer to anybody (unless caught) but they would be hunted down > and/or be at risk of capture of they comeback stateside. They can't come > home unless they sneak in to see loved ones, go to funerals, see old > friends, etc. If they run into other U.S. units abroad, if they are well > known to be AWOL, they will be harrassed, chased, to the point of getting > caught or killed. The only "reward" they would probably be able to is hire > themselves out as mercinaries or thieves for the various underground > societies that are in the world and get paid well and buy mansions in some > Third World country. Even then, the price would be is they would have to > sleep with one eye open and keep turning their heads back to see who's there > . Not a pleasant thought if you ask me. Sure I'd like to have millions of > dollars, fancy homes, fancy cars, and a lot of gorgeous "chicks" to keep me > happy but if I had to keep "checking my six" all the time, it's not worth > it. I guess the best thing to do is keep up a constant fear of retribution. > You don't need to send Hind or Cobra gunships, assassins, Army men, P.O.ed > spouses, vengeful brothers, clients they screwed, etc at every turn, but it > is good to keep up the pyschological atmosphere of such things. > I solved this problem easily. I ran a short campaign where all the characters were chaotic evil (everyone seems to think evil means looking out only for your interests...). It became quickly obvious that while it was often funny it wasn't the kind of role playing everyone wanted. So we occasionally played for laughs and a change of pace but everyone understood we didn't want our regular campaigns to be like this. Lately I've thought a campaign where everyone is "lawful evil" would be interesting. You'd have the party stability of being "lawful good" but have a change of pace with the very different goals.... - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:35:28 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) Scott David Orr wrote: > > >That means that you've got to move the players > >in a general southeasterly direction and on a general timeline in order to > >engineer correct "plot" development. > > Well even if you DO have a set plot, no, you don't need to do this: you > can easily allow players to diverge from the plot, and then nudge them back > onto it later--and you can also speed up the course of events or slow it > down. After all, the players and characters don't really know how quickly > or slowly things will happen, so even if you have a timeline in your mind, > you can change it, and the players will never know the difference. This works too. In the AD&D campaign we started off in Undermountain (a giant, man made dungeon). After we got out, healed, bought new stuff, we went back in again. However we decided we'd had enough after being attacked once and walked back out. The GM had some general ideas for other adventures the PCs could go on and, though it took some "nudging", we did eventually go on one of them (still on it too after 2 years). - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:39:12 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) Scott David Orr wrote: > Yes, I suppose if you really don't have time to do any research at all > and/or if you're not good at making up your own adventures, you can more or > less force the characters along a pre-determined path (though, as I said > above, there shouldn't be a problem in their going more quickly or slowly > than you had planned)--but I'd do this only as a last resort, and I'd be > upfront with the players that I was doing this, which should make it > infinitely easier to get them to cooperate. Yah, I think you can be open with the players on this... I've been told things like "sure you can go to place X... just don't go north of X because I don't have anything for that area" and also "if you want you can go east... just tell me, I have some modules for there but I haven't read them yet and we can do it later." Its ok to me at least. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:42:50 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC Motivation Scott David Orr wrote: > I'd say this is one good reason (other than the failings of the game > mechanics themselves) to use a system like GURPS to play in the TW:2000 > setting: you have to pick character advantages and disadvntages, and > personality quirks as well, and all of these help to flesh out the > character's personality. I personally dislike the idea of advantages and disadvantages. In Top Secret some of my players actually found really good uses for their disadvantages. A disadvantage should hamper you not be as good as an advantage :) - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:44:50 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC Motivation Scott David Orr wrote: > As for how you get the PC's to stick to this, that's both tough and > easy--with good role-players, it won't be a problem at all; at worst, > you'll occasionally have to remind them about their characters' > motivations. However, one good way to nudge less virtuous players is to > reward good role-playing with extra experience points and poor role-playing > wiht fewer XP's. My experience has been that having good roleplayers in the group will help the newbies (the chronically bad ones, well you're screwed if you have them :) ). Using this system helps too - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 16:48:58 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC Motivation Zek101@aol.com wrote: > The Southern Party > check this site out guys we've already got new america in the south, otherwise i dont see how this could apply to tk2? - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:20:47 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) Snake Eyes wrote: > Since you seem to disagree with my theory of PC discipline, I'd like to get > your (or I guess anybody else's) input on how you'd deal with the plausible > scenario that Loonz outlined with his Kalisz adventure. Say (for the sake > of argument) that you've decided that you're going to run Kalisz then Black > Madonna and Krakow in that order. You've located and purchased these > products and put ample time and effort into preparing for this by > developing meaningful encounters and fleshing out NPC's and the local > environment. The previously agreed upon "plot" will entail the PC's > hooking up with the DIA in Krakow and then fighting a rear-area guerilla & > intel gathering operation. That means that you've got to move the players > in a general southeasterly direction and on a general timeline in order to > engineer correct "plot" development. > What do you do to prevent the players from making a break for Berlin or the > Baltic coast the first chance they get? Nothing. At least in 1st edition, there's enough information to run "off the cuff" until you've had a chance to do up more in the direction that the players decided to go. At the point when they shoot for Berlin, I pack up the "established plot" for another game another time. The above method keeps me "in stock" for things that I can pull from depending on where the characters go and when. As far as timelines go, it is often possible to "set back" plans of NPC's in order to keep the characters in the action, or to allow those plans to proceed and have the characters get in on the consequences of those plans. > What do you do if at the first village they come to they decide to chuck > the military life and retire to a rustic lifestyle of farming, politics and > community building? The question here is how often do you establish adventures where the PC's have an option of chucking the miliitary life and retiring as farmers or politicians in a rustic lifestyle? I've never created an adventure where this was the objective. However, I have seen the players opt to do this in some campaigns and they turned out just as fun. On the "farmer" run, the characters still had to deal with rampaging military, marauders, nuclear winters, irradiated cropland, attacks from New America's expansion, and wild animals. Kind of hard to heft a shovel and a rifle at the same time. One of the PC's got married, had a kid and spent a good amount of his and his party's resources keeping things comfortable for them. In the political spectrum, one of the players did up the Charismatic politician type weasel in a group of Special Forces characters- good rolls all the way around during character generations. He managed (as a player and as a character) to convince the group to back him in political maneuvering. In essence, he took the 02 Senate position for his "district", and was planning to run for presidency in 04. The jist of this campaign was proving to the public that he could help restore order without destroying the populace's rights to privacy and protection. This campaign involved defending against strong-arm attempts to remove him from the elections. Assassination attempts on the character, police actions investigating and stopping criminal activities in the area, and a LOT of public relations work explaining why- if he wasn't a warlord- he needed to be constantly surrounded by SF mercs. > Is either of these acceptable to you as a referee? So, hopefully you can see the points made above that both are acceptable to, and encouraged by, me. > If the PC's only goal, milestone or measurable waypoint is to get from > point A to point B in mostly one piece, then I could really care less how > they go about doing it. But what do you do when the PC's decided they'd > rather not leave point A -- or decide to head toward point C in the > opposite direction? Do you nudge them out of point A and toward point > B? Do you let them run about willy-nilly, negating the investment and > preparation you put into creating your campaign world? It is often more rewarding and enjoyable for all concerned if you just adjust your original idea/plans to fit the characters' choices of actions then try to prod them towards some pre-defined "destiny" in my opinion. I've played the game both ways and run both ways. I've found that I, and my players, far prefer letting them make the decisions and go the directions that they want and I just adjudicate what the results of their choices are. When things begin to stagnate because of character inaction- you throw a "special" encounter or plot their direction. It doesn't take a lot to turn a random encounter into a full-blown adventure for the party. Also, I throw in a lot of encounters that have nothing to do with the current plot just to break the "video game mode" of thought that everyone you meet is involved in the current plot. > I know that any good referee needs to be flexible and must maintain the > ability to allow & account for "stupid PC tricks," but when they get too > far off track do you nudge them back in line? > If not, why not? Again, in my opinion, there's no such thing as on track or off track. I constantly keep 2-3 plots available (even when they're in the middle of one) that they can side-trek to. Basically, this is more work for me, but more enjoyable. Sometimes they take the bait and follow one of the plots and I flesh it out ahead of them. Other times, they choose something that I didn't have a clue was coming and I work for a bit just to stay ahead of them, then turn it into a good adventure. Generally, without access to aircraft, ships, and fuel there are a lot of limitations on where the characters can go. Let's say you do up the battle of Kalisz in the middle of your campaign rather than right at the start. An idea to strip down some of their resources maybe? Anyway, the party doesn't even head towards Kalisz. No problem- it doesn't have to take place in Kalisz, you just wait until they're in an environmental area/position that will allow you to run it, or you change the environment for where they do decide to go. Pirates of the Wisla could take place on the Mississippi river just as well as the Wisla with some modifications to the module, and Red Star Lone Star doesn't have to be in Texas with the owner of the Ranches. It could be in China with a Rice Plantation owner just as well... The oil well being a mine. > If so, how? > ~ Snake Eyes Hope this didn't come off as antagonistic- definitely not meant that way. I guess my bottom line is I've been in too many scenarios where "you can't kill the Captain because he's crucial to my plans" situations occurred. "Oh. You killed the Captain? Okay... A troop of Soviet Spetznaz (SP?) bears down on you with a full compliment of heavy weapons, armor, artillery, and the last Soviet Helicopter known to mankind... Well, now it's known to mankind anyway." Now, if this was the direct result of one of my actions- I'm cool with that, may be one of the best games I've ever played in. When it is the direct result of GM revenge- no way, I'm walking to a new group, or at least a new GM. Later. Jesse. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 23:24:08 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: PC Motivation - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Vieth To: Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 7:31 PM Subject: Re: PC Motivation > I solved this problem easily. I ran a short campaign where all the characters > were chaotic evil (everyone seems to think evil means looking out only for your > interests...). It became quickly obvious that while it was often funny it wasn't > the kind of role playing everyone wanted. So we occasionally played for laughs > and a change of pace but everyone understood we didn't want our regular > campaigns to be like this. Lately I've thought a campaign where everyone is > "lawful evil" would be interesting. You'd have the party stability of being > "lawful good" but have a change of pace with the very different goals.... Interesting idea. The AD&D alignment idea was interesting although it would be tough to pigeonhole some people into various alignments. I think the true people out for themselves would be the "chaotic neutrals." Chaotic Neutrals don't seem to care if there actions are good, evil, or lawful so I'd put them into that category. I often wonder how many people DM games from the "opposite side" like a game where all or most of the characters are evil aligned, lawful, chaotic, or neutral as the case maybe or maybe somebody ran a Twilight: 2000 campaign from a Warsaw Pact viewpoint. Most Twilight: 2000 games I know of is from a NATO viewpoint. I do find the concept of alignments interesting although I don't know if it would work with Twilight : 2000 very well. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 20:53:02 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation > I hate the Alignment system of D&D, but I'm not looking to start an > argument about that. The options (as I see them) are: Probably because you do not understand it well enough, but I won't add fuel to the argument and go into another OTP. > 1. No psychological background > 3. Player develops PC's profile during course of play > 2. Player independently creates the character's profile at generation > 4. Player picks by drawing a few cards, just like for NPC's > 5. Referee picks as in #4 above. I go with a combination of 2&3 myself. Basically running with a profile at the start, and having them adjust their PC during the course of play. > While I don't necessarily love the idea of pinning PC's down in terms of > what motivates them, I have found that knowing that information up front > allows the referee to tailor specific encounters and situations to play off > the PC's various documented "Edges & Flaws" (for lack of a better > terminology). It's been my experience that given the chance, most players > will bend their morals to whatever suits them best at any given time, and > the PC's thus become a pack of craven opportunistic bastards. I agree with you fully here. Basically, in my mind, what makes it "role" playing rather than "roll" playing is that the player defines a character and plays that character no matter what the circumstances are. Tailoring situations for further PC development also seems to work really well in my experiences. > Twilight has no analog to the Shadowrun concept of Karma, so if you were to > require players to document a psychological profile for each PC, how would > you go about "punishing" them for veering from that code, or "reward" them > for sticking to it even when disadvantageous to the PC? > ~ Snake Eyes This is a difficult one considering that such a system does not exist in T2k as far as I know. An honor system does not always work- although that is what I'd use in my campaign since 5 out of 6 of my players would adhere to it fine. Some instant ideas that I had were "Brownie points" where you grant a point or two for staying in role during times of moral challenges. These points could be used to say change the range category when trying to hit, or avoid being hit... Improving the quality of item found when scrounging... or other things up to you to define. A "Personality profile" where you put a series of positive/negative traits down and mandate that the player define these during character generation (or when the profile is implemented)... Something like this... Merciful....96, Merciless...4 The total of positive and negative side of each trait would need to equal 100% Now, on the above example, a soldier is captured and begging for mercy the character decides to shoot him... Well, it's basically opposite his general personality- he must roll d% and get a score of 4 or less to do it, otherwise he can't bring himself to do so. Should he do it, have his scores change to reflect the event... Maybe 86/14 for the new one. "Do unto others" comes to mind as well. A lot of times a GM pulls punches on what his "bad guys" will do. As the party breaks their own codes and personalities, do the same with the NPC's... This tends to make them question things a lot of times. In our own games, we have a "wrap-up session" where we discuss the various elements of the game and role-playing running on a score of 1-5 with 5 being perfect and 3 average. We give each person a rating on how well they did along with a review of what they could have done to play better, and what was really good/intense role-playing. Most of my players work with better concepts/characterization just to get those fives. Possibly grant them a couple "successes" or "AT's" to be placed wherever they desire after each session based on how well they role-played would work well. There are also 3 things that came to my mind while writing this that I'd like to share... maybe they'll give some food for thought. In one of my first games, a player did up a character named "Tex" who was from Texas. He took to .45's and no other firearms. I warned him about the "survivability" of such a character and he opted to stick with the character because of concept. Now, it didn't take him long to get killed because of a lack of fire-power and his next character was a special forces killing machine with a weapon for every situation and an attitude to go with it, but everyone in the group had to respect him for that first character. Even when it became obvious that he was going to die from his weapon choices, he did not change them. He said: "Hey, Tex has been through 30 mos. of this already, why would he change now?" then added under his breath... "Of course he's pig-headed as hell and will probably die, but what the hell." A second character took a direct hit with a howitzer during a firefight. The damage didn't kill him- almost unheard of I know- but it did blow both of his legs off. The group medic managed to save his life. While it was an option to take him out of the game and allow the player to do up a new character... we mutually agreed to keep him in the game although I was very skeptical. During the course of this campaign, he became one hell of a gunner with a special harness that strapped him in and he studied everything he could get his hands on that involved electronics and robotics. When they finally got into a situation where they had "excesses" of equipment, he began working on labs and trying to get together a technical team to create bionic legs for himself. While the campaign ended before he could accomplish this task, it was a fascinating game with a lot of effort (on my part and his) going into research to see how likely the potential of success would be in a T2k world. Finally, I've always made it a point to reward my players in little ways for good role-playing and let them know up front that I expect a good character concept. Also, that cheating makes the game less fun for the cheater and won't make one iota of difference for the others in the game. Today, I've got a player in my game that will cheat on a die roll in a heartbeat, he somehow keeps getting hold of equipment that I didn't give him, and his skills on all points are a lot higher in practically every field than any other player's. While the team generally goes through a lot of struggles and challenges, it's kind of interesting to see that the only player that tends to be unhappy with the games is the cheater- although he has never decided to leave the group. IMO, his unhappiness is due to the fact that he hasn't had the struggle, and sweet taste of success that the other players have. I haven't punished him, or even directly confronted him on the cheating, however the entire group is aware of it and if asked about it they'll generally say: "whatever" and go on playing as if it's no big deal. Now, the reason that I brought up the cheating is because in any role-playing game, it is cheating if the players do not stay within the concept of their character. Simple as that. Changes in personality tend to occur over long periods of time and with reason, not spur of the moment because the advantages run that way now. Hope this helps. Jesse. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:01:50 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation > Interesting idea. The AD&D alignment idea was interesting although it would > be tough to pigeonhole some people into various alignments. I think the > true people out for themselves would be the "chaotic neutrals." Chaotic > Neutrals don't seem to care if there actions are good, evil, or lawful so > I'd put them into that category. I often wonder how many people DM games > from the "opposite side" like a game where all or most of the characters are > evil aligned, lawful, chaotic, or neutral as the case maybe or maybe > somebody ran a Twilight: 2000 campaign from a Warsaw Pact viewpoint. Most > Twilight: 2000 games I know of is from a NATO viewpoint. I do find the > concept of alignments interesting although I don't know if it would work > with Twilight : 2000 very well. > Chuck Hey Chuck, The alignment system will work in any campaign as long as the GM has a thorough understanding of the system and is willing/able to determine without a shadow of a doubt what is "good' and "evil" within the concept of his campaign. I know that I played a Soviet tank commander, from Rumania, in my second T2k game simply because I wanted something different with everyone playing NATO. I was the highest ranking character with the lowest effective rank in the unit (American, then NATO, then other members of units get position according to the rules). When first encountered, the party had a LAV-25 and no gunner- they needed one and captured my character. An agreement was reached between my character and the party, and she became their gunner. Kind of funny because she rationalized away her being a traitor the same basic ways that a marauder would. When it finally came down to the line, it came out that both governments were clearly in the wrong, the party were all traitors to their respective governments, and the party were the "good guys" in the crux of one really twisted campaign. While I've never really needed the alignment system in any game except D&D/AD&D, I'm a major proponent for it. I believe that a well-developed personality goes waaay beyond the alignment, but alignment is a good place to start. Also, I've definitely found it of much greater use than the "cards system" for developing an NPC's personality. Later. Jesse. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 1999 00:17:31 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: PC Motivation > Now, the reason that I brought up the cheating is because in any > role-playing game, it is cheating if the players do not stay within the > concept of their character. Simple as that. Changes in personality tend to > occur over long periods of time and with reason, not spur of the moment > because the advantages run that way now. > I do allow an occasional "freak out". Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 21:28:17 -0700 From: "Vanquer" Subject: Re: PC Motivation > > Now, the reason that I brought up the cheating is because in any > > role-playing game, it is cheating if the players do not stay within the > > concept of their character. Simple as that. Changes in personality tend to > > occur over long periods of time and with reason, not spur of the moment > > because the advantages run that way now. > I do allow an occasional "freak out". > Loonz Me too :-) Jesse. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:26:32 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: PC Motivation Vanquer wrote: > I know that I played a Soviet tank commander, from Rumania, in my second > T2k game simply because I wanted something different with everyone playing > NATO. I was the highest ranking character with the lowest effective rank in > the unit (American, then NATO, then other members of units get position > according to the rules). Heh, I always thought this would really piss non NATO characters off. My players tend to ignore this and go with seniority (nationality aside, theres reasons why that Russian army PC is a major > While I've never really needed the alignment system in any game except > D&D/AD&D, I'm a major proponent for it. I believe that a well-developed > personality goes waaay beyond the alignment, but alignment is a good place > to start. Also, I've definitely found it of much greater use than the "cards > system" for developing an NPC's personality. Personally I think the alignment system is fine if its *just* a basis for a character. I've seen too many GMs get rabid over characters who do something that doesn't exactly fit their alignment, as if all characters can neatly fit into one of these nine alignments and that the alignments dictate the players actions. I usually play neutral good characters, mostly cuz lawful good has been too restrictive in the past. I remember situations when my neutral good character has run away as the party is getting slaughter. The GM will say "I'll turn you chaotic good if you don't stop that, a neutral good character wouldn't run from the party when they're in trouble." Why not? The character generally has good intent, but hes not above running away to save his life. Lawful good characters I think are the most abused, just because lots of GMs seem to think that lawful means the character sticks to certain rules, and then the GM takes another step and comes up with what these rules are. Anyway I haven't had any problems with alignment lately, but after a few sessions it appears to be less and less important as the character is fleshed out. - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://sanitarium.computers-radio.com]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 22:46:12 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: PC "Guidance" (was: DIRTY TRICKS) - --=====================_42687811==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 08:20 PM 8/3/99 -0700, Vanquer wrote: [Comments Inline] > Nothing. At least in 1st edition, there's enough information to run "off >the cuff" until you've had a chance to do up more in the direction that the >players decided to go. At the point when they shoot for Berlin, I pack up >the "established plot" for another game another time. Yeah, the first edition had all kinds of really good source material. You could run that one scenario for months, and what information GDW didn't provide you could easily extrapolate & improvise. Why they decided to ditch the Kalisz adventure in later editions is beyond me. The background provided in 2 & 2.2 was pretty weak, but those encounter cards in the later box sets were pretty cool. I concur with your assertion that material from one module can be transplanted to any locale, but that wasn't my point -- and is it just me or did the remade 2nd edition Krakow adventure module kind of blow dogs compared to the first? I also use a Hallwag country map and the Lonely Planet travel guides to Poland & Eastern Europe for fleshing out all those little bergs and such. Great town & area maps & even some floor plans of the more important structures. > It doesn't take a lot to turn a random encounter into a full-blown >adventure for the party. Also, I throw in a lot of encounters that have >nothing to do with the current plot just to break the "video game mode" of >thought that everyone you meet is involved in the current plot. I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'm not at all adverse to a lot more than just the occasional improvisation and/or sidetrack, and I too enjoy dropping a lot of red herrings in order to break up any perception of linearity or monotony. However, I also make up many encounter ideas way in advance and wait for an appropriate time in the plot development to spring them. > Hope this didn't come off as antagonistic- definitely not meant that >way. I guess my bottom line is I've been in too many scenarios where "you >can't kill the Captain because he's crucial to my plans" situations >occurred. Not antagonistic at all. I was merely soliciting feedback on the freeform vs. structure debate, and that is exactly what I'm getting. My major concern was in regard to getting the PC's to stick to a rough path or course of action in accordance with either published material or that of my own creation. I guess that the dilemma is in getting the PC's to take the bait without cramming down their throats. I'll be honest in that I'm really surprised that there is so much support here for the less-structured options. Part of that is certainly personal bias, but part is indeed based on my interaction with other Twilight 2000 players. It's been my experience that Twilight & Merc lend themselves to a more rigid or "task-oriented" course of play than most other games I've played, but that may speak more of my players than of the game itself or my particular style of refereeing. >"Oh. You killed the Captain? Okay... A troop of Soviet Spetznaz (SP?) >bears down on you with a full compliment of heavy weapons, armor, >artillery, and the last Soviet Helicopter known to mankind... Well, now >it's known to mankind anyway." Now, if this was the direct result of one >of my actions- I'm cool with that, may be one of the best games I've ever >played in. When it is the direct result of GM revenge- no way, I'm walking >to a new group, or at least a new GM. Again, I wasn't talking about mindlessly abusing the PC's out of pure spite and malice, but rather of implementing an increasingly stiffer continuum of guidance to keep the plot on track. A good referee must establish elastic (yet finite) boundaries, and a good player needs to know when to take the hint. I stand by that. Thanks again for the stimulating discourse. ~ Snake Eyes - --=====================_42687811==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 08:20 PM 8/3/99 -0700, Vanquer wrote: [Comments Inline] Nothing. At least in 1st edition, there's enough information to run "off the cuff" until you've had a chance to do up more in the direction that the players decided to go. At the point when they shoot for Berlin, I pack up the "established plot" for another game another time. Yeah, the first edition had all kinds of really good source material. You could run that one scenario for months, and what information GDW didn't provide you could easily extrapolate & improvise. Why they decided to ditch the Kalisz adventure in later editions is beyond me. The background provided in 2 & 2.2 was pretty weak, but those encounter cards in the later box sets were pretty cool. I concur with your assertion that material from one module can be transplanted to any locale, but that wasn't my point -- and is it just me or did the remade 2nd edition Krakow adventure module kind of blow dogs compared to the first? I also use a Hallwag country map and the Lonely Planet travel guides to Poland & Eastern Europe for fleshing out all those little bergs and such. Great town & area maps & even some floor plans of the more important structures. It doesn't take a lot to turn a random encounter into a full-blown adventure for the party. Also, I throw in a lot of encounters that have nothing to do with the current plot just to break the "video game mode" of thought that everyone you meet is involved in the current plot. I wholeheartedly agree with this. I'm not at all adverse to a lot more than just the occasional improvisation and/or sidetrack, and I too enjoy dropping a lot of red herrings in order to break up any perception of linearity or monotony. However, I also make up many encounter ideas way in advance and wait for an appropriate time in the plot development to spring them. Hope this didn't come off as antagonistic- definitely not meant that way. I guess my bottom line is I've been in too many scenarios where "you can't kill the Captain because he's crucial to my plans" situations occurred. Not antagonistic at all. I was merely soliciting feedback on the freeform vs. structure debate, and that is exactly what I'm getting. My major concern was in regard to getting the PC's to stick to a rough path or course of action in accordance with either published material or that of my own creation. I guess that the dilemma is in getting the PC's to take the bait without cramming down their throats. I'll be honest in that I'm really surprised that there is so much support here for the less-structured options. Part of that is certainly personal bias, but part is indeed based on my interaction with other Twilight 2000 players. It's been my experience that Twilight & Merc lend themselves to a more rigid or "task-oriented" course of play than most other games I've played, but that may speak more of my players than of the game itself or my particular style of refereeing. "Oh. You killed the Captain? Okay... A troop of Soviet Spetznaz (SP?) bears down on you with a full compliment of heavy weapons, armor, artillery, and the last Soviet Helicopter known to mankind... Well, now it's known to mankind anyway." Now, if this was the direct result of one of my actions- I'm cool with that, may be one of the best games I've ever played in. When it is the direct result of GM revenge- no way, I'm walking to a new group, or at least a new GM. Again, I wasn't talking about mindlessly abusing the PC's out of pure spite and malice, but rather of implementing an increasingly stiffer continuum of guidance to keep the plot on track. A good referee must establish elastic (yet finite) boundaries, and a good player needs to know when to take the hint. I stand by that. Thanks again for the stimulating discourse. ~ Snake Eyes - --=====================_42687811==_.ALT-- *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #61 ************************************ To subscribe to Twilight2000-Digest, send the command: subscribe twilight2000-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-twlight2000": subscribe twlight2000-digest local-twilight2000@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "twilight2000-digest" in the commands above with "twilight2000".