Jump to content

The Official OTC TBRPG Planning and Organization Topic


Noxryn

Recommended Posts

Oh, definitely. But I have a feeling even if I didn't say that our wonderful community would lean that way.(I'm looking at you, Basilisk XD)I have faith that there will be people who can pull off the not boring. I've seen the biographies in XMDD and the like.

Hm, alright then. What about the level of conflict in the RPG? How magical can things get?

Haven't seen one of these in a long time...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Holding back is one thing. Coddling is one thing. Outright making your goal to kill their characters because they got in the way is not. Think about every possible option and choose the one that benefits your character and fits their established personality, but allows the game to continue. If someone forces themselves into a situation where you have only one choice (charging you while you have a disintegration ray) then you shouldn't just give in.
But in the scenario I gave, you had two options that benefit you just as much. The difference being, one kills off a bunch of PCs, the other gives you the option to use it more tactically later. On a similar vein, imagine a situation where you have two bases of equal power; one is manned with PC support, another has high ranking NPCs. You can destroy one of them. Both are filled with enemies. Your target, unless the enemy PCs do something like launch an attack that makes that base the more dangerous one, should be the NPC one.

 

 

The type of characters I enjoy playing, dons, SpecOps, pragmatic planners....don't take kindly to someone breaking into their base, throwing wrenches into their plans or, in more then one case, threatening humanity. They'll use lethal force if it is needed. Don't care if it's dramatic, if you care about the character, or any of that. What they see is someone killing their men, threatening their goals and the like. If they have the clout and the wealth...or the skills, to arrange an accident. They won't shy away from it. I won't allow OOC feelings to effect IC dealings in this case. You don't want your life to be threatened, don't get involved with the ruthless black ops cell and have escape routes if they come a-calling. I refuse, however, to pull punches because you care about the character.

 

They didn't care about their well-being that much if they picked a fight with an organization like that. That's a pretty standard part of going into combat. Accepting there is a chance, a pretty good one, you'll end up dead. Except if you are using drones.

 

Yig, I love drones. The best kind of fight is the kind where your enemy doesn't even get the chance to shoot back.

 

As for the bases, I'd flip a coin. Or better yet, launch an attack on the other whilst firing off the nuke at one of them. Confusion from the sudden loss of communication plus the lack of support will make the job easier for the ground-pounders.

 

My memory does not fail me, as I do recall said retreat. However, I was not referring to your actual actions, I was referring to the way you phrased it as part of this discussion. What happened in the past matters less than what is brought to this debate.

 

 

Uh-huh.

 

It's not a war, Basilisk. It's an RPG. G. Game. It's a game. Where roles are played.

 

 

And my roles happen to be ruthless and rather good planners. Also, I do believe wars and other violent situations have happened in RPGs. Just because it's a game, doesn't mean you don't have to put effort into it. I'm not going to play softball because you don't want your character to die. My characters have a goal, many of them are willing to take certain actions to reach said goal. You want a soft and easy life, or to not be at risk of getting shot, don't get in the way of that goal.

 

You want to fight, fine, maybe you'll win. I'll enjoy the challenge. You kill my character, good job. Very clever. Kudos.

 

 

I was not attempting to imply it, I was inferring it based on your statement that every one of your characters was "in it to win no matter what," which by itself and without any actual motivation related to the character, is a rather bland motivation. Most people have things that motivate them, along with different quirks and things that can be exploited. Or a moral code that guides them, like not murdering innocents who get in the way, or being unable to kill someone once they surrender.

 

 

You don't know much about Spec war do you? Aside from that, some of my characters do, for the most part, try to keep innocent civilians out of it. For pragmatic and moral reasons. I play cunning planners, skilled generals, the vizier, the PMC director. I'm not going to water down my characters....and it's not that they'll always do anything to win. None of them have ever unleashed a virus on an entire city. But I do know, at least, the basics of combat. How guns work, what frags will do to people in an enclosed room. These are tried and true combat methods because they work. Alot. Not gonna treat PC's special. You want to beat a force with one of my characters behind the wheel, you'll need to outplan, outmanuver and outhink someone who quite sincerely wants the people attacking them dead and will go to lengths to ensure it.

 

If you lose, it's not my fault your tactics aren't the best. Not gonna tie a hand behind the back of my character just so someone's favorite gets off scott free.

 

I do wish we could actually get an RPG with us on opposing sides, and keep it open long enough to bring a conflict to its bitter end. The playing of wits would be quite enjoyable; the rational against the more... unorthodox.

 

 

There's an XMDD sequel coming up. Along with an RTS-RPG.

 

Needless to say, I already have ten or twelve different plans for both of them.

 

 

It's a harsh way of looking at things but I suppose I can see where you're getting at. Back in the day a lot of my characters were idealists so I didn't normally have to worry about being so ruthless. Recently I was hoping to go for something a bit grittier with the introduction of Captain Narys in Multiversal Collision (far from a decent planner or any sort of Black Ops agent, but considering she's in the military of Terra which is already a politically unstable nation things may get really bad eventually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, combat isn't nice. I see no reason to shy away from that fact in RPGs.

 

Regarding MC, Rover is no longer interested but, but, but, Humva and I might be returning soon.

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, combat isn't nice. I see no reason to shy away from that fact in RPGs.

 

Nor do I see any reason to glorify it. I will agree that sometimes the RPG may call for you to be ruthless. If you're playing a black ops character and another player poses a serious threat it makes sense that they would shoot to kill, though whether they succeed in killing the opponent is another matter entirely.

 

I've just had the thought that you'd fit right into my little plot thread in Multiversal Collision regarding young Captain Narys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairly magical. I have a basic plot ironed out, the magic system is coming next.Magic isn't going to be like most RP magic, I can tell you that much. But it should work.Also, about the plot... Suffice to say, you will have things to do.

Could you perform feats such as fitting three full dresses into one chestnut shell?

Haven't seen one of these in a long time...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, combat isn't nice. I see no reason to shy away from that fact in RPGs.

 

Regarding MC, Rover is no longer interested but, but, but, Humva and I might be returning soon.

 

Actually, on that note because I've seen it crop up a few times, I do have good news. In between reading a terribly dull book and pondering the essay I have to write on it, I've been working on figuring out how to string together a plot to bring the active characters together and maybe bring back some inactive ones.Oh, and to chime in on the above debate, because apparently I can't resist... Actually, I could, I just don;'t feel like it. XD

 

Both sides have merit. Realism should be in effect to the degree that tthe setting makes sense, and characters function within their abilities. But it also shouldn't be in effect to such a degree that everything strictly follows realism because then it would be, well, real life in RPG form. :P

fK5oqYf.jpg

 

On this eve, the thirtieth anniversary of that first colony, many are left to wonder; is the world fast approaching a breaking point?

 

 

  Breaking Point: An OTC Mecha RPG

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Like I said, combat isn't nice. I see no reason to shy away from that fact in RPGs.

 

Nor do I see any reason to glorify it. I will agree that sometimes the RPG may call for you to be ruthless. If you're playing a black ops character and another player poses a serious threat it makes sense that they would shoot to kill, though whether they succeed in killing the opponent is another matter entirely.

 

I've just had the thought that you'd fit right into my little plot thread in Multiversal Collision regarding young Captain Narys.

 

 

War isn't glorious. Combat isn't noble. The causes behind them might be. I have a healthy respect for the machines of war and I admire their designs.....but gushing about the tech in something and wanting it to be used against human beings are very different things yes?

 

And the thing is, RPG's I'm in have a habit of crossing the Godzilla Threshold. Means anyone who wants to solve a problem that big has to get very nasty.

 

I had much the same thought

 

Both sides have merit. Realism should be in effect to the degree that tthe setting makes sense, and characters function within their abilities. But it also shouldn't be in effect to such a degree that everything strictly follows realism because then it would be, well, real life in RPG form. :P

 

 

Quite. I don't demand everything be realistic. I've played sorcerers and vampires and unless someone didn't tell me about something, those don't exist in real life.

 

Expect a character from me soon Snark.

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Like I said, combat isn't nice. I see no reason to shy away from that fact in RPGs.

 

Regarding MC, Rover is no longer interested but, but, but, Humva and I might be returning soon.

 

Actually, on that note because I've seen it crop up a few times, I do have good news. In between reading a terribly dull book and pondering the essay I have to write on it, I've been working on figuring out how to string together a plot to bring the active characters together and maybe bring back some inactive ones.

 

I'm sure that ought to be interesting. It does pique my curiosity how you'd plan to tie together the otherwise unrelated plot threads of Millstone and Narys. I did have a few ideas for Narys' story and if it is of any help I'd be willing to send them to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the debate on killing PCs... It's all a bit of a pantomime, isn't it? I mean, do you really expect my character to believe that one character is more alive, more real, more of a valuable life than another? If that does appear to be the case, if one character seems lively while the other's a dull meat-puppet... Well, first off, the PC's likely as not to be the meat-puppet while the NPC's flesh, blood and interesting, and second, no matter which one it is, someone hasn't done their job right.

 

So, as none of us are cheerfully in the habit of doing our jobs wrong, so to speak, my characters will continue to see no difference in vitality between an NPC and a PC, and, in cases where both are classified as enemies, it can of course be said that the distinction so clear to us in OOC will make less than a peanut of difference in their minds when picking a target.

 

I'll always give the foe a chance, though. No fun if there's no fight in them, if they don't have a way out from the word go. They might happen to kick the trapdoor open on themselves, yes and they have, but that's not my doing. I just gave them rope and a particular kind of knot, and in that way I'm much nicer than real life.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so... While this is off topic, and I apologize, I've worked on a pitch for a fantasy type thing.(I tried out the Legend of Rainville deal somewhere. Didn't work)(Also, I do get the joke of having a fantasy deal after the argument above)The land of Rowane was new. Newer than the dew which falls on the fairy circles, its magic fresh and active, not like the magic of today. No, our tales come from the days when myth ran high and normality was not normal. When trolls and dragons walked the land, when princesses slept and little girls ran through the woods to their grandmother's house, fearful a wolf would get them. Aye, this is a land of legend and superstition.So, in OOC terms what will be going on is this:Rowane is a land roughly Ireland's size and shape, with all the green fields that come with it.Magic is prevalent here. The sorcerer's apprentice could take place in this world.And that's just it: This is -the- world of fairy tales. When creating your character, you're highly encouraged to pick a popular tale (like Red Riding Hood) and twist it in some way. Instead of writing a bio, you write -your character's- version of the story.A version where Red was raised by wolves and had her pack killed by an evil relative? Entirely possible.Comments are appreciated XD

 

WANT. So many ideas are already forming...:evilgrin:

67tlbk.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I'm new to running RPGs myself, I'm not really sure if there's anything I can do to resurrect the Young Justice RP. It's not like there was nothing for people to do, almost everyone was in the middle of something when they wandered off. I'm not blaming or complaining here, I understand losing interest and abandoning RPGs, I've done that many-a-time. I guess I'm just curious if anyone is planning on coming back or has some critique for how I handled things.The fairy tale twist sounds pretty interesting. Then again, several of the currently running RPs look interesting to me... if Young Justice can't be saved I'll have to look them over and see if I can fit myself in. I like being in at least one RP at all times.

skiddo.png

I want to THRIVE
Not just survive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RPG's are hard to get down to a science.

 

Very hard. You should look at the judges lab sometimes. We lose interns at the rate of ten per day.

 

During a good week.

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've decided to chuck my initial Megami Ibunroku Persona RPG on the backburner.

 

Probably because it's difficult creating a generic western city as a setting, especially when people expect you to have a population of 50,000 when the usual cities you go to (and your small home village), have a population of over a million. Or because I had a better idea which would require me to do less world-building, and is set in a rather interesting time period.

 

Still the same universe though.

 

Anyway, here we go!

 

BGM Start

 

Devil Summoner: Shōwa One

 

It is December 25. A day usually considered to be a day of celebration in the West is a day of mourning for the people of Japan. The Emperor Taishō has finally succumbed his illness, bringing about the end of his golden age. And what an age it was: in the twenty-four years of the former Emperor's reign, there has never been such advancement in the fields of technology and civil rights in the history of nation. The democracy flourished, and so did the economy, Japan having successfully taken the leap from a developing feudal nation to one of the great imperial powers.

But the Taishō is over. It will be up to Hirohito to take up his father's legacy; to bring about a new era of prosperity during his reign.

The future is uncertain to many, but to the Devil Summoners of Japan, there is a sense of great foreboding. Kyoto's protector, the fourteenth Raidou Kuzunoha, has disappeared, leaving the capital unguarded and vulnerable to the machinations of the demons who dare bring chaos to the nation. Without the presence of the most famous member of the Kuzunoha clan, havoc has struck the island's underworld as malicious entities vy for great power.

It is no longer up to the Yatagarasu's servants to decide Japan's fate; the power now lies in the hands of those who struggle to stand against the tides of change.

It is the first year of the Shōwa period, and change has already begun.

 

This RPG is set in the universe of Devil Summoner, which takes place in an alternate history where the Emperor Taishō never died on the 25th of December, 1926, allowing for the period to last for more than fifteen years (preventing the world from becoming a nuclear wasteland a century later in Shin Megami Tensei I and allowing for the events of If ... to occur). Set chronologically after the events of the Soulless Army and King Abaddon, this RPG focuses on the supernatural side of Japan and their attempts to adjust to the change that follows the Emperor's death and the disappearance of their hero.

 

I'm still sort of in the planning stages, but the gist is that there are people in the world who have the ability to contract and summon demons to do their bidding. There is not much of a masquerade, although knowledge of how to work with demons and the magicks of the people who serve as Devil Summoners are only known by those who seek out such chaos. It is the summoners of Japan, as well as any foreign summoners who arrived to make their fortunes in this rich country, who this RPG will usually feature, although it is possible to play non-summoners if one wishes to.

 

There'll be more information as I flesh this out a bit more.

Edited by Content with Life
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JiMing: Possibly. It should be noted that while magic -is- incredibly powerful here, it's hard. It requires preparation and skill, not just spamming the heck out of some magic words.Or you can have a fairy godmother. Which isn't happening.(because they're OP)@Zyke: If I can get the time to type it up, shouldn't take tooooo long.@Bunda: I apologize, I've been intending to post.Remember when I said that if Alex and I jam it tends not to be posted?Yeah, it happened XD

No such thing as destiny.

BZPRPG Profiles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Hubert; This is one of those things I really can't comment on because I have zero familiarity with the source material. I guess it could work, but honestly, the setting seems a lot like Epilogue with devils instead of demons, in Japan rather than an academy, without the religious holy death bullets. The RPG is also less all-inclusive since it (appears to) take place in pre-modern times, in a setting where a lot of stuff is already established because it comes from a source material.

 

That's my take on it, but I'd need to see a bit more than this to say more.

 

 

The land of Rowane was new. Newer than the dew which falls on the fairy circles, its magic fresh and active, not like the magic of today. No, our tales come from the days when myth ran high and normality was not normal. When trolls and dragons walked the land, when princesses slept and little girls ran through the woods to their grandmother's house, fearful a wolf would get them. Aye, this is a land of legend and superstition.So, in OOC terms what will be going on is this:Rowane is a land roughly Ireland's size and shape, with all the green fields that come with it.Magic is prevalent here. The sorcerer's apprentice could take place in this world.And that's just it: This is -the- world of fairy tales. When creating your character, you're highly encouraged to pick a popular tale (like Red Riding Hood) and twist it in some way. Instead of writing a bio, you write -your character's- version of the story.A version where Red was raised by wolves and had her pack killed by an evil relative? Entirely possible.

 

What's the time period? I mean, the fairy tales are pretty spread out. Just choose any? And from any source material, or just Grimm stories and the like? Or can nursery rhymes, too? Perhaps the true story of the there blind mice, from a story where the farmer was also a mage who used them as his familiars and test subjects, until the day they misbehaved and had their tails cut off by his wife, who they then brutally murdered with her own carving knife?

 

 

I'll always give the foe a chance, though. No fun if there's no fight in them, if they don't have a way out from the word go. They might happen to kick the trapdoor open on themselves, yes and they have, but that's not my doing. I just gave them rope and a particular kind of knot, and in that way I'm much nicer than real life.

 

See, this here is one of the things I was talking about. Your goal should never be to put another player in a situation where they have zero chance. Sometimes they'll put themselves in that position, but you shouldn't do it yourself. This applies to the killing rule, of course; if you're merely trying to capture them or if your job is to stop them from reaching a goal, then putting them in a situation with zero chance of escape is perfectly acceptable.

 

Now, when you're a player in the RPG, sometimes you might need to stick them in checkmate and force a game over. As I've mentioned before, this is best done when you've talked to the other player beforehand. When you're a GM, though, it becomes paramount that they've had the opprotunity to get out of the situation - not attacking that bad guy, not getting in the machine, not pushing the red button, not picking up the dead guys sword.

 

To give an example from one of the old-school GMs, David Hargrave, with some paraphrasing. The party was moving through a dungeon, when a small animal ran past, followed by a much larger monster. They attacked, and took some serious damage If they had simply moved to the side, however, the monster would have ran past them - it was chasing after its favorite prey, and was otherwise disinterested in the party. Those kind of scenarios are the hallmark of more experienced GMs, usually.

 

 

The type of characters I enjoy playing, dons, SpecOps, pragmatic planners....don't take kindly to someone breaking into their base, throwing wrenches into their plans or, in more then one case, threatening humanity. They'll use lethal force if it is needed. Don't care if it's dramatic, if you care about the character, or any of that. What they see is someone killing their men, threatening their goals and the like. If they have the clout and the wealth...or the skills, to arrange an accident. They won't shy away from it. I won't allow OOC feelings to effect IC dealings in this case. You don't want your life to be threatened, don't get involved with the ruthless black ops cell and have escape routes if they come a-calling. I refuse, however, to pull punches because you care about the character.

 

They didn't care about their well-being that much if they picked a fight with an organization like that. That's a pretty standard part of going into combat. Accepting there is a chance, a pretty good one, you'll end up dead. Except if you are using drones.

 

Yig, I love drones. The best kind of fight is the kind where your enemy doesn't even get the chance to shoot back.

 

As for the bases, I'd flip a coin. Or better yet, launch an attack on the other whilst firing off the nuke at one of them. Confusion from the sudden loss of communication plus the lack of support will make the job easier for the ground-pounders.

 

Well obviously you would attack the other one, but the appropriate choice would be to target the place with the NPCs in it. For one thing, it gives the players a chance to fight back. For the second, targeting a base full of NPCs is boring; targeting a base with PCs guarding it is less boring. From an IC stand point, it's the same thing; from an OOC stand point, it means you're interacting (via proxy) with other players still.

 

If you can honestly tell me you prefer interacting with NPCs than other players, than I'll be equally honest in saying that's not a good thing.

And my roles happen to be ruthless and rather good planners. Also, I do believe wars and other violent situations have happened in RPGs. Just because it's a game, doesn't mean you don't have to put effort into it. I'm not going to play softball because you don't want your character to die. My characters have a goal, many of them are willing to take certain actions to reach said goal. You want a soft and easy life, or to not be at risk of getting shot, don't get in the way of that goal.

You want to fight, fine, maybe you'll win. I'll enjoy the challenge. You kill my character, good job. Very clever. Kudos.

 

When the majority of players create characters who have at least one positive emotion like empathy, compassion, or love... creating a ruthless strategist who kicks puppies that nibble his foot too hard and saying "tough luck, you got in the way" doesn't really work.

 

Don't take this the wrong way (me telling you how to play your characters) but you might want to try your hand at a character who isn't vulcan. Or, more importantly, having them make mistakes from time to time. The biggest thing is pride, especially when making a "smart" character. General rule - almost every high IQ person out there has an ego, or is at least self-conscious to the fault. To put it simply, your Empire never considered that the Rebels just might get the shield generators down, and your Emperor never considered that your until then loyal minion might turn on you. These are obviously more dramatic examples as the consequences for these assumptions are much greater than you might be willing to suffer, but they come to mind quickly.

 

You don't know much about Spec war do you? Aside from that, some of my characters do, for the most part, try to keep innocent civilians out of it. For pragmatic and moral reasons. I play cunning planners, skilled generals, the vizier, the PMC director. I'm not going to water down my characters....and it's not that they'll always do anything to win. None of them have ever unleashed a virus on an entire city. But I do know, at least, the basics of combat. How guns work, what frags will do to people in an enclosed room. These are tried and true combat methods because they work. Alot. Not gonna treat PC's special. You want to beat a force with one of my characters behind the wheel, you'll need to outplan, outmanuver and outhink someone who quite sincerely wants the people attacking them dead and will go to lengths to ensure it.

If you lose, it's not my fault your tactics aren't the best. Not gonna tie a hand behind the back of my character just so someone's favorite gets off scott free.

 

You don't need to leave let them off scott free. Gunning them down and unknowingly leaving them alive (but badly injured and likely to die without aid; in any event, they will suffer a handicap) is another option.

 

Have they ever had the chance to unleash a virus and wipe out an entire city? I believe you told me before you played a very pro-human, anti-mutant character in the X-Men RPG; would such a person have second thoughts about wiping out the entire mutant population in one fell swoop, given the chance? If no, that character falls pretty close to the description of something they begins with "psycho" and ends with "path." Which is fine if that's the intention, of course.

 

Also, I do have a question that's been bugging me - how is it that every one of your characters seems to have a bloody army at their back?

 

There's an XMDD sequel coming up. Along with an RTS-RPG.

Needless to say, I already have ten or twelve different plans for both of them.

 

I would consider the latter. I would like to know, though, why you find yourself in need of so many plans. Especially when so many are likely to shatter apart. To give you a sample of my thinking style, assume we each have two mines claimed in a desert, with a small base around them. The goal is to claim the other, making use of a (rather finite) amount of wealth to acquire weapons, troops, and workers. Your method for proper expenditure of wealth and acquiring/arming a mercenary force (note - you don't want to destroy the area, so even if you could get your hands on a bomb it would be ill-advised; in fact, getting anything more than substandard weaponry and forces is impossible - military aircraft and vehicles would not be easy to acquire; the only men you have at the base already are a skeleton crew of workers and an armed guard; your options for people to hire are much more open than your options for equipment, though for the purpose of this scenario, you would need to supply them and pay them)

 

(I believe that should be allowed, since the results of our plans can be resolved with two posts between each other; I imagine the debate going long than that, so it shouldn't be a biggie.)

 

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

Edited by Toa Levacius Zehvor

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the majority of players create characters who have at least one positive emotion like empathy, compassion, or love... creating a ruthless strategist who kicks puppies that nibble his foot too hard and saying "tough luck, you got in the way" doesn't really work.

 

 

I learned that the hard way back in Dino Attack RPG. After creating a long line of idealistic heroes I tried to play against type by creating a cold-blooded mercenary anti-hero who was a bit of a strategist. The problem was everybody hated his guts so much they had a tendency to deliberately ignore his advice, no matter how much sense it made, and sometimes seemed to deliberately contradict information he provided. I started to win people over briefly but eventually the hatedom got so out of hand I had to kill the guy off just so I could switch primary focus to someone I knew people actually liked (the person who I chose by popular demand to take over as my primary character was ironically a guy who many of my fellow players had previously loved to hate but had started to appreciate more thanks to Trigger).

 

 

Don't take this the wrong way (me telling you how to play your characters) but you might want to try your hand at a character who isn't vulcan. Or, more importantly, having them make mistakes from time to time. The biggest thing is pride, especially when making a "smart" character. General rule - almost every high IQ person out there has an ego, or is at least self-conscious to the fault. To put it simply, your Empire never considered that the Rebels just might get the shield generators down, and your Emperor never considered that your until then loyal minion might turn on you. These are obviously more dramatic examples as the consequences for these assumptions are much greater than you might be willing to suffer, but they come to mind quickly.

 

 

That is true. Even with a great army you do have weaknesses. I should point out as well that unless you've somehow got a position of government chances are you don't have control over the entire army. Most likely there's someone above you with higher authority, and maybe the person is so determined to achieve a certain goal that they're willing to go behind the backs of their superiors but that is something that would be worth taking into account.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the killing scenario, though, is that it is my goal to maneuver the other character in a position where I can finish them easily - whether that means capturing them, killing them, or getting them on my side depends on the scenario. The difference between what I do and what your strawman apparently does is that it is pretty well impossible to get the situation into that shape with just one post. Doing so, actually, is godmodding, and results in the invalidation of your plot, at the very least.

 

To use an example, the Kaminoan clone that bit it in the Star Wars RPG. Had he not chosen to wander alone into dense jungle, he would have had a better chance. Deliberately drawing his own blood further reduced his chances, and prompted me to strike. Had he turned and attempted to flee when the Acklay attacked, he would have had a better chance of survival. Had he not resolved to attempt to kill it with his bare hands, his chances of survival would still have been better than they were, but he did not. Through a combination of my own maneuvers and my opponent's mistakes, I drew the noose closed, and brought his chances to zero, as intended. Mercy, at that point, was not fully describing the beast beginning to eat.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this here is one of the things I was talking about. Your goal should never be to put another player in a situation where they have zero chance. Sometimes they'll put themselves in that position, but you shouldn't do it yourself. This applies to the killing rule, of course; if you're merely trying to capture them or if your job is to stop them from reaching a goal, then putting them in a situation with zero chance of escape is perfectly acceptable.

 

 

Sucks to be them. When combat starts, I could care less what they want or what you think we should do. Real soldiers fight to kill, real guards won't waffle over putting down a robber. Real battles have an aim. Killing the other guy. Can't take that? Then don't RP with us. To ask us to water down our characters intelligence and, lets face it, most of our plans and tactics pale in comparison to the stuff the real masters use in RL every day, is unacceptable. If you can't beat a twenty-year old relying on stuff he looked up on the internet and from books, then maybe you shouldn't be commanding a battle?

Now, when you're a player in the RPG, sometimes you might need to stick them in checkmate and force a game over. As I've mentioned before, this is best done when you've talked to the other player beforehand. When you're a GM, though, it becomes paramount that they've had the opprotunity to get out of the situation - not attacking that bad guy, not getting in the machine, not pushing the red button, not picking up the dead guys sword.
To you maybe. I don't coddle. My characters see no difference between a PC and an NPC. If you beat me, it'll be through intelligence and guile. Not because you didn't want your favorite to die. You don't want your characters to be in danger? Then have them retire to Florida. Because guess what? Taking on that CEO and the PMC he controls means you'll have someone with the wealth and the power, and if you make yourself a threat, the will to take you down. If you want to survive, you'll have to be clever, quick and skilled. If you don't....well, you have no right to whine to me about your character dying. You picked a fight outta your league. Not my fault.

 

To give an example from one of the old-school GMs, David Hargrave, with some paraphrasing. The party was moving through a dungeon, when a small animal ran past, followed by a much larger monster. They attacked, and took some serious damage If they had simply moved to the side, however, the monster would have ran past them - it was chasing after its favorite prey, and was otherwise disinterested in the party. Those kind of scenarios are the hallmark of more experienced GMs, usually.

 

 

Predators operate on a different level of intelligence when compared to the average human. This isn't D&D.

 

Well obviously you would attack the other one, but the appropriate choice would be to target the place with the NPCs in it. For one thing, it gives the players a chance to fight back. For the second, targeting a base full of NPCs is boring; targeting a base with PCs guarding it is less boring. From an IC stand point, it's the same thing; from an OOC stand point, it means you're interacting (via proxy) with other players still.
If you can honestly tell me you prefer interacting with NPCs than other players, than I'll be equally honest in saying that's not a good thing.

 

 

Sounds like you're telling me how to run my characters and forces again. Not gonna happen.

 

I'll decide which base deserves the nuke, I'll decide the attack pattern my forces use, heck I'll decide if I want you to get a chance to shoot back. I expect someone will use the same logic coming after my characters. So I plan for defenses, I lay traps, I fortify. I don't expect the PC status of my characters to save them or ensure they'll even have a chance. That depends on foresight and intelligence.

 

PC's deserve no special treatment simply because they're PC's. If an NPC is smarter then them and survives, not my fault. Besides, frankly, I've seen NPCs much more interesting then some PC's on this site.

 

When the majority of players create characters who have at least one positive emotion like empathy, compassion, or love... creating a ruthless strategist who kicks puppies that nibble his foot too hard and saying "tough luck, you got in the way" doesn't really work.

Don't take this the wrong way (me telling you how to play your characters) but you might want to try your hand at a character who isn't vulcan. Or, more importantly, having them make mistakes from time to time. The biggest thing is pride, especially when making a "smart" character. General rule - almost every high IQ person out there has an ego, or is at least self-conscious to the fault. To put it simply, your Empire never considered that the Rebels just might get the shield generators down, and your Emperor never considered that your until then loyal minion might turn on you. These are obviously more dramatic examples as the consequences for these assumptions are much greater than you might be willing to suffer, but they come to mind quickly.
Yes. Because someone is willing to kill for a cause, they'll kick puppies. That isn't solid logic. Ruthless does not imply puppy kicking. One does not imply the other. Generals, military leaders, by the nature of their work, have to be willing to kill and willing to risk their troops lives. You like playing one kind of character, unfortunately, guess what? I don't enjoy that kind of character.
Please. I've made mistakes. I normally cop to them. My characters aren't immune to that. I've been nuked once or twice due to a miscalculation...or when I lost the race against time. I didn't complain. Part and parcel to the whole thing.
....Frankly, that Empire you described is highly incompetent. The proper military plans for things like that, however unlikely and again, these are only the precautions a young man with no involvement in the military can come up with. Not my fault you didn't read the right books or take five minutes to look up military tactics. When a twenty-year old, or heck, a fifteen year old can point out flaws in your plans, in general, you don't deserve the job. And the SOP you just described has so many flaws I can't even start to describe them. When something is important, you protect it for one thing. Or have a password of the day so no one can get in, followed by a security code that changes randomly every month. These are pretty basic procedures used in RL.
You don't need to leave let them off scott free. Gunning them down and unknowingly leaving them alive (but badly injured and likely to die without aid; in any event, they will suffer a handicap) is another option.
Have they ever had the chance to unleash a virus and wipe out an entire city? I believe you told me before you played a very pro-human, anti-mutant character in the X-Men RPG; would such a person have second thoughts about wiping out the entire mutant population in one fell swoop, given the chance? If no, that character falls pretty close to the description of something they begins with "psycho" and ends with "path." Which is fine if that's the intention, of course.
Also, I do have a question that's been bugging me - how is it that every one of your characters seems to have a bloody army at their back?

 

 

Best make sure they're dead. Headshot each. Or better yet, take a pulse. See, what you're suggesting reeks of holding back. Something I don't do.
Yes. Actually. And you are, once again, assuming alot about my character.
Not all of them do actually. Some of them are small cells. Some are alone, agents acting for a bigger power. Though, sometimes said agents are more intelligent then the ones in charge and overthrow them.
Plus I enjoy strategy, so if it isn't against the rules, I'll take that armed force. Also those AK-47s. They're on sale right?
I would consider the latter. I would like to know, though, why you find yourself in need of so many plans. Especially when so many are likely to shatter apart. To give you a sample of my thinking style, assume we each have two mines claimed in a desert, with a small base around them. The goal is to claim the other, making use of a (rather finite) amount of wealth to acquire weapons, troops, and workers. Your method for proper expenditure of wealth and acquiring/arming a mercenary force (note - you don't want to destroy the area, so even if you could get your hands on a bomb it would be ill-advised; in fact, getting anything more than substandard weaponry and forces is impossible - military aircraft and vehicles would not be easy to acquire; the only men you have at the base already are a skeleton crew of workers and an armed guard; your options for people to hire are much more open than your options for equipment, though for the purpose of this scenario, you would need to supply them and pay them)
(I believe that should be allowed, since the results of our plans can be resolved with two posts between each other; I imagine the debate going long than that, so it shouldn't be a biggie.)

 

 

Because no plan survives contact with the enemy and I can manage much more then one plan at a time. Quantity has a quality of it's own and if you're clever and quick, you'll have both. Also, I'm aware that I can fail. But as the number of plans increases, I find the number of victories do as well. It's worked out pretty well for me. You don't put all your eggs in one basket, so why should your victory depend on one plan?

 

Eh. On your thinking style. I prefer higher stake games. Also, Team Fortress 2.

Edited by Basilisk

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Hubert; This is one of those things I really can't comment on because I have zero familiarity with the source material. I guess it could work, but honestly, the setting seems a lot like Epilogue with devils instead of demons, in Japan rather than an academy, without the religious holy death bullets. The RPG is also less all-inclusive since it (appears to) take place in pre-modern times, in a setting where a lot of stuff is already established because it comes from a source material.

 

That's my take on it, but I'd need to see a bit more than this to say more.

There are religious holy death bullets, and it's not exactly that similar to Epilogue.

 

Instead of being set around a school, it's really about the conspiracies of all the random summoners who call everything a "demon", even Irish heroes for some reason, and their attempts to uncover said conspiracies and save or destroy the world or what not. And a giant Imperial Japanese robot that used to be a massive warship built by the Imperial Japanese Army.

 

The third game was weird.

 

Really, I'm aiming for lots of conspiracies and culture shock, with all the new dang-fangled technoloogieee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lev: I'd prefer if nursery rhymes were not included. They're nice, but they don't really jive well with storytelling. Old Mother Hubbard... Nah.I suppose if one managed to do an extraordinary bio it might be permissible.As for what constitutes a fairy tale:I tend to think of them as timeless stories that may very well begin with "Once upon a time".That said, I'd possibly include Alice in Wonderland, though it doesn't go well.Really, what it comes down to is your judgment. That guideline is a good thing to go by, but if you have doubts you can ask. I may compile a list of preapproved stories...

No such thing as destiny.

BZPRPG Profiles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheThirtySixStratagems

 

This page should help anyone who wants to come up with a cunning plan. See, my greatest dream is to see an RPG where a bunch of clever fellows on each side are plotting against the other side. Try them out, see how they suit you.

 

Then find some way to kill the fellow on the other side of the RPG with em.

Edited by Basilisk

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheThirtySixStratagems

 

This page should help anyone who wants to come up with a cunning plan. See, my greatest dream is to see an RPG where a bunch of clever fellows on each side are plotting against the other side. Try them out, see how they suit you.

 

Then find some way to kill the fellow on the other side of the RPG with em.

 

Well, I suppose that's the thing is that everybody has different methods they use when writing. I like realism myself but I don't always go and take my time doing research unless I really need to. As far as I can remember in all the RPGs I've been in I've only once actually done research for a post, and even then it largely had to do with the fact that I was writing complex surgery and I ended up putting another player's character out of commission for most of the rest of the game. You can read that post here:

 

http://www.bzpower.com/board/index.php?showtopic=3955&p=380197

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accurate, so far as I can see.

 

Way I see it, if you can't bother to do look up what a fragmentation grenade does to the human body, don't complain when one does what it does best to your character. Don't expect me to handicap myself simply because you don't want to work. It takes a minute to look up the effects of a weapon on the human body. I timed it.

 

You, in this case, doesn't refer to anyone. To avoid confusion.

Edited by Basilisk

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are religious holy death bullets, and it's not exactly that similar to Epilogue.

Instead of being set around a school, it's really about the conspiracies of all the random summoners who call everything a "demon", even Irish heroes for some reason, and their attempts to uncover said conspiracies and save or destroy the world or what not. And a giant Imperial Japanese robot that used to be a massive warship built by the Imperial Japanese Army.

The third game was weird.

Really, I'm aiming for lots of conspiracies and culture shock, with all the new dang-fangled technoloogieee.

 

... wat.

 

Eh, still seems to have a few similarities about all of it, but I imagine they'll be mostly faded out in the finished product.

 

@Lev: I'd prefer if nursery rhymes were not included. They're nice, but they don't really jive well with storytelling. Old Mother Hubbard... Nah.I suppose if one managed to do an extraordinary bio it might be permissible.As for what constitutes a fairy tale:I tend to think of them as timeless stories that may very well begin with "Once upon a time".That said, I'd possibly include Alice in Wonderland, though it doesn't go well.Really, what it comes down to is your judgment. That guideline is a good thing to go by, but if you have doubts you can ask. I may compile a list of preapproved stories...

 

In that case, dibs on a vorpal sword that goes snicker-snack.

 

But I kid. The issue here, I think, is that there does happen to be a finite number of fairy tales. Sure, the first few are easy enough to do... but after the first lot of characters are past, sucks for everyone else. Especially if they have a really good idea for a "twist" on a fairy tale, but that character is already taken or has appeared in another persons backstory, but not in the way you would have had the story play out.

Sucks to be them. When combat starts, I could care less what they want or what you think we should do. Real soldiers fight to kill, real guards won't waffle over putting down a robber. Real battles have an aim. Killing the other guy. Can't take that? Then don't RP with us. To ask us to water down our characters intelligence and, lets face it, most of our plans and tactics pale in comparison to the stuff the real masters use in RL every day, is unacceptable. If you can't beat a twenty-year old relying on stuff he looked up on the internet and from books, then maybe you shouldn't be commanding a battle?

 

The way I'm interpreting this whole discussion is, "If you don't want to take the RPG as seriously as I do it, you shouldn't be playing it with me." I am wrong here, right?

 

I'm not asking you to water down your character intelligence, Basilisk. I'm asking you to consider the alternative that causes the least amount of harm to other players when choosing between two equally viable ones. There are some exceptions, of course; an enemy group of PCs who have been spared multiple times but keep proving a nuisance should be considered a threat since they're obviously unwilling to give up.

 

To you maybe. I don't coddle. My characters see no difference between a PC and an NPC. If you beat me, it'll be through intelligence and guile. Not because you didn't want your favorite to die. You don't want your characters to be in danger? Then have them retire to Florida. Because guess what? Taking on that CEO and the PMC he controls means you'll have someone with the wealth and the power, and if you make yourself a threat, the will to take you down. If you want to survive, you'll have to be clever, quick and skilled. If you don't....well, you have no right to whine to me about your character dying. You picked a fight outta your league. Not my fault.

 

If your character sees no difference between a PC or NPC, what do they care that they nuked the base full of NPCs instead of the base with a few PCs? Your character doesn't care. However, as another player, you should be looking to make the game the most fun for everyone; leave the other players alive, it's more fun for everyone involved.

 

You are right to attack the PCs in one case, which is the case I mentioned above and that you seem to be assuming - if the characters have repeatedly shown up and thwarted/interfered with your plans, they should be your target. Even, I would say, if the NPC base actually was the more tactically advantageous place to target. Why? Because among the positive emotions most people have, there is another one - failure

 

Predators operate on a different level of intelligence when compared to the average human. This isn't D&D.

 

How does that have anything to do with my statement? :-|

 

The example I gave wasn't for players, but more along the vein of GM advice. The idea that a good GM never makes the game impossible for players to beat, because that's stupid and already determines how everything ends. The good GM makes the game winnable, but uses cleverness and wit to hide the secret rather than unbeatable odds.

 

I put it to you that if you could design an RPG where the players could resolve 70% or more of the situations without combat and yet have the possibility of death in 95% or more of them, then you have all but mastered the art. Tomb of Horrors is pretty close to this, actually. And more characters have died to that one adventure than have ever died in every BZP RPG ever, combined.

(Also, to nitpick - David Hargrave designed his own system, the Arduin Grimoire, that was adapted from the D&D system but quite different in the end result. I happen to own the three original books of the Arduin Trilogy that describes the system, and it is quite intriguing. In D&D, you could play a human paladin; in this one, you can play a Kobbit Techno who uses a houseruled flashlight that damages undead. Do your research. :P)

Sounds like you're telling me how to run my characters and forces again. Not gonna happen.

 

I'll decide which base deserves the nuke, I'll decide the attack pattern my forces use, heck I'll decide if I want you to get a chance to shoot back. I expect someone will use the same logic coming after my characters. So I plan for defenses, I lay traps, I fortify. I don't expect the PC status of my characters to save them or ensure they'll even have a chance. That depends on foresight and intelligence.

 

PC's deserve no special treatment simply because they're PC's. If an NPC is smarter then them and survives, not my fault. Besides, frankly, I've seen NPCs much more interesting then some PC's on this site.

 

You're sort of ignoring my main point.

 

The point isn't to spare the PCs the chance of dying, the point is that with all circumstances being equal IC, you should target the NPC first and the PC second. All circumstances being equal, there's no reason why you shouldn't. The point is, the players should have had an option - they could have not attacked your base, or could have circumvented the traps. Their own actions screw them over, more than anything else.

Yes. Because someone is willing to kill for a cause, they'll kick puppies. That isn't solid logic. Ruthless does not imply puppy kicking. One does not imply the other. Generals, military leaders, by the nature of their work, have to be willing to kill and willing to risk their troops lives. You like playing one kind of character, unfortunately, guess what? I don't enjoy that kind of character.
Please. I've made mistakes. I normally cop to them. My characters aren't immune to that. I've been nuked once or twice due to a miscalculation...or when I lost the race against time. I didn't complain. Part and parcel to the whole thing.
....Frankly, that Empire you described is highly incompetent. The proper military plans for things like that, however unlikely and again, these are only the precautions a young man with no involvement in the military can come up with. Not my fault you didn't read the right books or take five minutes to look up military tactics. When a twenty-year old, or heck, a fifteen year old can point out flaws in your plans, in general, you don't deserve the job. And the SOP you just described has so many flaws I can't even start to describe them. When something is important, you protect it for one thing. Or have a password of the day so no one can get in, followed by a security code that changes randomly every month. These are pretty basic procedures used in RL.

 

Allow me to rephrase myself - if you create a ruthless strategist who kicks puppies (not implying every strategist or ruthless character kicks puppies; most strategists are not ruthless in any case), then you can't just tell people (the players) "tough luck." If every other player is doing it, fine. But if most of the characters have well-rounded personalities with negative and positive traits, you should be willing to make a character who also has personality flaws that could actually negatively impact their decision making process.

 

I have a question though - do most of your mistakes come from a miscalculation of logic... or because of reasons such as pride, desire for vengeance, and other things that cause people to make mistakes? Again, are most of your mistakes your mistakes, or are they mistakes you allowed your characters to make because of their unique personality (i.e. giving up a tactical advantage to get revenge for that nasty scar to the face; sparing your enemy to fight another day because he, in this scenario being a "good guy," had saved your life from a common enemy earlier; etc.).

 

I didn't say they were good decisions; it's Star Wars, not a guide for strategy. In fact, I blatantly gave them as examples of bad decisions. But they were bad decisions cause because said empire thought they were invulnerable. They were too prideful to consider the possibility of Ewok attack (which, mind you, was pretty silly) and the Emperor was too prideful to assume Vader would turn. But it was a flaw inherent to the characters that led to their undoing. The entire point of this discussion isn't good decisions, it's having a character who due to his personality actively makes the wrong one, and you know it's the wrong one, but it was one your character would make.

 

Best make sure they're dead. Headshot each. Or better yet, take a pulse. See, what you're suggesting reeks of holding back. Something I don't do.
Yes. Actually. And you are, once again, assuming alot about my character.
Not all of them do actually. Some of them are small cells. Some are alone, agents acting for a bigger power. Though, sometimes said agents are more intelligent then ones in charge and overthrow them.

 

Really? Every single solider your character has trained goes through and headshots everyone in your field? Most soldiers don't act like that. In face, I would say I've never met a soldier who wasn't an incredibly decent human being who took absolutely no pleasure in killing anyone. In fact, if you were sending people to check each pulse, a policy of taking survivors for interrogation is frankly a much more realistic one.

 

So my next question is this - would the holding back be because of emotional reasons, or strategical reasons? Also, what was it that I assumed?

 

And good; I've been a tad more confused since you keep mentioning grander scale things like "who should I send my forces after?" and we've only barely touched on interactions of characters with each other directly.

 

Plus I enjoy strategy, so if it isn't against the rules, I'll take that armed force. Also those AK-47s. They're on sale right?

 

The position of this sentence made it harder to tell, but this refers to the scenario I presented, correct? If so, that's all perfectly legal. Though this is more on your strategy of how to make use of your limited funds to secure the enemy mine and base, and the whole shebang.

 

 

Because no plan survives contact with the enemy and I can manage much more then one plan at a time. Quantity has a quality of it's own and if you're clever and quick, you'll have both. Also, I'm aware that I can fail. But as the number of plans increases, I find the number of victories do as well. It's worked out pretty well for me. You don't put all your eggs in one basket, so why should your victory depend on one plan?

 

Eh. On your thinking style. I prefer higher stake games. Also, Team Fortress 2.

 

 

I'll be the first to admit that I know a lot less about strategy and planning than I should. The page you linked, the Art of War, and a few other things I've read on the off-hand are pretty much the limit to my studies. And while throwing out lots of plans can work, or even one great one, some things will always show up that simply can't be expected by any quantity of plans

 

There is no strategical advantage to charging the enemy while wearing bright yellow chicken suits, but I guarantee none of your plans account for it happening either. But I bet they do now... you're preparing for it.

 

The thing about the killing scenario, though, is that it is my goal to maneuver the other character in a position where I can finish them easily - whether that means capturing them, killing them, or getting them on my side depends on the scenario. The difference between what I do and what your strawman apparently does is that it is pretty well impossible to get the situation into that shape with just one post. Doing so, actually, is godmodding, and results in the invalidation of your plot, at the very least.

 

There's nothing wrong with that play style; in fact, virtually everyone is playing that way. It's the fact that they also had the opprotunity to win or at least escape, had they played it that way, that matters.

To use an example, the Kaminoan clone that bit it in the Star Wars RPG. Had he not chosen to wander alone into dense jungle, he would have had a better chance. Deliberately drawing his own blood further reduced his chances, and prompted me to strike. Had he turned and attempted to flee when the Acklay attacked, he would have had a better chance of survival. Had he not resolved to attempt to kill it with his bare hands, his chances of survival would still have been better than they were, but he did not. Through a combination of my own maneuvers and my opponent's mistakes, I drew the noose closed, and brought his chances to zero, as intended. Mercy, at that point, was not fully describing the beast beginning to eat.

 

He had an out and failed to take it... though I will be honest, it was awfully convenient that the one guy with Force Lightning bit the dust. Admittedly, his death was quite in character (which is why my only problem would be that, in this opprotunity, the only "out" would have been OOC for that character).

 

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Every single solider your character has trained goes through and headshots everyone in your field? Most soldiers don't act like that. In face, I would say I've never met a soldier who wasn't an incredibly decent human being who took absolutely no pleasure in killing anyone. In fact, if you were sending people to check each pulse, a policy of taking survivors for interrogation is frankly a much more realistic one.

 

 

That is true. Unless they had specific orders to take no prisoners or leave no survivors I would imagine a typical soldier would want to avoid killing as much as possible. I could bring up my own character of Captain Narys again (okay, technically a combat medic, but still), who is trained in basic combat but would only actually shoot someone if they attacked her first, and even then she might even try to patch up her attacker's wound. I mean if you're given orders to fire at an opponent and they're shooting at you it's one thing to fight back, but if none of them really pose a threat I don't think that a typical soldier is likely to immediately want to off them. Now I suppose you could argue that maybe this particular character is an especially devoted soldier who likes to take matters into his own hands but that wouldn't apply to the army as a whole.

 

 

Way I see it, if you can't bother to do look up what a frag gernade does to the human body, don't complain when one does what it does best to your character. Don't expect me to handicap myself simply because you don't want to work. It takes a minute to look up the effects of a gernade on the human body. I timed it.

 

Well, in the event that you end up throwing a frag grenade at Dr. Narys I'll try and remember that advice. I'd probably be a bit shocked by such an incident but I'd try to control myself. Of course, depending on the circumstances there are certain possibilities that could affect the outcome of this hypothetical scenario. For instance, maybe the victim is able to take cover before the grenade goes off, in which case they may experience shock, disorientation, or other symptoms that would come from such an experience while still remaining physically intact. Alternatively perhaps someone decides to pull a heroic sacrifice and jumps on the grenade saving everyone around them.

 

Out of curiosity, how exactly did you time it? I don't know how you could do that without actually throwing a grenade at a person.

Edited by Atton Rand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And some character arcs can only really end one way. Someone whose personality is described as "unending hate, rage, and sorrow" doesn't have a particularly long shelf-life on the battlefield. Gets in the way of rational thought, which, as you said, would have been out-of-character for the clone. So he became dinner.

 

As for the Force Lightning issue... I saw a chance to demonstrate to the players that mortality was possible. That it also demonstrated that extraordinary powers are no help if you're too prideful to use them, and that any powers your character uses had better be in the profile, was indeed convenient for me.

 

Atton Rand: He meant that he timed the process of looking up the relevant information.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lev: I didn't say that you had to use an entirely new tale, did I?Some cultures have different versions of the classics. The Disney versions can be used, but we're drawing a distinction.I'd like there to be a variation in tales. In fact, there will be a rule stating one player can't have multiple from the same story.However, if you like another person's story and want to be a character from it, or want to cooperate, that's entirely fine.Of course, you'd need permission from said person.

Edited by The Fourteenth Lakefish

No such thing as destiny.

BZPRPG Profiles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I'm interpreting this whole discussion is, "If you don't want to take the RPG as seriously as I do it, you shouldn't be playing it with me." I am wrong here, right?
I'm not asking you to water down your character intelligence, Basilisk. I'm asking you to consider the alternative that causes the least amount of harm to other players when choosing between two equally viable ones. There are some exceptions, of course; an enemy group of PCs who have been spared multiple times but keep proving a nuisance should be considered a threat since they're obviously unwilling to give up.

 

 

More like: "If you don't bother to do the research, expect charging in full bore to work, expect me to spare your character simply because he's a PC...etc" then you really shouldn't be expecting to win. If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong. If it's viable and your character is proven threat, I'd have no issue with simply having a drone take them out.

 

I'm not concerned with causing them the least harm. I don't expect people to pull punches with me, as evidenced by the Halo RPG, so I'm not going to pull punches with anyone else. You break into, say, a PMC commander's apartment to try to threaten her or somesuch, I'm not going to try to give your character an out there. I'm going to have the commander go for the holdout pistol hidden in her boot and give him a new hole to breath out of.

 

By the same token, she isn't going to gun down someone who went on TV and denounced her. One is self defense, the other is murder and even if one has no moral troubles with that, there are plenty of other reasons it just isn't viable. Or smart.

 

If it comes down to it, if I have two alternatives, one that wipes out the PCs and benefits my character, and the other one which spares them and benefits the character a little less, then, assuming the PC's in question have made themselves known as enemies with a hostile intent, my character has every reason to go for the first alternative and he will. He will do his best to carry it through as well.

 

If your character sees no difference between a PC or NPC, what do they care that they nuked the base full of NPCs instead of the base with a few PCs? Your character doesn't care. However, as another player, you should be looking to make the game the most fun for everyone; leave the other players alive, it's more fun for everyone involved.
You are right to attack the PCs in one case, which is the case I mentioned above and that you seem to be assuming - if the characters have repeatedly shown up and thwarted/interfered with your plans, they should be your target. Even, I would say, if the NPC base actually was the more tactically advantageous place to target. Why? Because among the positive emotions most people have, there is another one - failure

 

 

Flip a coin, or look at the locations of the bases and note which one would be harder to attack. The one that's harder to attack will get the nuke, even if PC's are in it.

 

I'm not having my character spare people for OOC reasons. That just isn't proper. If there is a valid IC reason, sure, whatever. If there isn't, or if taking them out will benefit the cause of my character more, then I refer you to the mushroom cloud.

 

The example I gave wasn't for players, but more along the vein of GM advice. The idea that a good GM never makes the game impossible for players to beat, because that's stupid and already determines how everything ends. The good GM makes the game winnable, but uses cleverness and wit to hide the secret rather than unbeatable odds.
I put it to you that if you could design an RPG where the players could resolve 70% or more of the situations without combat and yet have the possibility of death in 95% or more of them, then you have all but mastered the art. Tomb of Horrors is pretty close to this, actually. And more characters have died to that one adventure than have ever died in every BZP RPG ever, combined.

 

 

No strategy is perfect, but a competent commander will give it his best shot. Make it as good as possible. Nothing is impossible, but you'll have to outsmart clever, competent people to achieve it and if you die, you die.

 

You're sort of ignoring my main point.
The point isn't to spare the PCs the chance of dying, the point is that with all circumstances being equal IC, you should target the NPC first and the PC second. All circumstances being equal, there's no reason why you shouldn't. The point is, the players should have had an option - they could have not attacked your base, or could have circumvented the traps. Their own actions screw them over, more than anything else.

 

 

Flip a coin. All circumstances being equal and all benefiting the character in the same way, I'd let a coin decide.
Or better yet, target them both at the same time. Much better tactics.
Allow me to rephrase myself - if you create a ruthless strategist who kicks puppies (not implying every strategist or ruthless character kicks puppies; most strategists are not ruthless in any case), then you can't just tell people (the players) "tough luck." If every other player is doing it, fine. But if most of the characters have well-rounded personalities with negative and positive traits, you should be willing to make a character who also has personality flaws that could actually negatively impact their decision making process

 

.
Creating characters that have a personality beyond a single word ("ruthless") is pretty basic stuff. Everyone knows this.
I have a question though - do most of your mistakes come from a miscalculation of logic... or because of reasons such as pride, desire for vengeance, and other things that cause people to make mistakes? Again, are most of your mistakes your mistakes, or are they mistakes you allowed your characters to make because of their unique personality (i.e. giving up a tactical advantage to get revenge for that nasty scar to the face; sparing your enemy to fight another day because he, in this scenario being a "good guy," had saved your life from a common enemy earlier; etc.).

 

 

Most of my characters are competent enough to keep their emotions in check. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in a position of power. I've read books on politics, leadership etc. The one thing that keeps coming up? That they drive into you?

 

"Don't get even. Get ahead."

 

A miscalculation in logic is a mistake, so I don't see why you would seperate the two. No strategy is perfect. Which is why I like to have two or three for any given plan, with some excess capacity so the plan overall can adopt and change. The weakness of one strategy is compensated for by the other and so on and if they all fail, you can still innovate.

 

And yeah, I've let my characters make mistakes. Sometimes they don't know something I know, sometimes they can't see something I see. I keep a sharp divide between OOC and IC knowledge. Take my bombing of Genosha as an example. Yuri had no way of knowing he was fighting the few fools who'd stayed behind and could have easily taken alot of prisoners. As far as he knew, he was facing an army of superpowered terrorists.

 

The results spoke for themselves. A large crater, very few prisoners and a terrorist army still very much at large.

 

I didn't say they were good decisions; it's Star Wars, not a guide for strategy. In fact, I blatantly gave them as examples of bad decisions. But they were bad decisions cause because said empire thought they were invulnerable. They were too prideful to consider the possibility of Ewok attack (which, mind you, was pretty silly) and the Emperor was too prideful to assume Vader would turn. But it was a flaw inherent to the characters that led to their undoing. The entire point of this discussion isn't good decisions, it's having a character who due to his personality actively makes the wrong one, and you know it's the wrong one, but it was one your character would make.
See, those decisions were so bad that even someone with a passing knowledge of tactics could poke them full of holes. There is no excuse for that level of incompetence. The man in charge of the bunker defense would be laughed out of a third world nation's military. Laughed. Out.
Really? Every single solider your character has trained goes through and headshots everyone in your field? Most soldiers don't act like that. In face, I would say I've never met a soldier who wasn't an incredibly decent human being who took absolutely no pleasure in killing anyone. In fact, if you were sending people to check each pulse, a policy of taking survivors for interrogation is frankly a much more realistic one.

 

 

Most soldiers don't face someone who, off the top of my head, can consume a one hundred civies with their powers. In RPG's, that happens with distressing regularity. Against normal human enemies, no, they don't do that. Against vampires, werewolves? That's kinda common sense.

 

So my next question is this - would the holding back be because of emotional reasons, or strategical reasons? Also, what was it that I assumed?

 

 

See, in most combat situations it's pretty cut and dry. Kill/neutralize the OpFor. Don't get killed. Afterwards, when you've won, things can slow down. If a PC isn't a manifest threat (I.E being able to grow metal all over his body and control it) by all means, take him prisoner after combat. He isn't getting mercy during it though. He's shooting back.

 

You assumed, pretty balantly, that "pro-human" lead to "kill a city full of people". That is....a pretty big leap.

 

And good; I've been a tad more confused since you keep mentioning grander scale things like "who should I send my forces after?" and we've only barely touched on interactions of characters with each other directly.

 

 

And you said past history doesn't matter. That kinda includes past characters. Pretty big reversal on that position.
The position of this sentence made it harder to tell, but this refers to the scenario I presented, correct? If so, that's all perfectly legal. Though this is more on your strategy of how to make use of your limited funds to secure the enemy mine and base, and the whole shebang.

 

 

Nope. Just a reason why my characters tend to have forces to draw on, from PMC's to small rebel cells. I like tactics and planning.
I'll be the first to admit that I know a lot less about strategy and planning than I should. The page you linked, the Art of War, and a few other things I've read on the off-hand are pretty much the limit to my studies. And while throwing out lots of plans can work, or even one great one, some things will always show up that simply can't be expected by any quantity of plans
There is no strategical advantage to charging the enemy while wearing bright yellow chicken suits, but I guarantee none of your plans account for it happening either. But I bet they do now... you're preparing for it.

 

 

I highly suggest you read up on military history. Where I got my start.
Of course plans can't account for everything. A fool expects his plans to go perfectly. A wise man develops excess capacity and ensures each plan can adopt on the fly and react to changing circumstances. Chose a goal. Make plans to achieve that goal. Be ready to change those plans as things develop.
I should note, I also plan to defeat my own plans. Useful tool for finding flaws.
Edited by Basilisk

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I would briefly like to note, Basilisk, is that it is, on occasion, fun to play as a fool.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't always play planners. I would like to note that.

 

Don't see the appeal in playing fools myself though.

Edited by Basilisk

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fools are quite capable of making very interesting messes of things. Not complete fools, of course, those tend to die. Just people prone to, say, certain forms of sentimentality, or trusting people they shouldn't (you've done that one with that vamp in XMDD), things like that. Unobservant people, too, occasionally.

We will remember - Skies may fade and stars may wane; we won't forget


And your light shines bright - yes so much brighter shine on


We will remember - Until the skies will fall we won't forget


We will remember


We all shall follow doom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Imperial Japanese Army's Giant Transforming Robot ... in Taisho 20.

 

Of course, I doubt this would happen, but really - that's sort of the gist of what crazy stuff that might happen in Devil Summoner.

 

Less robots though; more demon attacks.

 

It's hard enough for a voice actor to get a job with celebrities taking their jobs already in movies (and doing poor jobs), and this game isn't helping! :P

 

More on topic, I am strangely okay with all of this and wonder how long it took for someone to make a transforming model of that thing.

 

@Lev: I didn't say that you had to use an entirely new tale, did I?Some cultures have different versions of the classics. The Disney versions can be used, but we're drawing a distinction.I'd like there to be a variation in tales. In fact, there will be a rule stating one player can't have multiple from the same story.However, if you like another person's story and want to be a character from it, or want to cooperate, that's entirely fine.Of course, you'd need permission from said person.

 

Nor did I; my concern is that there are hundreds of fairy tales, but only a few are commonly known. You said that we had to use a pre-established one but give it some kind of twist. So, my questions still remain -

 

What happens if a fairy tale character is already taken?

 

What happens if you want to play a character from a fairy tale, but someone already wrote another character from that fairy tale, but did it in a way that makes it so your character wouldn't fit?

 

Basically, how many Snow Whites can be running around, and what happens if you the Prince is already being played by someone else and the fairy tale was designed contrary to how you would have done it?

 

And some character arcs can only really end one way. Someone whose personality is described as "unending hate, rage, and sorrow" doesn't have a particularly long shelf-life on the battlefield. Gets in the way of rational thought, which, as you said, would have been out-of-character for the clone. So he became dinner.

As for the Force Lightning issue... I saw a chance to demonstrate to the players that mortality was possible. That it also demonstrated that extraordinary powers are no help if you're too prideful to use them, and that any powers your character uses had better be in the profile, was indeed convenient for me.

 

Personally, I would have been more for the tormenting type. You recall the Gate Guardian from Bionicle? Enemies like that are an easy way to good times when dealing with the more violent type. That's right, keep charging sucker...

 

More like: "If you don't bother to do the research, expect charging in full bore to work, expect me to spare your character simply because he's a PC...etc" then you really shouldn't be expecting to win. If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong. If it's viable and your character is proven threat, I'd have no issue with simply having a drone take them out.

I'm not concerned with causing them the least harm. I don't expect people to pull punches with me, as evidenced by the Halo RPG, so I'm not going to pull punches with anyone else. You break into, say, a PMC commander's apartment to try to threaten her or somesuch, I'm not going to try to give your character an out there. I'm going to have the commander go for the holdout pistol hidden in her boot and give him a new hole to breath out of.

By the same token, she isn't going to gun down someone who went on TV and denounced her. One is self defense, the other is murder and even if one has no moral troubles with that, there are plenty of other reasons it just isn't viable. Or smart.

If it comes down to it, if I have two alternatives, one that wipes out the PCs and benefits my character, and the other one which spares them and benefits the character a little less, then, assuming the PC's in question have made themselves known as enemies with a hostile intent, my character has every reason to go for the first alternative and he will. He will do his best to carry it through as well.

 

That way of phrasing sits a lot better with me, so I'm grateful for it.

 

If the PCs are in the base that would be more strategic to terminate then all is fine; my point is still more one when all things are equal. All things being equal, it's better etiquette to terminate the NPC base.

 

Flip a coin, or look at the locations of the bases and note which one would be harder to attack. The one that's harder to attack will get the nuke, even if PC's are in it.

 

Just going to point out, I screwed up on my last post (the lack of a period should have made it clear); I originally meant to say that "among the more negative emotions, one is vengeance." I changed my train of thought a few times and thought I doubled back on it.... *muttermutter*

 

A good way to determine it, though again - coin flipping shouldn't be necessary if all things are equal. Just target the NPC base because it benefits the RPG the most.

 

No strategy is perfect, but a competent commander will give it his best shot. Make it as good as possible. Nothing is impossible, but you'll have to outsmart clever, competent people to achieve it and if you die, you die.

 

The GM isn't trying to beat the players. They're creating scenarios for them to playthrough. Ones that will challenge them, but that are beatable or avoidable (like fighting an army - pretty easy to avoid that kind of thing...)

 

If you believe the job of the GM is to beat the players, good on you, stick to your beliefs. Me, I'll follow the advice written down by the best game masters of the last forty years, and what has always worked for me.

 

Most of my characters are competent enough to keep their emotions in check. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in a position of power. I've read books on politics, leadership etc. The one thing that keeps coming up? That they drive into you?

"Don't get even. Get ahead."

A miscalculation in logic is a mistake, so I don't see why you would seperate the two. No strategy is perfect. Which is why I like to have two or three for any given plan, with some excess capacity so the plan overall can adopt and change. The weakness of one strategy is compensated for by the other and so on and if they all fail, you can still innovate.

And yeah, I've let my characters make mistakes. Sometimes they don't know something I know, sometimes they can't see something I see. I keep a sharp divide between OOC and IC knowledge. Take my bombing of Genosha as an example. Yuri had no way of knowing he was fighting the few fools who'd stayed behind and could have easily taken alot of prisoners. As far as he knew, he was facing an army of superpowered terrorists.

The results spoke for themselves. A large crater, very few prisoners and a terrorist army still very much at large.

 

 

I'm not talking about metagaming, I'm talking about your characters making something that you know will be a mistake, not because they don't know about it, but because emotions were in the way.

 

People are emotional. How emotional depends on a lot of things, as does how these emotions manifest. Keeping your emotions in check is one thing, but there is no person who doesn't let their emotions have some impact on their actions. Those who do have severe personality disorders; the kind that keep you from passing your psych evaluation to get into the military, for starters.

 

People in positions of power get there by gaining the respect of others, not by keeping every emotion in check. You refer to books, but going by experience, I've never met a person in a leadership position who was completely even-tempered, both military people I've talked to and those in the civilian world. As I've said - they're completely normal people, who behave just like normal people do. People who have flaws like holding a grudge or being prideful.

 

Books are wonderful things, but a five minute conversation with a person tells you more about how they act than a few hours of leafing through their records ever will. I imagine Sun Tzu as quite a popular man at parties.

 

See, those decisions were so bad that even someone with a passing knowledge of tactics could poke them full of holes. There is no excuse for that level of incompetence. The man in charge of the bunker defense would be laughed out of a third world nation's military. Laughed. Out.

 

There were extreme examples, yes. But they serve the purpose of my point - mistakes can be made. Usually, not the grievous. But still, pride is the true slayer of kings. That and crossbows, which is why those things were banned from use on royalty and clergy.

 

On a note regarding how bad the decisions are, this stuff does carry over well to real life. Even great generals make mistakes. In two words - Pickett's Charge.

 

Most soldiers don't face someone, off the top of my head, can consume a one hundred civies with their powers. In RPG's, that happens with distressing regularity. Against normal human enemies, no, they don't do that. Against vampires, werewolves? That's kinda common sense.

 

I don't believe that was ever specified as being the case; I was referring to normal humans against normal humans. Sure, double tap the werewolves and all. Though even then, if the person looks normal, and doesn't seem to be a death monster... the trigger becomes harder to pull, at that point.

 

See, in most combat situations it's pretty cut and dry. Kill/neutralize the OpFor. Don't get killed. Afterwards, when you've won, things can slow down. If a PC isn't a manifest threat (I.E being able to grow metal all over his body and control it) by all means, take him prisoner after combat. He isn't getting mercy during it though. He's shooting back.

You assumed, pretty balantly, that "pro-human" lead to "kill a city full of people". That is....a pretty big leap.

 

I'm sorry if I was drawing a correlation to the two, but it wasn't my intention. The only thing I was trying to link to your character was the "Would you hesitate to kill all of the mutants in the world if given the chance?" question. You said that he would hesitate, and I continued by asking if the hesitation was a strategic decision (not making people upset) or an emotional one (being unwilling to kill mutants who were otherwise innocent). The second makes for a stronger and more well-rounded character, which was what I was hoping as the response.

 

And you said past history doesn't matter. That kinda includes past characters. Pretty big reversal on that position.

 

I mean "we haven't discussed how characters would interact," not "how our characters interact." We've only talked about the grand scale; we haven't discussed at all the behavior of characters without armies at their back.

 

Nope. Just a reason why my characters tend to have forces to draw on, from PMC's to small rebel cells. I like tactics and planning.

 

In that case, I do wish to see your response to the situation still. Even if the scale isn't as grand as you prefer, it still serves the purpose of this experiment far more efficiently. If you can plan for a large scale assault, presenting a short stratagem should be of no effort.

 

-Toa Levacius Zehvor :flagusa:

"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."


- Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often attributed to Voltaire)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some cultures have different versions of the classics. The Disney versions can be used, but we're drawing a distinction.

 

 

I'm playing Maleficent. This is not up for debate. :P

 

320px-Malefica.jpg

 

Meet my childhood hero everyone. This is who I wanted to grow up to be when I was six.

 

If the PCs are in the base that would be more strategic to terminate then all is fine; my point is still more one when all things are equal. All things being equal, it's better etiquette to terminate the NPC base.

 

 

My character doesn't know or care about about gaming etiquette. Seems like metagaming to me.

 

Just going to point out, I screwed up on my last post (the lack of a period should have made it clear); I originally meant to say that "among the more negative emotions, one is vengeance." I changed my train of thought a few times and thought I doubled back on it.... *muttermutter*
A good way to determine it, though again - coin flipping shouldn't be necessary if all things are equal. Just target the NPC base because it benefits the RPG the most.

 

 

Thought as much. Why I didn't bring it up.

 

Again, character doesn't know or care about that.

 

The GM isn't trying to beat the players. They're creating scenarios for them to playthrough. Ones that will challenge them, but that are beatable or avoidable (like fighting an army - pretty easy to avoid that kind of thing...)
If you believe the job of the GM is to beat the players, good on you, stick to your beliefs. Me, I'll follow the advice written down by the best game masters of the last forty years, and what has always worked for me.

 

 

I thought the fact I didn't use the term "GM" was a dead giveaway to the fact I was talking about an IC commander. Who doesn't know or care about OOC considerations. No Evil Overlord worth his salt hires second rate generals after all.

 

I'm not talking about metagaming, I'm talking about your characters making something that you know will be a mistake, not because they don't know about it, but because emotions were in the way.

 

 

Refer to the Manuel Incident in XMDD. Rover brought it up.

 

People are emotional. How emotional depends on a lot of things, as does how these emotions manifest. Keeping your emotions in check is one thing, but there is no person who doesn't let their emotions have some impact on their actions. Those who do have severe personality disorders; the kind that keep you from passing your psych evaluation to get into the military, for starters.

 

 

Correct. Which is why, more often then not, my characters are doing what they think is the right thing. No one thinks of themselves as a cold, heartless planner. Beyond sociopaths at least, which have no appeal to me as characters. Yuri wanted to protect humanity, Manuel wanted to protect a friend, Hunter-Seeker wanted to take the revolution back to it's roots. Whatever others might feel about these characters of mine, from their own viewpoint, they were doing the right thing. Hence, their emotions aren't that much of problem when facing enemies. This is, again, fairly basic stuff.

 

People in positions of power get there by gaining the respect of others, not by keeping every emotion in check. You refer to books, but going by experience, I've never met a person in a leadership position who was completely even-tempered, both military people I've talked to and those in the civilian world. As I've said - they're completely normal people, who behave just like normal people do. People who have flaws like holding a grudge or being prideful.

 

 

You are familiar with compartmentalization yes? It's how alot of people cope. Keeping emotions in check makes it easier to gain the respect of others and thus makes it easier to get into a position of power. Basic logic chain that goes without saying.

 

You don't gain respect by going for pointless revenge, being too prideful to learn etc. A CEO who does that will find himself without pretty quick and general who does that will find himself lacking an army. Cause and effect.

 

And no offense, but I'll take the word of authors deeply involved in the politics and such as over your experiences.

 

Books are wonderful things, but a five minute conversation with a person tells you more about how they act than a few hours of leafing through their records ever will. I imagine Sun Tzu as quite a popular man at parties.

 

 

Autobiographies. Which I did mention reading. There are also, of course, people whose entire job is predicting how people will act based on records, files etc.

 

So yeah.

 

There were extreme examples, yes. But they serve the purpose of my point - mistakes can be made. Usually, not the grievous. But still, pride is the true slayer of kings. That and crossbows, which is why those things were banned from use on royalty and clergy.
On a note regarding how bad the decisions are, this stuff does carry over well to real life. Even great generals make mistakes. In two words - Pickett's Charge.

 

 

Then why do, exactly, the books written by people whose entire job is to make sense of politics all say the recipe for success is to keep pride in check, to get ahead and such as? You are saying one thing, the experts another. I am inclined to side with the experts.

 

Can. Doesn't mean will. Yuri made a mistake, as I just told you. A mistake which was reasonable under the circumstances. Not one that would get him laughed out of a bunker.

 

I've outright said my characters have made mistakes, so I'm confused as to why you're talking about it as if I said they didn't.

 

I don't believe that was ever specified as being the case; I was referring to normal humans against normal humans. Sure, double tap the werewolves and all. Though even then, if the person looks normal, and doesn't seem to be a death monster... the trigger becomes harder to pull, at that point.

 

 

These are OTC RPG's. Nine out of ten times, that's the case. A normal, conventional battle tends to the exception here.
When he was a death monster five minutes ago and tore your friends apart, the trigger gets easier to pull.

 

I'm sorry if I was drawing a correlation to the two, but it wasn't my intention. The only thing I was trying to link to your character was the "Would you hesitate to kill all of the mutants in the world if given the chance?" question. You said that he would hesitate, and I continued by asking if the hesitation was a strategic decision (not making people upset) or an emotional one (being unwilling to kill mutants who were otherwise innocent). The second makes for a stronger and more well-rounded character, which was what I was hoping as the response.

 

 

The answer is both. The ends do sometimes justify the means, but only if the means, given the context of the situation, are justified. If the Mutants, or most of them, are trying to take over the city and killing civilians, then you'd have no choice but to deploy that virus. It'd save the most lives. If they aren't however, then the risk isn't worth the reward and the non-deadly mutants will get caught in the crossfire, there's a chance the virus could mutate and go after humans etc. Point is, the situation is nowhere near dire enough to justify deploying that virus.

 

Yuri wanted mutants gone or depowered. Preferably depowered. Though I never got the chance to flesh out of all of his plans, he was going to be working on a cure for the condition whilst neutralizing the more dangerous/insane mutants. What ended up happening was a mass depowering. Power-dampening collers etc. See, extreme measures can be justified, but the situation has to call for it.

 

In that case, I do wish to see your response to the situation still. Even if the scale isn't as grand as you prefer, it still serves the purpose of this experiment far more efficiently. If you can plan for a large scale assault, presenting a short stratagem should be of no effort.

 

 

Need to know a bit more about the situation. Will there be legal troubles? WIll the government step in? Etc.

Edited by Basilisk

I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You are wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...