How (Not) to Alienate Your Players

[Jason]

I was interested to read a post on a D&D blog about "Three Cool Story Ideas to Avoid." The ideas include:

Betrayal,
The Smart Supervillain, and
Taking Things Away

I was a bit concerned about that second one (hoping my own current campaign doesn't run afoul of it), but especially interested in that last one.

Throughout the In Nomine books, it is generally made clear that punishments are always on the table; attunements, distinctions, and even Forces can be stripped, artifacts can be taken away, and rewards are not necessarily a given. To be honest, though, I'm kind of terrified of alienating my players by imposing such things even when I think their characters might deserve it.

My approach to this so far has been to give everyone rewards, but to make some of them backhanded rewards, of a sort. In the last adventure I ran, for instance, I gave one gun-toting Mercurian of Destiny the Divine Destiny attunement instead of something he'd actually find more useful, so he'd be encouraged to be more careful about pushing people toward Fate. He also got stripped of his 3 levels of Bound Discord, but Yves replaced it with a level of Merciful. (I'll say it once more: gun-toting Mercurian of Destiny. One gun in each hand. Also, a backpack full of grenades.) Another character who kind of screwed up early on, but got a handle on things later, actually got a distinction by the end of the adventure; he'll find out in our next adventure that this was a political move by his Archangel, who's going to be a little brusque with him in private for a while, and not providing much personal guidance. No attunements stripped, though.

Does any GM here actually take stuff away from their PCs, or are there any players who have played in a game that have had this happen? I'm kind of curious if this can actually go over okay when it's a little more encouraged by the setting and core rule books themselves.

[Azel]

I'll be the heavy here and quote the most important part I found relevant from that article: "This isn’t the only bad game I’ve run in the past two years of running a weekly 4th Edition D&D game."

From my experience, D&D has so much potential, but so often gets funneled into a cheap dungeon crawl. I don't know why so many people want to run Diablo II on pen & paper when they can just play Diablo II. But then it probably comes back to RPG player types; a good description of what I'm thinking about comes from Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering, by Robin D. Laws (published by Steve Jackson Games, 2001). Here's a site with the relevant quotes:

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/t...obinslaws.html

However, I feel if you are upfront with your players that you may shake up things (y'know, for story progression and diversity), and these may include things up to party dynamics, session success rates, and even resources. Coming from this as most similar to a Method Actor gamer myself, I find perpetual success unrealistic, not-challenging, and (the most cardinal of RPG sins) boring. So betrayal, hard long term opponents, and resource loss -- though potentially aggravating -- give me a reason to return.

The only part where I see these plot devices becoming a significant issue is between individual characters and the party. Party dynamics, just like any group think, creates its own unspoken rules to maintain peace and cohesion. Considering there will be several strong personalities trying to pull things to their favor, these plot hooks run the risk of backlash. But that's why I find it personally healthy as player and GM to not let OOC play group dynamics impose needless strictures on party dynamics IC. But then that's probably my inner method actor wanting justifications to be liberated for "Great Performances by Amateurs in their Living Room." I don't care about your vorpal sword, dang it, I want my Oscar!

[Rocket Man]

Like Azel, I consider all three of those "rules" breakable as written, so long as you have the right group and the right set-up. The real essence of those rules -- the heart of what I think the author was trying to get out -- can be boiled down to one Great Commandment:

Thou Shalt Not Dump Unfairly Upon Thy Players

Or in more modern English:

The Players Should Always Have A Chance -- Even If It Ain't Always A Great One

As an example, I like smart villains. I typically draw up elaborate timetables for them, noting what will and won't happen if the players don't interfere. This helps me react intelligently when the players invariably do interfere, and it also provides clues here and there for them to pick up on what's really going on.

By contrast, there's a type of "smart villain" that some GMs use with no planning at all. No matter what you do as a player, the bad guy has already thought of it. Taking the bus? "There's a bomb strapped to the bottom." Recently developed a new super-secret laser? "He's got a cool suit of mirror-based armor." Found out he's coming to your base and decide to stage an ambush? "He already got there six hours before you and turned your base into a booby trap."

That's not a smart villain. That's a cheating GM. And it's not fun.

As far as taking things away, the OP had it right ... a fundamental part of In Nomine is the idea that actions have consequences. In many cases, the characters have warning lights (especially, but not limited to, dissonance) when they're starting to tread a dangerous path; go too far and Bad Things Happen, and no one can say you weren't warned. On the other hand, taking things away "just because" is usually a bad thing. There should always be some story-related motive behind it, even if it's "The demons blow up the PC's favorite bar, thinking they're already inside ... and inadvertantly giving the PCs the impetus for a major revenge spree."

Betrayal is by far the trickiest thing to handle in an RPG, because:

1) To be truly fair, there has to be at least some chance for a PC to spot something wrong, even if it's difficult.

2) If you pull dramatic betrayals too often, the PCs simply stop interacting with your NPCs as anything except foes. Why chat up one more "friend" who's simply going to burn you?

That said, I'll still use betrayals sometimes. But I use them carefully.

The GM potentially has all the power. But giving some of it to the players is essential for the long-term survival of a campaign. It doesn't need to be Monty Haul's "Another Day, Another Celestial Sword of Demon Prince-Slaying," but it does have to be fun for the players as well as the GM, or you don't have a campaign.

(As an addendum, the last time I took the Robin Laws quiz, I was equal parts Storyteller, Method Actor, Tactician and Specialist ... with the specialty usually being the thinker. So I can empathize with Azel's desire for Great Performances -- where's the Academy when you need them?)

[Archangel Beth]

Rocket Man, I think, pretty much nails what I'd say.

I do favor a certain concept that GURPS and IN both allow, being point-based systems: if you pay points for it, you probably won't lose it (or at least not permanently). If you get vessel-killed in the line of duty (and not unnecessary idiocy), then your Superior will probably give you another one. It may not be identical to the first, and may have flaws that the Superior thinks will be Instructive, but you'll probably get another one reasonably quickly once you're out of Trauma.

If you get your Fun Relic taken away, that you paid points for... Well, first-off, you can track it. Second-off, if it gets taken to Hell/Heaven/an Enemy Tether or something, your Superior may reassign the link to someone who can sit around and wait for it to move sometime in the next thousand years, and give you a new toy of similar or identical abilities.

If you pick up the cool stuff from the Vapulan/Jeanite Tether, and pay no points, you get to use it until the GM A) decides it's a pain in the neck and has the Judgment/Game/your Superior confiscate it, or B) it's logical that it'd get beaten up. Tough beans.

Still, it's really a good idea to spell out the player-GM/Servitor-Superior contract, which includes... "If the Superior, in the opinion of the GM, believes that the Servitor has been screwing around and screwing up instead of being a good, trouble-shooting Servitor... The Superior will find some way to punish the Servitor, even if only refusing to grant boons that the Servitor would otherwise have the points for. Boons that were granted at the Superior's discretion, and not paid for with points, are extremely vulnerable to the Superior removing them if the characters screw up sufficiently. Things that were paid for with points may be lost, but there should be reasonable opportunities to 'earn' them back quickly with roleplaying and attention to missions."

(And, of course, there are the backhanded rewards. If Jean is granting someone levels of Intelligence, or even full Ethereal Forces, that the Servitor didn't ask for, and/or the granting is happening after a failure, it probably suggests that Jean thinks the Servitor needs more brain cells to rub together...)

[Jason]

This is all reassuring to me. Well said all around.

On a (semi) related note, my PCs are currently bartering with an NPC for necessary intel. I expected they would probably pay the price he asked (doing a side-quest of sorts that may involve betraying an ally of theirs), but instead, one player is considering offering to trade an artifact she paid for in character points. It's actually a perfect counteroffer, and such a clever idea that I'm going to allow it -- though it does leave me wondering how to reward her appropriately for giving away something she actually "bought." Generally I give everyone the same number of points, but maybe I'll just give her bonus character points, beyond what the artifact even cost, at the end of the adventure...

[ladyarcana55]

Originally Posted by Jason

Does any GM here actually take stuff away from their PCs, or are there any players who have played in a game that have had this happen? I'm kind of curious if this can actually go over okay when it's a little more encouraged by the setting and core rule books themselves.

I'm actually thinking about taking something away from one of my players, but primarily because he's being an idiot. He has a sword that, for the most part, cannot be seen but it will set off metal detectors.

He wants to go to the airport to hang around and solidify his Role of a nutjob. My thought is that if he is taking his sword into an airport, why wouldn't they confiscate it? Also another thought I had was that the local War commander in the area may decide that his motorcycle and sword would be better served in the hands of an actual fighter, rather than one who goes around and makes a nuisance of himself.

But I haven't decided. The big thing is that he doesn't believe I would take anything away from him and the arrogance irritates me.

Betrayal is standard fare for them. A majority of them ran games and, inevitably, there is a traitor. So that's really not a big deal with my crew.

The Smart Villian, I actually like because it provides a consistent plot hook. Also, it would make sense for his tactics to change over time as he learns about the group. I really don't see anything wrong with that one.

[Andygal]

My opinion is that IN is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. It's about role-playing, not just mindless hack and slash. Therefore, actions taken by the PCs should have in-game consequences. Otherwise it destroys any sense of "realism".

Therefore Superiors should act consistent with their stated character (and the GM's Brightness settings for the game and that Superior), which may include punishing the PCs if the PCs do something flagrantly stupid and/or wantonly disobedient. I don't see any problem with that, as long as the players had plenty of warning that such consequences could result from in game actions.

And frankly, if I was running a game, I wouldn't want a player who had their character do wantonly stupid things and then whined about it when the character suffered the logical consequences of said stupid actions.

[Azel]

Here's a tangent, but I think it useful in this discussion. Has anyone ever used impossible or suicidal missions as a GM tool in their games yet? I ask this because you can read more than once in IN material that this is a very valid technique, and in some ways expected consequence of ticking Superiors off.

I mention this because I have not really felt I have used this technique yet. It isn't exactly against the succinct dictum Rocket Man mentions (Thou Shalt Not Dump Unfairly Upon Thy Players), but it is fairly close. I have no problems reining people in with consequences, and with that awareness have rarely had problems that would lead to such a situation. But I assume one day I might have to run a "fixed session," as it were, just to rein in a severely disruptive player.

GM "cheating" is pretty bad all around, especially if not necessary. But if you are running a "fixed session" where the outcome should be failure, you are deliberately dumping on a player to bring them back in line. However, dumping on a player is markedly easier with Deus Ex Machina; the GM must run dangerously upon the razor's edge. And further, how will the other players recognize your judicious self control?

Never having to run such punishment missions I am curious if there's any advice. (This likely should be its own topic, but it is so related I'm gonna risk inclusion here.)

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Andygal

And frankly, if I was running a game, I wouldn't want a player who had their character do wantonly stupid things and then whined about it when the character suffered the logical consequences of said stupid actions.

Well said! Too many characters think Chaotic Stupid is not only a valid alignment, but a desirable one.

[JCD]

Originally Posted by Azel

Here's a tangent, but I think it useful in this discussion. Has anyone ever used impossible or suicidal missions as a GM tool in their games yet? I ask this because you can read more than once in IN material that this is a very valid technique, and in some ways expected consequence of ticking Superiors off.

Funny you should mention that. I had a demon sent off with a set of PITA fledglings to do a job which, in retrospect, we were not only seriously undergunned for, but not particularly expected to accomplish. (My boss, not Superior, hated me). In the course of the game, two of my three fledgies tried to betray me, my Servant screwed me over (in a nice way, but still) and I spent more time dodging the slings and arrows of my fellow demons then that of my supposed enemies. I had a great time!

Which gets to a major point: In IN, you get to play a set of staunch, moral characters strongly bracketed by their beliefs. Or you can play demons who get to stomp on the little people. But one of the prices of that is a full expectation of betrayal, infighting and Superior screwing.

Yves is not going to send you on a suicide mission. He might send you on a mission he expects to FAIL...Even Michael isn't likely to do so. Belial? Yeah. In a Heartbeat.