Why A Party Face Is A Bad Idea

[Tomsdad]

For me the biggest issue with face character is they often end up being the only Player actually playing while they do their thing. and the more in-depth the rules for their thing the longer it's only them playing.

i.e the net running dilemma, reducing it to one roll removes a lot of narrative and game 'weight' from it, making it it's own combat system leaves everyone else sitting around bored while the netrunner 'fights' their way around a virtual dungeon to get to the virtual treasure chest.

So I try to give non face characters supporting jobs to do that helps the face sell what ever it is they are doing.

(you actually see this a lot in fictional depiction, the main face might be holding the targets attention but the other party members are often doing things to make it all work)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Anthony

In terms of fun factor, "I'm involved by desperately trying to stay out of trouble" isn't a lot better than "not involved at all". Generating challenges where everyone can feel they're an asset to the party probably requires significant design changes (such as heavily discouraging or straight disallowing gigantic reaction penalties).

One thing to keep in mind is that a character need not be an asset for the players to have fun. I suspect Bruno and those who played with her had a fun time dealing with the faux-pas of her minotaur. Of course, if you're making a character who is largely a detriment to the Face's actions, you'll want to clear things with that player first, so you aren't destroying his/her fun in the process.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

For me the biggest issue with face character is they often end up being the only Player actually playing while they do their thing. and the more in-depth the rules for their thing the longer it's only them playing.

Yeah, this is the central issue with Face activities, stealth recon missions, netrunning, etc.

[AlexanderHowl]

The way that I deal with that is to have the stealth recon, netrunning, etc. occur during the face time (even if it technically occurred before/after the face time). That way, everyone is doing something of value, and it feels like a thriller TV show like Leverage.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The way that I deal with that is to have the stealth recon, netrunning, etc. occur during the face time (even if it technically occurred before/after the face time). That way, everyone is doing something of value, and it feels like a thriller TV show like Leverage.

It's a good idea and it works narratively when the author "knows" the outcome or each activity in advance, but doing stuff out of order in game can be a problem because quite often players are doing things in response to how previous things went.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

It's a good idea and it works narratively when the author "knows" the outcome or each activity in advance, but doing stuff out of order in game can be a problem because quite often players are doing things in response to how previous things went.

This is why GMs need to be open to "talking sessions" and "planning sessions," and even "shopping sessions." The whole "Talk is boring . . . ninjas attack!" approach to gaming is a poor one. It lets only those playing action-optimized characters with abilities amenable to rapid responses have fun, and it penalizes players who like to plot and plan. It also diminishes group cohesion.

In my last few campaigns, about every third or fourth game session was devoted to planning who would do what, how, when and where, in response to what contingencies, and with what gear . . . and possibly to acquiring said gear. This was true even in monster-filled dungeons and deep in enemy-held jungle, because talking is a free action and I was happy to pause in-game time to allow it. Yes, of course talking takes time, but heroic experts might not actually need to do it – they're hyper-competent – so it isn't necessarily time in the game, merely time at the gaming table for the real-world players who aren't hyper-competent adventurers to work out ideas their alter-egos would think of in a snap.

As a bonus, this made it possible to split up the party without being too hard on me as the GM. When my attention was on running one thing, the other players were engaged and offering advice, because they had helped plan that scene and often because the success of that scene was instrumental to the success of their own scenes and/or the success of the master plan. And the advice was welcome and even justifiable, because the characters of the people offering it were there when the spotlight character's part of the scheme was being planned. I was happy to allow that all the other players' ideas had come up in the discussions and were therefore contingency plans and strategies the active character would have in mind.

This makes dividing a party into specific, specialized roles – some good for action, some not – workable and even preferable. For instance, in my "The Company" campaign, I was really tickled at the Ocean's 11 feel of many of the adventures. We often had situations like the "face" (Anabel) talking to distract people from the "sneak" (Zhang) getting into a place, while the "hacker" (Jili) supported remotely and the "wheel man" (Vinnie) got the vehicle in position. Then the combat characters got to attack, during which time the non-combat characters could steal and backstab to their hearts' content. And when somebody wasn't active, they were still tossing out GURPS combat advice, recommending which NPCs to Fast-Talk, warning about possible traps and security systems to look for, etc.

[Kromm]

I'll add that you want to do what I said above because not all players enjoy roleplaying all character types. Relatively few players like "jack of all trades" characters, so insisting that everybody be at least somewhat good at social interactions, sneaking, fighting, etc., etc., etc. is already denying many gamers their fun. Most players prefer to play experts in some narrower area that appeals to them for any number of reasons: they can do it in real life and want to show off, they can't do it in real life but would like to imagine they can, a favorite fictional hero does it, a favorite real-world person does it, they always play a character like that, they've never played a character like that and want to try, and the list goes on. So you let them pick the roles they find interesting, and then you run the game so that they all contribute, using the advice I gave above – namely, you support planning sessions, you encourage shouted advice, and you let people have their spotlight scenes.

Insisting that everybody's character be able to contribute in all scenes is a needlessly restrictive condition. It suffices that every player get to contribute useful advice, whether or not their character is present. If you allow that, then you can run multiple scenes of completely different kinds that, while consecutive in the real world, are concurrent in the game world. And all of those scenes can contribute to the overall success of the adventure.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Kromm

This is why GMs need to be open to "talking sessions" and "planning sessions," and even "shopping sessions." The whole "Talk is boring . . . ninjas attack!" approach to gaming is a poor one. It lets only those playing action-optimized characters with abilities amenable to rapid responses have fun, and it penalizes players who like to plot and plan. It also diminishes group cohesion.

In my last few campaigns, about every third or fourth game session was devoted to planning who would do what, how, when and where, in response to what contingencies, and with what gear . . . and possibly to acquiring said gear. This was true even in monster-filled dungeons and deep in enemy-held jungle, because talking is a free action and I was happy to pause in-game time to allow it. Yes, of course talking takes time, but heroic experts might not actually need to do it – they're hyper-competent – so it isn't necessarily time in the game, merely time at the gaming table for the real-world players who aren't hyper-competent adventurers to work out ideas their alter-egos would think of in a snap.

As a bonus, this made it possible to split up the party without being too hard on me as the GM. When my attention was on running one thing, the other players were engaged and offering advice, because they had helped plan that scene and often because the success of that scene was instrumental to the success of their own scenes and/or the success of the master plan. And the advice was welcome and even justifiable, because the characters of the people offering it were there when the spotlight character's part of the scheme was being planned. I was happy to allow that all the other players' ideas had come up in the discussions and were therefore contingency plans and strategies the active character would have in mind.

This makes dividing a party into specific, specialized roles – some good for action, some not – workable and even preferable. For instance, in my "The Company" campaign, I was really tickled at the Ocean's 11 feel of many of the adventures. We often had situations like the "face" (Anabel) talking to distract people from the "sneak" (Zhang) getting into a place, while the "hacker" (Jili) supported remotely and the "wheel man" (Vinnie) got the vehicle in position. Then the combat characters got to attack, during which time the non-combat characters could steal and backstab to their hearts' content. And when somebody wasn't active, they were still tossing out GURPS combat advice, recommending which NPCs to Fast-Talk, warning about possible traps and security systems to look for, etc.

Right and i agree splitting the action makes sense (and it's why as I said I try an make sure there was supporting things to be done all as part of an ongoing whole). It's just I'd tend to run that all at the same time so players can respond to each other activities and how they effect their own, or even as you say advice each on on each others activities*.

It's the jumping back and forth in the timeline I was discussing.

I mean it can work, but it requires a certain amount of flexibility and acceptance of retroactive "effect then cause" to get it all to line up is some fluffs a few rolls. But system Tools like narrative currency that allow the players to manipulate results outside rolling for success can help here though.

To me your example seems to be of ongoing action that's taking place in potentially different places but still roughly all at once. i.e. Vinnie was getting the vehicle into place while Jili was hacking etc, etc

as you say the classic Ocean's cutting back and forth between ongoing separate things that are all going to come together and culminate into a cunning whole


*and frankly constant communication (or even miscommunication for narrative tension) and even mentoring is also a bit of a Oceans motif

[Tyneras]

Would Daredevil apply to a Face doing their thing with a massive detriment (for example, a minotaur) in tow? Seems like a pretty unnecessary risk if you have the option of trying to hide them first.

[AlexanderHowl]

Doing anything with a race with a reputation for eating sapients (especially the dominant sapient species) is likely problematic. Most human societies would likely have a 'shoot first and then burn the body later' reaction to anyone who belonged to such a race. If PCs do not want to face a howling mob that intends to tear them to pieces for daring to bring a companion who they think would eat their children, they should really hide the minotaur.

[Kromm]

"Hide the minotaur" is essentially free and easy in any situation where social interaction even makes sense. If it's impossible because the minotaur is going to be seen approaching, then you're already out of luck . . . hostilities are going to start well before you're within parleying distance. And if you've managed to get close enough that talking is an option, presumably you've either anticipated the need to hide the minotaur or the minotaur isn't there in the first place.