[3:16] Screw-Ups and Monstrous Troopers
Lance D. Allen:
The idea of my suggestion wasn't necessarily to make them care about the NPCs you come up with, so much as to demonstrate a non-adversarial side, consistently. It *seemed* like you made a few attempts, then threw up your hands in disgust. The point about mechanical implications is well taken, though. So, think about how, within the rules, NPCs can be mechanically helpful. Have the LT give an instruction to set up a defensive perimeter, and when they do so successfully (NFA roll) then give them that +1 to their ambush roll, or their first FA roll in the combat. If they manage to get buddy-buddy with the supply sergeant, give 'em a +1 on their next requisition roll. Tie a few mechanically acceptable bonuses to NPCs, and suddenly they may take on a new significance to the PCs. Or, you know, not.
Re: Badass as a reputation, I think that is perfectly respectable. How did he get that rep? Is it from stories he's told from before? Can he live up to that rep now? There's meat there, if you look for it. Now, dude may have wanted that opportunity to die in a blaze of badassery, and if so, then yeah, you should have given it to him, if the chance arose. If you didn't see it until you were looking back, well, shit happens.
Re: Action McAction, my response would have been "Seriously? I mean, really?" With all the skeptical facial expressions that imply that he could come up with something less lame. If he was serious, then... well, I guess I'd take it as an indicator that he's gearing up for beer and pretzels, not serious roleplaying, and I'd have to make the determination as to whether or not I was okay with that. I'd also be looking around the table, seeing other people's reactions. If everyone else was cool with it, then it's a sign that they're on the same page as he. If other people were rolling their eyes along with me, that's an indicator too.
I'm less pessimistic than Ron is. I'd hope that you're a good enough judge of character that you'd know if the players were getting their kicks from pissing you off, rather than getting their kicks despite it pissing you off. One is malicious, while the other is just general jerkiness which can be caused by many less than ignoble qualities, such as the assumption that "it's just a game, and if you really had a problem, you'd say something about it".
Really, I don't think you're GMing 3:16 wrong. I don't even think your players are playing it wrong. 3:16 supports both play agendas quite well. The problem is that you're playing two different games, and you're frustrated because you think it's just one game. Some people playing that sick, twisted funny game when others are wanting a serious game is the same sort of thing as some people wanting to address serious themes where other people just want to kill orcs.
Callan S.:
Quote
I definitely appreciate the point about trying not to doormat someone’s role-playing, no matter what. But I guess what I’m curious about is whether or not you think it’s possible that sometimes, they’re not actually “role-playing”, so much as…I’m not sure how exactly to phrase it…playing along in a farcical way? In other words, do you think that there can be insincerity in role-playing, that descriptions such as the one you quoted from me can be considered ridiculous on both sides of the table, or do you think that either that can’t happen, or even if it can happen, it shouldn’t matter, and role-playing in any form should be accepted?
I think someone can say something in an insincere way, and if you take it seriously they may about face and treat what they said with sincerity. There was an account here of a vampire game where the player climbed through a window and because someone was coming, murdered the occupant of a bed, put them under and hid under the sheets. The person reporting it was the player in question and when they said the GM just went along with it (ie, took it seriously rather than started lecturing them about how to roleplay a vampire), the player was shocked at what he'd/his vampire had done. When the GM didn't try and push his own conscience onto play, the player realised that there was no conscience involved in what he does in play, except the conscience he exerts himself.
There was another account in another game of players assaulting a train, the explosion killing lots of people on train and the rest holding their wounded children, because the PC's had used too much TNT. The players still went in to get the loot, and when the survivors saw this and tried to stop them, they started shooting what was left of the train wreck victims - and then the guy giving the account said that there was this kind of moment where they all slowly realised they were playing monsters.
Hell, I remember in early teen shadow run I had this plan to have my hot female character protitute herself for mucho cash. The GM then described - was it a pimp or a trick? - but this sleezy guy and upon contact with it, I just couldn't go through with it. No notion that it was bad roleplay or whatever - just this sleazy guy in a jacuzzi...*shudder*
I think some people could still just treat it as a joke, regardless, your right on that. But I think what was said in jest can also become seriously after the fact by the joker, if its taken seriously rather than being treated as faulty RP. There's alot of truth in jest. But I'm not sure I'm describing this terribly well at all.
Ron Edwards:
Callan, I'm with you 100% on this. Your post makes a lot of sense to me.
Now, how that applies or doesn't apply in this case, you and I cannot know. But those are the issues. Those God-damned right are the issues.
Best, Ron
Wordmaker:
I think a chat about what your group wants is definitely in order. I'd consider myself a fairly experienced GM. I've been running and playing games for about 14 years, and I've never seen things end well if anyone at the table is there because they were pushed to it. Really, unless everyone is willing and eager to play and enjoy the game, and all on the same page with regard to what the game should be about, there are going to be problems.
Brendan C.:
Sorry it took me so long to reply, I've been unfortunately detached from the interwebs for a while.
Thanks for all the good advice, everyone. I've got a lot to consider.
Callan,
Your point about games going all the better when the GM actually takes what the players say as perfectly serious is a great one. I would absolutely love to experience the kind of games you describe, with those realizations. But I think that what worries me most is that I would do exactly what the player said, and let some horrible thing happen, but that moment of realization would never come...or if it came, it would never actually matter to the player. You acknowledge that this could happen, that these horrible actions might be continually brushed off, but I guess the issue I see is that, at least with that particular group, I definitely got the vibe that taking these "jokes" seriously wouldn't phase the players in the slightest. This vibe was strongly reinforced by the fact that they actually had occasional moments in which they would point out or acknowledge that they were monsters or assholes, and then would laugh and glory in it. And I guess that's okay, per se, but it struck me as somehow wrong, specifically in that I was pretty confident that none of these players would actually like to play someone that monstrous...It wasn't the thrill of trying to think like a monster thinks, or anything like that...it was odd, "I don't really care" detachment that allowed utterly monstrous action without any sense of consequence. Which wraps right back around with Ron's first point, that it seems to be an issue with the group and the Social Contract more than anything else, methinks.
Regardless, I think it's great advice to try to take those things seriously and then to see what happens. In that regard, I need to be braver as a GM, or at least less wrapped up in my own head. So thanks for the good advice.
And thanks to everybody for the comments. I now have a good sense of some places where I, as a GM, can improve, and of a number of items that I need to discuss with the group for any future gamings. Greatly appreciated.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page