Started by Altaem, May 24, 2011, 09:19:05 AM
QuoteSpeaking of that, the players seem to basically be playing in a gamist like mode. I mean the stakes are if they take the ship or are captured? They have no issue with murdering the mercs to obtain material goods? They are morally empty (or atleast the conflict "Do we take the merc firefly vs Are we captured?" is)
QuoteThe mercs already had their guns out before the conflict started so the PCs dismissed any talking option pretty quickly.
Quote from: Abkajud on May 30, 2011, 08:30:14 PM1- it always starts at talking.
QuoteHad the mercs actually fired?
QuoteAssuming the mercs hadn't fired, this sets the scene for the PC's to talk, yet get increasingly tempted to shoot. But the players have brought along characters who are inclined to not talk
QuoteOn a side subject - the higher moral ground!?!? If what differentiated the mercs from reavers was they were without the killing and eating, what differentiates the PC's from reavers?? Only that they didn't eat the mercenaries that they killed!? The PC's are fifty percent closer to reaver than the mercenaries who were the 'badguys'!
Quote1- it always starts at talking. Escalation should revolve around the players' choice to do so, not the actions of NPCs.
Quote from: Noclue on May 31, 2011, 11:57:56 AM@Callan one thing that does come throughh in the OP is that the game handled the firefight just fine and that experience, where the PCs just started shooting was one of their better conflicts. That's actually not surprising. Dogs handles gunfights fine.
QuoteWhat I get in table chatter is Donnie's player asking "can I shoot something" and Gabe's player holding him back.As soon as Gabe decides someone is a bad guy bullets will fly.
QuoteBoth players and NPCs have equal option to escalate rather than give.
QuoteHave you ever done any gaming with these guys where between them they have actually had a discussion (from their characters point of view) about what is the right thing to do?