Stephen Rennell
> I've had the reverse problem - they assume that they can kill
> all the opposition after they've defeated them, and it's very
> hard to get them to be happy with their enemies not being all
> dead. (Especially bandits when their clan hates Gagarthi, and
> broo who they also hate.)
I echo what Mike said, plus...
First - in the before game chat discuss the nature of opponents in an RPG. They are *always* going to have opposition to fight one way or another, otherwise the game would be dull. Players *want* their PCs to have opponents. So the only question is *which* ones they want. The Pool had some good advice: players should kill off npcs when they dont want them in the story anymore and conversely allow the coolest ones to live to appear another day. Later, during the game, remind them to think about retaining and discarding npcs depending on their potential to make things entertaining to the group.
Second - there is a difference between the PCs wanting someone dead and the players wanting them dead. The players are not the PCs and should not be trying to be. This is a different approach to the way games are often played. In HQ everyone should be helping to direct the story. This requires the players to be able to seperate themselves from the PCs. The PCs *should* want the broos all dead and *should* be p1ssed when they cant kill them all. The players on the other hand should be making a decision about what would be the best way of making todays game and the games to come as enjoyable as possible.
If the opponents are nameless minions the decision is moot; theres nothing of interest to save, and no penalties for slaughtering broos or gargathi, and the PCs hate them intensely, so they are bound to kill them off. Let them enjoy it.
Third - if you want to change the way they kill of everyone regardless of who they are: involve them in deciding the consequences. If they kill off the tax collector ask the players to suggest what the authorities do next. This will help make the point that they must deal with the consequences of their actions - the victims are not faceless, they are just one part of a group. Its rarely possible to fight an individual, what you are actually doing is involving yourself in ongoing conflict with a much larger entity. This is the way it works in real life too; you dont need to make up rules to force their behaviour to conform to what seems realistic - just make the results of their actions happen the way they realistically would. But do it in the open so they can make an informed choice and be part of the decision about whether things escalate.
Fourth - and this is really really important if not vital - make sure they are tied securely into a bigger group. Under no circumstances allow a wandering party of PCs with no relationships to worry about. The PCs should be part of a clan or similar and the clan should suffer the results of their actions. They should have family and friends to worry about. This is how the decisions about how to treat enemies become interesting for the players.
Theres a quote (but I forget who said it) 'He who takes a wife and a family has given hostages to fortune'.
When the victims friends retaliate have them target the PCs nieghbours and kin. Involve the PCs in deciding how this happens. There doesn't even *have* to have been a retaliation yet for the nieghours and kin to start getting jumpy and putting he presure on the PCs.
Cheers,
Nick.
Powered by hypermail