In my last few posts I've tried to talk about the concept of a right way to play games and this last post is somewhat of a tricky one, in part because I want to finish it here and this question is the root of a lot of bigger arguments in gaming. The biggest issue with the idea of a right way to play, at least in my mind, is that it's sort of a mask for either a bigger question or idea that the person is trying to state.
It can be about gamestyle preferences, it can be a question of what a person brings to a game, really there are a lot of ways to look at it. One way is simply a matter of style and preference, the people talking about roleplay or optimization as if they were mutually exclusive for example. Another is a bit trickier and it's somewhat more prevalent in online gaming than it would be in tabletops.
In online games there can be said to be a more objective right and wrong way to play, part of why I say this is that those games are generally of a less 'sandbox' method in that classes or skillsets are designed for certain things and the game can't really alter itself based on learning curves on a case by case basis (barring server wide patches and the like). The games are also much more based around cooperation in that if a person doesn't build the warrior to tank as well as they can or the healer is built incorrectly...well that ends up making things hard for others and creating frustration for all those involved. Part of what makes a game work, and what makes a way to play 'right' or 'wrong' has to do with what makes all the people involved happy and lets them have fun.
Ignoring the systems, the arguments, etc. we all game to have fun, to relieve stress and do something interesting with out friends. Now the biggest thing in all of it is that you and those around you are having fun. Someone is playing the wrong way when they and those around them aren't having fun, sometimes it means that the person should redo their character, sometimes it means that the group needs to change in terms of some people leaving or something similar.
Showing posts with label Role Playing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Role Playing. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
The right way to play pt. 2 (sorry this took so long)
Sorry to any readers out there, real life got in the way of things for a while, I guess I'm back and will hopefully be able to put out more posts and make something enjoyable.
When last I left my second issue in the idea of playing right or wrong had to do with the concept of a player focusing more on the mechanical aspect of the game, and when the others in the group complained he argued that he got into the game to fight monsters, slay dragons, and find treasure not sit in town conversing in 'thees and thous' with local yokels. For those who are familiar with such arguments part of this is from the whole 'roleplay vs rollplay' or 'optimization versus RP' and other things that crop up.
In some cases it's a false dichotomy started by people more enamored with RP than mechanics arguing that a person who has any interest in mechanics is clearly only interested in that and they don't know how to properly roleplay. While there can be cases where people obsess over raw numbers to the exclusion of any RP elements I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I also would argue that to an extent optimization IS roleplaying but that might be a discussion for another day. Now, some people might argue that the mechanically focused player in the example is playing wrong, or at least isn't playing the game to its full potential. Conversely people might also feel some sympathy for him, if he's in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, Hackmaster, or any other game that sells itself as a game full of action and exploration then it does seem a bit like the player in question might feel like they were the victim of a bait and switch. Depending on the game some might even argue that the roleplay centric players might be 'doing it wrong' if the game they're using is a much more heavily action oriented one.
This isn't to denigrate roleplayers either, roleplay can help bring a game more to life. It can help flesh out characters and work out backgrounds for them as well as make players feel like they're a part of the world and really care about the story and feel excited about that happens around them. Some games do a better job of stimulating roleplay than others and I won't say much more on that subject.
The real crux of the issue in this one is more a matter of player expectations and group style. I have had players who have told me of my own games that they are alternately too roleplay light or heavy, that we need more or less action, etc. Now a lot of it boils down to personal preference of the players and what the person running is comfortable with. This might be a case where the group would either need to seek a compromise, maybe doing more action sequences if reasonable along with trying to get the recalcitrant player to interact more with the story. It might also just be that the player is a bad fit for the group, he or she would be happier with a group that did more action, adventure and exploring in their games rather than emphasizing social interaction.
At least this is my view, if anyone has any comments, feel free to offer them in the comments section.
When last I left my second issue in the idea of playing right or wrong had to do with the concept of a player focusing more on the mechanical aspect of the game, and when the others in the group complained he argued that he got into the game to fight monsters, slay dragons, and find treasure not sit in town conversing in 'thees and thous' with local yokels. For those who are familiar with such arguments part of this is from the whole 'roleplay vs rollplay' or 'optimization versus RP' and other things that crop up.
In some cases it's a false dichotomy started by people more enamored with RP than mechanics arguing that a person who has any interest in mechanics is clearly only interested in that and they don't know how to properly roleplay. While there can be cases where people obsess over raw numbers to the exclusion of any RP elements I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I also would argue that to an extent optimization IS roleplaying but that might be a discussion for another day. Now, some people might argue that the mechanically focused player in the example is playing wrong, or at least isn't playing the game to its full potential. Conversely people might also feel some sympathy for him, if he's in a game like Dungeons and Dragons, Hackmaster, or any other game that sells itself as a game full of action and exploration then it does seem a bit like the player in question might feel like they were the victim of a bait and switch. Depending on the game some might even argue that the roleplay centric players might be 'doing it wrong' if the game they're using is a much more heavily action oriented one.
This isn't to denigrate roleplayers either, roleplay can help bring a game more to life. It can help flesh out characters and work out backgrounds for them as well as make players feel like they're a part of the world and really care about the story and feel excited about that happens around them. Some games do a better job of stimulating roleplay than others and I won't say much more on that subject.
The real crux of the issue in this one is more a matter of player expectations and group style. I have had players who have told me of my own games that they are alternately too roleplay light or heavy, that we need more or less action, etc. Now a lot of it boils down to personal preference of the players and what the person running is comfortable with. This might be a case where the group would either need to seek a compromise, maybe doing more action sequences if reasonable along with trying to get the recalcitrant player to interact more with the story. It might also just be that the player is a bad fit for the group, he or she would be happier with a group that did more action, adventure and exploring in their games rather than emphasizing social interaction.
At least this is my view, if anyone has any comments, feel free to offer them in the comments section.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Right way to play? Pt. 1
I'm going to try to address each question as a blog post and be as concise and coherent as possible, and hopefully interesting. Let's look at the first one, where a person new to a game posts on a forum about the game asking for advice on their character. The responses are varied and each one seems to give an idea of a 'right' way to play, or the reactions to said posts. The concept of a right way to play is varied, to some people there is no real wrong way to play but there are ways that are better and worse.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
To the people simply giving general advice IE what abilities to pick or offering a build strategy they are simply answering the question and don't seem to offer any judgement on a right or wrong way. But I've heard some gamers condemn 'builds' as wrong or something to be avoided because they felt it detracted from organic character growth or that it took the person outside of the game. Others might counter "the player wants to be good at X, I wrote up how to be good at X" and X could be anything from a fighting style, to a method of using magic, to efficient underwater basketweaving.
To those offering builds there might also be divides, some are far more mechanically intensive where others are bare bones. In here we get the idea that if you're going to do something as a focus you need to go at it full tilt, IE second best isn't good enough. They might even justify it as 'If you're not doing your best the rest of the group is being let down' And then other people argue that he wasn't necessarily even asking for a comprehensive build, just some general information about what to look for, saying that they're trying to force others to play like them.
There are also some who might say that the players decision was a poor one and they should try a different class or set of options in order to do what they want. Now, their commentary is seen by some as simple advice and help to a newbie, IE if they want to play a certain style of character certain classes match the theme better than others or certain power templates offer that ability collection more easily. Or perhaps a certain class or ability template is just bad, at least from their perspective, and they want to warn the player against using it to avoid frustration.
Each of these things and the reactions to them imply concepts of right and wrong ways to play the game, hell a lot of them might even just be seen as tracing from the idea of an 'optimization' vs 'role play' dichotomy. Where there is seen as a sort of scale where you can't do both one and the other and that being good at one necessarily means being bad at another. The idea also that either one is a good or bad way of playing. So I guess the question that should be asked is if any of the people in my example were 'wrong' and if so why? I'll try to address the other questions soon.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Is there a right way to play?
This is something that comes up every now and again in games, and it's in both online and tabletop games, is there a right or wrong way to play? I think this one is going to be somewhat piecemeal because it's kind of a big question or at least one that isn't easy to answer. Part of the idea of there being a right or wrong way to play is the concept that there are better and worse ways of playing a game. The idea on this is somewhat dependent on who is asking and why, and it's part of what causes all kinds of arguments at game tables, forums, and blogs.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
One thing to start with is to ask why the question is being asked and who is asking it. I'll give a few different examples of where I see people making assumptions, sometimes unconsciously, about a 'right' and 'wrong' way to play a game, be it tabletop or online.
1) A player relatively new to a game going to a forum asking for advice and help on making a character, explaining the concept and class that they want to use. The responses are mostly either build advice or being told to avoid the class mentioned because it sucks, doesn't do what the player wants very well, etc.
2) A player new to roleplaying games focusing more on the mechanical aspects of their character than on the personality, the person gets chastized for being unwilling or unable to get in character, they argue that they wanted to be hunting for treasure and monsters instead of chatting up random yokels in town with thees and thous.
3) A person playing an online game with a talent system is messaged out of the blue being told that their design sucks, that they aren't capable of playing the class or character correctly, etc. and that if they want to do it right they need to copy the designs shown on website X.
4) A person talking about their character, either their roleplay or background, is chastised because their portrayal of some fantasy race is obviously wrong. Dwarves are never mages, humans are never better than elves, elves don't act like that, halflings are supposed to be jolly, etc.
5) A person playing either a tabletop game or an online game is called out for being cheap or a munchkin because of an ability, item, or some combination of effects because those things are 'too powerful' 'broken' or 'an I-Win Button' and that they should 'learn to play the right way' or something to that extent.
Now in each of these the mindsets are different and there are probably arguments on each side. I'm not going to go into direct particulars on stuff because it is very much a case by case basis but over the course of the next few days/weeks I hope I can shed some light on my views and maybe stimulate some discussion.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Hitpoints and Damage scaling in 4th edition
Fourth edition had flaws, maybe one of the biggest areas had to do with the problem of hitpoint and damage scaling. I mentioned that one thing that had worked nicely was that the monsters at the early levels of play could threaten players, but likely wouldn’t kill them outright unless they were foolish or very unlucky. I believe in gameplay that early levels are sort of a time for training wheels, when you should be able to learn the abilities of your character and have some room to make rookie mistakes and learn the ropes. Earlier editions of D&D had it where you could die from a single strike from a blade at low levels, while this can heighten tension it also means that a bad initiative roll can wipe out a whole group before they even get to act. Fourth edition fixed this nicely, a decent sized pile of hitpoints at the beginning with a slow fixed amount gained at each level, it also helped equalize encounters since randomly rolled HP could either doom a player or make them practically impregnable depending how long they sat on one side or another of the luck curve for rolls.
While the system worked well in fourth edition it started falling apart after heroic tier, becoming damn near absurd in the epic tier. The problem was twofold on the monster angle, the first was that their hitpoints grew in great leaps and bounds but their damage refused to grow properly with it. This meant that after level 12-14 the fights began to turn into obnoxious slogs. Part of that was also that the amount of damage dealt by the monsters was fairly low compared to what the players had. While I get that this might have been built around the concept that they would deal more damage overall since they could last longer it didn’t really work out that way. I have described the experience as being something closer to trying to peel a really big potato while it occasionally pokes you with a toothpick rather than fighting a dangerous opponent. This made designing and running fights annoying, in many cases the players had functionally won the battle but their opponents were still fairly alive, so I could either simply declare a battle over with there still being a fair amount of creatures on the board or I could run the battle for another half hour. Despite being touted as being faster and more streamlined at higher levels this proved to be false, at least without some kind of aid, I took much longer building and running encounters than I did frequently in third edition.
Fourth edition had managed to mostly rid the game of rocket tag, where monsters and characters would fire off their biggest ability and try to devastate and destroy. This was good in that in theory battles would require more work and thought as well as more teamwork, discouraging lone wolf behavior. Unfortunately what was created in its place might be described as two sumo wrestlers wrapped in pillow armor trying to fight. Battles became annoying at best and frustrating at worst, the only types of monsters that could produce proper levels of damage were solo monsters and those weren’t really meant for constant back to back use. Part of the problem that came with this also is that battles got boring, players weren’t threatened by the monsters and the battles got to be repetitive and the players lost some of the investment. One of my favorite examples from the books is the printed statblock for Orcus, demon prince of the undead. Orcus had well over one thousand hitpoints, however Orcus didn’t really have a whole lot that threatened physically. Yes, he could probably kill at least one character in the party but it wasn’t of the level of threat that one would expect from the mighty demon prince of the undead. They did upgrade him a fair amount in a later published adventure, but in some ways that’s almost worse in that they had to almost entirely rebuild him to make him viable in any ways or means.
The other area where it got weird was that players hitpoints were more stable in increases but only solo monsters were able to take appreciable bites out of their hitpoints and even then it wasn’t always a sure thing. As mentioned before this makes the fights a lot less intense when those involved are able to take dozens or hundreds of hits before going down. While I sort of get the idea that was being pushed, players were supposed to be tougher and battles could last longer as well as more battles occurring during a day, it also gets hard to feel threatened when huge monsters can’t seem to land a reasonable blow on you. Some of the sense of fun in a game comes from there being difficulty, the problem wasn’t so much that the fights were too easy to win but that they were too hard to lose. While they sound similar it’s not really the same, it’s one thing where a fight is balanced somewhat towards the players but still has them at risk where they are likely to win but might end up with one or more characters badly injured or requiring some sort of expenditure of resources. In this version the players were usually able to strike down targets with fairly high speed and ability with relatively little sacrifice, it got worse when there were multiple leaders, IE those who could heal.
What it ultimately boils down to was that both sides had so many hitpoints relative to damage dealt that fights went on past tedium and the players weren’t especially threatened by monsters, not even the larger more potent creatures like dragons. This wasn’t the biggest problem in the game by itself though it was one of the biggest. The problem itself was a piece of what made my group walk away from the game but there’s more coming on that front.
While the system worked well in fourth edition it started falling apart after heroic tier, becoming damn near absurd in the epic tier. The problem was twofold on the monster angle, the first was that their hitpoints grew in great leaps and bounds but their damage refused to grow properly with it. This meant that after level 12-14 the fights began to turn into obnoxious slogs. Part of that was also that the amount of damage dealt by the monsters was fairly low compared to what the players had. While I get that this might have been built around the concept that they would deal more damage overall since they could last longer it didn’t really work out that way. I have described the experience as being something closer to trying to peel a really big potato while it occasionally pokes you with a toothpick rather than fighting a dangerous opponent. This made designing and running fights annoying, in many cases the players had functionally won the battle but their opponents were still fairly alive, so I could either simply declare a battle over with there still being a fair amount of creatures on the board or I could run the battle for another half hour. Despite being touted as being faster and more streamlined at higher levels this proved to be false, at least without some kind of aid, I took much longer building and running encounters than I did frequently in third edition.
Fourth edition had managed to mostly rid the game of rocket tag, where monsters and characters would fire off their biggest ability and try to devastate and destroy. This was good in that in theory battles would require more work and thought as well as more teamwork, discouraging lone wolf behavior. Unfortunately what was created in its place might be described as two sumo wrestlers wrapped in pillow armor trying to fight. Battles became annoying at best and frustrating at worst, the only types of monsters that could produce proper levels of damage were solo monsters and those weren’t really meant for constant back to back use. Part of the problem that came with this also is that battles got boring, players weren’t threatened by the monsters and the battles got to be repetitive and the players lost some of the investment. One of my favorite examples from the books is the printed statblock for Orcus, demon prince of the undead. Orcus had well over one thousand hitpoints, however Orcus didn’t really have a whole lot that threatened physically. Yes, he could probably kill at least one character in the party but it wasn’t of the level of threat that one would expect from the mighty demon prince of the undead. They did upgrade him a fair amount in a later published adventure, but in some ways that’s almost worse in that they had to almost entirely rebuild him to make him viable in any ways or means.
The other area where it got weird was that players hitpoints were more stable in increases but only solo monsters were able to take appreciable bites out of their hitpoints and even then it wasn’t always a sure thing. As mentioned before this makes the fights a lot less intense when those involved are able to take dozens or hundreds of hits before going down. While I sort of get the idea that was being pushed, players were supposed to be tougher and battles could last longer as well as more battles occurring during a day, it also gets hard to feel threatened when huge monsters can’t seem to land a reasonable blow on you. Some of the sense of fun in a game comes from there being difficulty, the problem wasn’t so much that the fights were too easy to win but that they were too hard to lose. While they sound similar it’s not really the same, it’s one thing where a fight is balanced somewhat towards the players but still has them at risk where they are likely to win but might end up with one or more characters badly injured or requiring some sort of expenditure of resources. In this version the players were usually able to strike down targets with fairly high speed and ability with relatively little sacrifice, it got worse when there were multiple leaders, IE those who could heal.
What it ultimately boils down to was that both sides had so many hitpoints relative to damage dealt that fights went on past tedium and the players weren’t especially threatened by monsters, not even the larger more potent creatures like dragons. This wasn’t the biggest problem in the game by itself though it was one of the biggest. The problem itself was a piece of what made my group walk away from the game but there’s more coming on that front.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Tricking you into Roleplaying
One thing that some people complain about in RPGs is a lack of roleplaying in their games, IE the players just want to fight or they don't seem to know how to 'play' their characters. Encouraging players that are either disinterested in it or inexperienced can be tricky. They might fear causing trouble in a game or they might not see a point to it. There are little ways, give players some kind of incentive to write backstories or roleplay but of course this can be imperfect as well. Do you reward someone for playing a jerk and how do you avoid players trying to 'game' their histories to justify overpowered things?
Believe it or not Deadlands came up with a way to deal with this again and evne managed to make it integral to the game. It starts in character creation, if you want any of the edges (including arcane backgrounds) you need to take flaws. These flaws offer ways to define a character, are you a drunk, unlucky? Maybe your character is a hero, someone who can't turn down a call for help. Perhaps they're utterly loyal to those around them, willing to follow a close friend to the gates of hell and back. Maybe they have an oath they took to do something or not to do it. In short the flaws represent traits of a character and end up either being a handle that someone can yank or a mechanical risk. There are a few exceptions, Death Wish and arguably Grim Servant o' Death being among them.
The big reason it works is this, it manages to actually sidestep many of the traditional problems in games where flaws exist. Consider games that have flaws, frequently players will either take flaws that are very unlikely to come up (IE the archer sucking at melee or spellcasting), have little impact, or the character might sidestep/ignore some of the social flaws. In Deadlands though things work a little differently, see in Deadlands your flaws can actually be a bit more important than any of your edges, and far more valuable.
In Deadlands you got fate chips three ways. One was simply that everyone drew 3 fate chips from the pot of fate (sometimes more or less depending on edges and flaws). The second was as a reward for defeating challenges based on the difficulty thereof. The final bit, and this is probably the most important, is from having your flaws cause you trouble. See, the more your flaws caused you and your friends trouble the more that fate rewarded you. Get a bit inconvenienced, white chip, get in some trouble you got a red chip, end up in a situation where you nearly died or blew an investigation because of your flaw, blue chip.
This actually did a few things, my own group wasn't huge into roleplay but roleplay, especially roleplay where your flaws got you in trouble, got you more chips that could feed powers, negate wounds, restore wind, or just get turned in for bounty points. Your flaws were a means to grow, sure feel free to take flaws that will rarely ever come up, fine with me, it just means that you won't advance as fast as the other players and that you might run out of chips when you're fighting a group of trigger happy bandits or facing down some hell-spawned abomination. Now on the other hand, maybe someone would take flaws that would make trouble for the group, earn a good chunk of chips but make things terrible for the rest of the group. Well at that point maybe they decide to fit your character with a hemp necktie or just bury them in the desert near an anthill with a trail of honey leading to their mouth. Flaws, and having the flaws affect your character, meant you had to roleplay them, had to take consequences but that you also could get some nice stuff out of it.
The second thing that helps bring roleplay in for the game is simply the Veteran edge. Veterans of the Weird and Wasted West (Or Way Out if you play Lost Colony) had to write a 1-3 page backstory for their character, what they faced, what they learned and generally what they did to earn those extra character points. Now it also comes with a random set of kicks to the head on a special table (but the Marshal is encouraged to come up with something unique if they get an idea that fits better or is more interesting than the stuff on the chart.) The backstory helps them ground themselves a bit in their character, get an idea for who the character is and where they came from. It also helps the Marshal out because they can take elements from the writeup and use it to help make the characters feel more a part of the world. In fact one of my favorite things from the campaign that I'm wrapping up was an enemy of one of the players, an enemy that in fact caused him to start on the path to becoming a Texas Ranger and ultimately to be taken down by the posse (with disturbing ease, I have one helluva tough group)
All of this together makes situations where the players will probably WANT to roleplay. And even if it starts out more as them trying to acquire chips they can come to enjoy interacting with the people that populate the game world. At least that's my view of the whole thing. Many other games I have played that use flaws and similar things have trouble on this front, I think this is part of why I'm such a fan of the classic Deadlands games but any other systems out there that offer this are of interest. Have fun and may you rarely fumble.
Believe it or not Deadlands came up with a way to deal with this again and evne managed to make it integral to the game. It starts in character creation, if you want any of the edges (including arcane backgrounds) you need to take flaws. These flaws offer ways to define a character, are you a drunk, unlucky? Maybe your character is a hero, someone who can't turn down a call for help. Perhaps they're utterly loyal to those around them, willing to follow a close friend to the gates of hell and back. Maybe they have an oath they took to do something or not to do it. In short the flaws represent traits of a character and end up either being a handle that someone can yank or a mechanical risk. There are a few exceptions, Death Wish and arguably Grim Servant o' Death being among them.
The big reason it works is this, it manages to actually sidestep many of the traditional problems in games where flaws exist. Consider games that have flaws, frequently players will either take flaws that are very unlikely to come up (IE the archer sucking at melee or spellcasting), have little impact, or the character might sidestep/ignore some of the social flaws. In Deadlands though things work a little differently, see in Deadlands your flaws can actually be a bit more important than any of your edges, and far more valuable.
In Deadlands you got fate chips three ways. One was simply that everyone drew 3 fate chips from the pot of fate (sometimes more or less depending on edges and flaws). The second was as a reward for defeating challenges based on the difficulty thereof. The final bit, and this is probably the most important, is from having your flaws cause you trouble. See, the more your flaws caused you and your friends trouble the more that fate rewarded you. Get a bit inconvenienced, white chip, get in some trouble you got a red chip, end up in a situation where you nearly died or blew an investigation because of your flaw, blue chip.
This actually did a few things, my own group wasn't huge into roleplay but roleplay, especially roleplay where your flaws got you in trouble, got you more chips that could feed powers, negate wounds, restore wind, or just get turned in for bounty points. Your flaws were a means to grow, sure feel free to take flaws that will rarely ever come up, fine with me, it just means that you won't advance as fast as the other players and that you might run out of chips when you're fighting a group of trigger happy bandits or facing down some hell-spawned abomination. Now on the other hand, maybe someone would take flaws that would make trouble for the group, earn a good chunk of chips but make things terrible for the rest of the group. Well at that point maybe they decide to fit your character with a hemp necktie or just bury them in the desert near an anthill with a trail of honey leading to their mouth. Flaws, and having the flaws affect your character, meant you had to roleplay them, had to take consequences but that you also could get some nice stuff out of it.
The second thing that helps bring roleplay in for the game is simply the Veteran edge. Veterans of the Weird and Wasted West (Or Way Out if you play Lost Colony) had to write a 1-3 page backstory for their character, what they faced, what they learned and generally what they did to earn those extra character points. Now it also comes with a random set of kicks to the head on a special table (but the Marshal is encouraged to come up with something unique if they get an idea that fits better or is more interesting than the stuff on the chart.) The backstory helps them ground themselves a bit in their character, get an idea for who the character is and where they came from. It also helps the Marshal out because they can take elements from the writeup and use it to help make the characters feel more a part of the world. In fact one of my favorite things from the campaign that I'm wrapping up was an enemy of one of the players, an enemy that in fact caused him to start on the path to becoming a Texas Ranger and ultimately to be taken down by the posse (with disturbing ease, I have one helluva tough group)
All of this together makes situations where the players will probably WANT to roleplay. And even if it starts out more as them trying to acquire chips they can come to enjoy interacting with the people that populate the game world. At least that's my view of the whole thing. Many other games I have played that use flaws and similar things have trouble on this front, I think this is part of why I'm such a fan of the classic Deadlands games but any other systems out there that offer this are of interest. Have fun and may you rarely fumble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
