You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Demonic Pact
- Thread starter Style
- Start date
But will there be no repercussions to the PC that killed another PC?
That begs the question of whether that PC actually deserves repercussions? should he be punished for acting in character? i would say no. to the sorcerer PC who got killed its a bit of a 'toughen up princess' moment where he went outside of what the group thought acceptable and paid the price.
I really don't think repercussions are the way to solve the problem. A genuine concensus by all parties to put the episode behind them and move on, with the player of the slain sorcerer being allowed to create a new character of equivalentl ability and an agreement from the group that pvp will in future be discussed amongst the whole group before it becomes part of the game lest the campaign fall apart and friendships be soured by what is after all only a game.
The reason I brought up repercussions is because the other PC still took part in PvP in what is supposed to be a cooperative hobby. Vincent said on pg 2 that he would've taken both PCs out of the game which I think is a reasonable approach to avoid simmering thoughts of VENGEANCE and future game disruptions. YMMV. :wink:
My understanding from what Style wrote was that the attack was both in character and provoked after warning had been served.
Better by far to have talked it through out of character first but personally I don't think anything is served assigning blame now - moving forward in such a way that the situation does not arise in the same way again must be key and all parties, gm, the two players concerned and the other players too should really treat this unfortunate event as what some people might call a 'learning experience' but I would call a salutary lesson...
I don't think the pvp is the problem because I've been in games where pvp worked extremely well and to the satisfaction of all parties. I think it's the fact that there was a failure of communication and a difference in expectations/perceptions of what was happening both between characters and between the members of Style's group.
Better by far to have talked it through out of character first but personally I don't think anything is served assigning blame now - moving forward in such a way that the situation does not arise in the same way again must be key and all parties, gm, the two players concerned and the other players too should really treat this unfortunate event as what some people might call a 'learning experience' but I would call a salutary lesson...
I don't think the pvp is the problem because I've been in games where pvp worked extremely well and to the satisfaction of all parties. I think it's the fact that there was a failure of communication and a difference in expectations/perceptions of what was happening both between characters and between the members of Style's group.
It is very much a play style issue.
Personally I can see both arguments.
I'm generally inclined to think, like most things, it is relative to the group you play with. Personally my preference, as I've said, is to try and prevent PVP in a tabletop setting. Online I tend to be less shy about it, but in a table-top setting you have to be more concious of people's feelings/reactions... or generally speaking, immaturity as players. ( Not that we all haven't had characters we were attached to. I know I have. Le Sigh. )
My point I suppose is that, while it sounds to me like the sorcerer had a large hand in drawing the negative attention to himself that caused his death, there are really two underlying issues here.
The first is IC party cohesion, the second is the group's OOC understanding/agreement concerning PVP.
Concerning IC cohesion, I think there is an often overlooked element in character creation as a group of making characters that fit together as a group. Of course no one like being told what they should make as a character... but this is a real concern for the life of the game. As a GM I tend to tell people I don't care what anyone plays, but I want them to start the game already being on decent terms with one another and with a reason to know each other/work together etc. Nothing else really matters to me, they can play whatever they want as long as they build a 'group' rather than a random selection of characters than then have to work together more for OOC reasons than IC. I think this is important, and my general feeling is that there was a lack of this cohesion effort somewhere in this group of characters. Probably on the part of the sorcerer himself.
On the PVP issue... I agree with the others. This should be discussed in greater detail and the group should have an established policy/ruling concerning it to prevent any further mishaps.
Personally I can see both arguments.
I'm generally inclined to think, like most things, it is relative to the group you play with. Personally my preference, as I've said, is to try and prevent PVP in a tabletop setting. Online I tend to be less shy about it, but in a table-top setting you have to be more concious of people's feelings/reactions... or generally speaking, immaturity as players. ( Not that we all haven't had characters we were attached to. I know I have. Le Sigh. )
My point I suppose is that, while it sounds to me like the sorcerer had a large hand in drawing the negative attention to himself that caused his death, there are really two underlying issues here.
The first is IC party cohesion, the second is the group's OOC understanding/agreement concerning PVP.
Concerning IC cohesion, I think there is an often overlooked element in character creation as a group of making characters that fit together as a group. Of course no one like being told what they should make as a character... but this is a real concern for the life of the game. As a GM I tend to tell people I don't care what anyone plays, but I want them to start the game already being on decent terms with one another and with a reason to know each other/work together etc. Nothing else really matters to me, they can play whatever they want as long as they build a 'group' rather than a random selection of characters than then have to work together more for OOC reasons than IC. I think this is important, and my general feeling is that there was a lack of this cohesion effort somewhere in this group of characters. Probably on the part of the sorcerer himself.
On the PVP issue... I agree with the others. This should be discussed in greater detail and the group should have an established policy/ruling concerning it to prevent any further mishaps.
So I called the player of the sorcerer the other day. After a few days to cool off, he was talking much more reasonably. He had no desire to retaliate against the PC who killed him off. His next character would be a team player, and would not be out to avenge his last character.
However, he did mention that his old PC would have done what ever he could to avenge himself, including summoning the demon, but that he didn't believe in "take backs", that his PC was still dead. I said "OK, well last session ended with your character being killed and his slayer standing over him. We could start next session with the demon manifesting, and attacking your slayer. This is your PC's last shot at revenge though. If the demon kills off your slayer, so be it, but if he doesn't then your next PC will NOT enter the game with any agenda vs the slayer." To which he replied "No, no, I don't want the demon to kill him! I don't want his character to die! Don't bother summoning the demon." So I said "OK, well, you can still summon the demon, but we just won't role any dice, we'll just talk our way through the encounter. The demon will attack and hurt the slayer, but the character will some how survive the encounter."
I still plan to talk to the group about what went wrong and how it can be avoided, but the good news is disaster has apparently been avoided. It doesn't look like I will lose any players over this one.
However, he did mention that his old PC would have done what ever he could to avenge himself, including summoning the demon, but that he didn't believe in "take backs", that his PC was still dead. I said "OK, well last session ended with your character being killed and his slayer standing over him. We could start next session with the demon manifesting, and attacking your slayer. This is your PC's last shot at revenge though. If the demon kills off your slayer, so be it, but if he doesn't then your next PC will NOT enter the game with any agenda vs the slayer." To which he replied "No, no, I don't want the demon to kill him! I don't want his character to die! Don't bother summoning the demon." So I said "OK, well, you can still summon the demon, but we just won't role any dice, we'll just talk our way through the encounter. The demon will attack and hurt the slayer, but the character will some how survive the encounter."
I still plan to talk to the group about what went wrong and how it can be avoided, but the good news is disaster has apparently been avoided. It doesn't look like I will lose any players over this one.
Yeah, thanks.
By the way, I wanted the demon to make an appearance anyway so as to finger the dead sorcerer beyond any doubt to the rest of the party, so that there would be no reason for the remaining PCs to not trust the slayer. He did just kill a party member, after all. A shady party member, but still a party member.
By the way, I wanted the demon to make an appearance anyway so as to finger the dead sorcerer beyond any doubt to the rest of the party, so that there would be no reason for the remaining PCs to not trust the slayer. He did just kill a party member, after all. A shady party member, but still a party member.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
Hm, interesting twist there.
I have always discouraged players from choosing a Demonic Pact for their Sorcerer. It's simply desaster waiting to happen, in exactly the same scenario that just happened in Style's group. Sorcerer takes it too far, Honourable char won't be having with it, and the fur is gonna fly.
So I've always told players (well, there were two who were interested in it) that Demonic Pact is a valid rule and thus I won't downright forbid them to take it, but they have to expect trouble with the rest of the party, up to the possibility of getting killed by another PC, and I don't want to hear any whining about it.
Also, every player is responsible for creating a character that can be justified to travel and adventure with the other characters.
Concerning PvP in general, I don't want it in my games. And so far I've only had it once, but that was a different story. But I can imagine very well that it can lead to hard feelings, because nobody likes losing their character.
I have always discouraged players from choosing a Demonic Pact for their Sorcerer. It's simply desaster waiting to happen, in exactly the same scenario that just happened in Style's group. Sorcerer takes it too far, Honourable char won't be having with it, and the fur is gonna fly.
So I've always told players (well, there were two who were interested in it) that Demonic Pact is a valid rule and thus I won't downright forbid them to take it, but they have to expect trouble with the rest of the party, up to the possibility of getting killed by another PC, and I don't want to hear any whining about it.
Also, every player is responsible for creating a character that can be justified to travel and adventure with the other characters.
Concerning PvP in general, I don't want it in my games. And so far I've only had it once, but that was a different story. But I can imagine very well that it can lead to hard feelings, because nobody likes losing their character.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Clovenhoof said:Hm, interesting twist there.
I have always discouraged players from choosing a Demonic Pact for their Sorcerer. It's simply desaster waiting to happen, in exactly the same scenario that just happened in Style's group. Sorcerer takes it too far, Honourable char won't be having with it, and the fur is gonna fly.
So I've always told players (well, there were two who were interested in it) that Demonic Pact is a valid rule and thus I won't downright forbid them to take it, but they have to expect trouble with the rest of the party, up to the possibility of getting killed by another PC, and I don't want to hear any whining about it.
Also, every player is responsible for creating a character that can be justified to travel and adventure with the other characters.
Concerning PvP in general, I don't want it in my games. And so far I've only had it once, but that was a different story. But I can imagine very well that it can lead to hard feelings, because nobody likes losing their character.
The number one rule is to have fun. To that end, I consider it each player's responsibility to do what they can to make the game fun for everyone else (this includes playing the straight man to someone else's shenanigans). A properly played evil character can be incredibly fun. I've played evil characters who had the other players rolling on the ground laughing - and I mean really evil characters.
But doing this requires the cooperation of everyone at the table, including the GM, and this level of cooperation isn't all that common.
So, if you are willing to take on the responsibility of making sure that other players are having fun, if you can get the support of everyone at your table, then play an evil character. It's a blast when done right.
If you are playing an evil character as an excuse to screw over the other players, then don't (unless the other players are good sports and accept being screwed over).
I think it's just that simple.
I'd tend to agree with LT there. Though I would also posit that most games, especially in conan, tend to seem to have a bit more depth with some of what we think of as evil is going on in the group, rather than it all just being npcs.
You can distance yourself from NPCs. Then the 'evil' is a part of the setting, but ... us? We are the good guys, right?
Not in the Hyborian Age.
Having an 'evil' kind of sorcerer guy, including one with a demonic pact, as a PC adds to the game IMO. It brings those elements out of the setting and into the foreground, making them more vivid IMO.
You can distance yourself from NPCs. Then the 'evil' is a part of the setting, but ... us? We are the good guys, right?
Not in the Hyborian Age.
Having an 'evil' kind of sorcerer guy, including one with a demonic pact, as a PC adds to the game IMO. It brings those elements out of the setting and into the foreground, making them more vivid IMO.
LilithsThrall said:If you are playing an evil character as an excuse to screw over the other players, then don't (unless the other players are good sports and accept being screwed over).
I think it's just that simple.
The slayer completely thought the sorcerer was out to screw over the rest of the party, and not with out reason...
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Style said:LilithsThrall said:If you are playing an evil character as an excuse to screw over the other players, then don't (unless the other players are good sports and accept being screwed over).
I think it's just that simple.
The slayer completely thought the sorcerer was out to screw over the rest of the party, and not with out reason...
Playing leisure room referee here, it sounds to me like there are some underlying issues of trust between the players which led to this problem.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
One can't go without the other. If players can trust each other, then they can trust that the other's character won't screw your character over.
Clovenhoof
Mongoose
That all depends on the degree of screwing-over that takes place. If my character gets conned into a quest he wouldn't normally take, that's fine. If he gets cheated out of some reward, that can also be amusing. But if he finds himself being sacrificed to a demon because Master demands his Tithe, that's not funny anymore, no matter how character-driven the decision is.
But that's rather my point. A character may well feel that he is in danger from the demon that the sorcerer associates with when his player knows there is really no such danger.
In this instance as it seems to me the sorcerer's player was thinking 'It's okay because pvp is taboo so my character can do as he pleases (and that won't involve the other pcs being killed)' whereas the other player was thinking 'there's no way my character is going to let himself become potential demon fodder. I'll give the sorcerer clear warning and then take action if I must'
Difference in expectations/perceptions and a lack of clear communication. Not a lack of player trust.
In this instance as it seems to me the sorcerer's player was thinking 'It's okay because pvp is taboo so my character can do as he pleases (and that won't involve the other pcs being killed)' whereas the other player was thinking 'there's no way my character is going to let himself become potential demon fodder. I'll give the sorcerer clear warning and then take action if I must'
Difference in expectations/perceptions and a lack of clear communication. Not a lack of player trust.
LilithsThrall
Mongoose
Demetrio said:But that's rather my point. A character may well feel that he is in danger from the demon that the sorcerer associates with when his player knows there is really no such danger.
In this instance as it seems to me the sorcerer's player was thinking 'It's okay because pvp is taboo so my character can do as he pleases (and that won't involve the other pcs being killed)' whereas the other player was thinking 'there's no way my character is going to let himself become potential demon fodder. I'll give the sorcerer clear warning and then take action if I must'
Difference in expectations/perceptions and a lack of clear communication. Not a lack of player trust.
Seriously, being afraid that the other player is going to reduce your fun by turning your character into demon fodder is a lack of trust.
What did I say? I said that the number one rule is to have fun. I said that it is each player's first responsibility to make sure that everyone else is having fun. You are describing a fear-based situation in which the players don't trust each other to live up to that first responsibility. In an environment with such a lack of trust you should avoid evil PCs.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 1K
