Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kisama 01-14-05, 12:31 PM	I'm looking for input on an idea I have. Eberron seems to me to be mainly about good players fighting evil. While it is possible to have evil PC's in the game, I think the campaign was build largely around the theme of the players fighting on the side of morality. However, without using alignment as a straight-jacket means of keeping the PC's in check. How do you ensure the PC's stay on the straight and narrow path of morality? The problem I keep seeing in most games is once the PC's realise they are a cut well above the average person in the game, they begin to get a chip on their shoulders. They start doing things like challenging and questioning authority, not fearing reprisal for committing crimes, using brute force to overcome obstacles and opponents rather than negotiation, etc. Players who tend to munchkin their characters for combat are the most prone to being the first ones to use combat to resolve issues. The common tactic for DM's to prevent their games from escalating into a game of might makes right is to stack cities and regular encounters with high level NPC's in order to ensure the players stay in line. This is something I want to avoid though as I think it ruins the flavor of the game. As I said ealier, I find alignment to be a bad way to curb this kind of thing. Honestly there are only a small number of classes who really have to worry about their alignment, and my players tend to avoid those classes a lot. I have an idea on how to curb amorality on the side of players and would like to hear from the rest of you on the idea. I want to borrow the Karma system from Shadowrun and apply that to Action Points. Karma in Shadowrun is awarded to players for doing good things, they are able to use Karma for the same purpose as Action Points in D&D. What I am thinking of doing is awarding action points the same way Karma are awarded in SR. Here is how the system would work: Players are no longer awarded their full alotment of action points when they level. Instead Action Points are awarded to them for such things as: helping others in need, avoiding combat when possible, advancing the story, working as a team, etc. The players will still have a maximum number of Action Points they can have in their bank each level but it's no longer a "given" that they will have the points replenished when they level. Instead they need to earn them as they go along. Action points are always awarded at the end of the game session along with XP. The benefit I see to this is it encourages the players to look for ways to effect change for good in their world as they become more powerfull rather than just devolve into bullies. Some examples: 1. The players brought a local villain to justice for commiting a crime. They might earn xp for defeating the enemy. However in doing so, they decided to use a chain of fireball and other destructive spells recklessly in the fight to subdue the villain and as a result injured and/or killed a few bystanders in the process. For this, they get no action points, what they did was bad Karma so to speak. 2. Before entering a small town, the players are pulled over by the local guard and asked to hand over all their weapons and equipment. The PC's are guaranteed their equipment will be returned to them when they leave. The PC's are level 6 and the guards are only level 1, as such the PC's could probably bully their way past the guards and really not worry about reprisal. If they decide to comply and hand over their stuff rather than get into a conflict. This is good Karma, and they earn a point each for their deeds. If they decide not to comply with the local law, then that is bad Karma, and the players don't earn any action points for this. 3. The players confront a church official who they suspect is corrupt. The official admits to them in private that they are correct but then gloats that without any proof they really cannot do anything. If the players decide to kill the official or harm him then that's really bad Karma and the DM could deduct some action points from them. If on the other hand, they set about collecting evidence which they need in order to prove his guilt and then later bring him to justice, well kudos to them for doing the right thing and how about some action points for the effort. You should get the idea by now. The drawback and I'm not so sure it really is a drawback is that the PC's could potentially be a very good people and have more actions points to spend in a level then was originally intended by the rules. What I mean is a player could spend a couple of points in an adventure, complete some really good task, earn more points at the end of the adventure (without necessarily leveling) and then be back at full action points for the next game. I've thought about this and I don't really see it as a problem because the advanges outweight the drawbacks. The advantages to this system is the players are encouraged to do good deeds, which means your modules will flow much more smoothly in the long run. Your story hooks will be easier to introduce, which makes your job easier as a DM overall. So what the heck, reward the PC's and let everyone have their fun. You'll also find your really good players taking way more risks burning their action points more and showing more bravado in the game because they know there's something in it for them in the end. Again, what's wrong with that, it's what Eberron is all about right? With this system you can still keep alignments in game, and still have them blurred. This is system is just an incentive for players to do the right thing. Also you can still have evil-aligned players in your campaign, however those players may notice they are earning far less action points than the rest of the party who might be more morally inclined. SR has a means of overcoming this problem but I won't go into it unless someone asks. What do you think?
Lara Flynn 01-14-05, 12:57 PM	I don't like rule systems to keep my players in line. But that's only my two cents. I don't have problems with my players going rogue all the day. Most of them simply despise playing slaughterers all the day. Most people aren't completely evil - especially not in Eberron. Every coin has two sides. When my players start to get too much of some pretty bad asses, they have to deal with the consequences. True, Eberron is a low-level npc world, but there are lots of npcs. If teh pcs start getting a hindrance to all of them - well, they get marked and hunted by the five nations. A pretty tough task to escape... Let's put it that way - even most evil characters in Eberron stick to some basic rules, because they can be stopped. And there aren't too many evil characters who are that inherently evil and strong enough to conquer the world. The daughters of Sora Kell can't conquer Khorvaire and if someone keeps up playing big boss in Sharn, there are more than enough guys to show him his rightful place. So in Eberron I normally don't have a problem with too evil characters. My players generally prefer to play more "experiencable" characters who stick more to the pulb noir ideal and the more realistic persons attached to it - in comparison to high fantasy high magic settings with quite clear concepts of good and evil. They are good and evil, some are a little more evil, but not to the core. So it's mostly the setting itself and the feeling my players have for this setting which makes them stick to certain rules, though they could surely break them for a (long) while, seeming overly powerful. So I'd say: Try to "domesticate" your players via the setting. It's fun and it works. And it does not require even more rules than you need anyway.
Golbez57 01-14-05, 01:06 PM	It's and interesting check, but I'm not so sure that it'll balance out "bad karma" versus "good karma" behavior in the end. From the third paragraph, I get the impression that this isn't so much a means to reward heroic play as it is an attempt to curb the "munchkin" play of the people with whom you share a gaming table. Working from that premise, imagine the following happening during scenario #3: Player: "Heck, let's take this guy out. He's twisted, man." DM: "The cleric senses your intent and pulls back, ready to mount a defense against you... or perhaps a magical offense. Roll for initiative." [Not long afterwards] DM: "Okay, the numbness that threatened to paralyze you soon passes, and it is your turn to act, [Fighter]. You unsheathe your sword and advance on him. Are you sure you want to just cut him down?" *points towards the Action Points section of [Fighter]'s character sheet* Player: "Heh, I'm only 750 XP from next level where I'll get them all back, anyway. And those gricks we killed in the drainage system are probably enough by themselves. OH! Guys, we'd better go get revenge on that one merchant who screwed us, too, before we get XP. I'll take him out, so you don't have to worry." DM: "...." This isn't meant to be insulting to you or your players, but just something I can see as a natural consequence of building in an Action Points-for-good-deeds-and-loss-for-bad-deeds system. I like to build in natural (or, sometimes, on-the-fly) negative story consequences for desctructive and unheroic behavior instead. For instance, a child acolyte might be seen standing in the doorway, mouth agape, as the "heroes" finish off the priest... and then he runs away, certainly to warn others. Or, as they loot the body of the shady merchant, they discover that he wears no fewer than eight silver rings, four on each hand. Few players will be so callous as to slay a child, and few veteran Eberron characters will take lightly the ire of the Aurum. If you do use this system, please check back in here and let us know how the players (and the actions of their characters) respond to it, kisama.
kisama 01-14-05, 01:16 PM	So when your players decided they wanted to keep the soulblade for themselved you said?... I understand what you're saying and if your players are the sort who are easy to reason with then great I wish I could borrow your players for a week. Some players don't reason very well though. I'm sorry if I was not clear but I'm suggesting this ruleset for those DM's out there who have players who are not so easy to work with. If your players accept that evil characters in Eberron still have some rules they need to stick to then that is good. But when they don't what do you do? For instance, how do you keep a game from devolving into a Bonnie and Clyde adventure accross Khorvair because one of your players just doesn't understand why he can't slaughter the city guard captain and his men for pulling out their swords when he approached the gate one dark evening?
Lara Flynn 01-14-05, 01:50 PM	That's easy. If Bonnie and Clyde kill the watch captain they'll be arrested. If they resist they slaughter a lot of soldiers. If they do it will call stronger soldiers on the screen. They'll be slaughtered too. Eventually they'll manage to slaughter a lot of opponents this way. And while they certainly can eradicate whole hamlets this won't work with big towns. And if they do it with a lot of hamlets, people will hear rumors and rumors will call adventurers on the screen. And if those don't come back it will call others on the screen. Eventually Bonnie and Clyde died, because there was too much attention. Too many forces to deal with. Eberron is a huge world, but thanks to the Houses one cannot hide easily. Fact is: They'd end up plain dead sooner or later. If your players like being Bonnie and Clyde, this kind of campaign is perfectly right to my mind. If you don't, do it meta. Tell your players what the setting is about because you play a setting because it's this specific setting with this unique flavor. If your players still want to slaughter everything -well, let them do. Sooner or later there is one rule which always comes into effect: There's always someone stronger. And while Eberron lacks El or the like, it has a whole island of dragons. Think of this island of dragons suddenly coming to the decision that the players somehow warp the prophecy in a way that was never ment to be. Big trouble for every player... And it's fun for nearly no player I've ever known to be hunted by a pack of dragons until he dies. In short: If your players are really such munchkins that they don't see the point of Eberron, don't play Eberron with them. The players are ment to be heros as well as powerful. I've stopped playing with people who frequently spoil this in order to simply do so. - And I really feel sorry for every DM who has to take such pains. Send your players playing Diablo II for a while. When they grow tired of slaughtering all the time - start with DnD again. :) Apart from that: I think that your system could bring some reason into munchkin players. This could also be achieved if you specifically design adventurers this way. For example: Whispers of the Vampire's Blade. Lucan should be brought home alive. Make it mandatory. If the PC's get penalties in money, items and such you don't even need a system to make them a bit more reasonable. (But yes, your system should work as well. It reminds me of Star Wars and Force Points. It's just that I can't stand such systems but I'm too much of what one might call a "true roleplayer", another category of munchkins so to speak. ;))
Streamweaver 01-14-05, 01:55 PM	I sit down with my players and talk about the kind of story I'm going to run. We get to the basic idea of mood and theme. I usually say outright to people who want to join my game that I don't mind shades of gray or ambiguity but in the end I run stories about heros. So if they are dealing with those gray areas of morality on their way to being a hero that is fine, but I'm not really interested in running a game about very selfish or evil people. Establishing the tone of the game before starting is very important.
kisama 01-14-05, 03:15 PM	LOL golbez you're giving me flashbacks to when I was a kid. Thanks for the input guys. I'll let you know if it pans out or not.
Myrddin Wyllt 01-14-05, 04:09 PM	That's easy. If Bonnie and Clyde kill the watch captain they'll be arrested. If they resist they slaughter a lot of soldiers. If they do it will call stronger soldiers on the screen. They'll be slaughtered too. Eventually they'll manage to slaughter a lot of opponents this way. So, that doesn't mean they have to GAIN experience points. If you've killed one guard, how much experience should killing another one be worth? If you're on a mission to do X, but you do Y instead, how much experience is that worth? Hit 'em where it really counts. Penalize them with experience points when they misbehave. Don't ever subtract XP for anything not in the rules, but that doesn't mean you have to reward them for bad behavior, either. When they whine (and they will, oh yes!) just tell 'em that if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing (i.e. following the story line and acting like heroes, not villains), they would be getting XP. Of course, this all hinges on the starting game conversation including something like this: DM: You guys are heroes, fighting against <<insert evil forces or concept here>>. Players: We agree to your concept Without this conversation, "...you're just a jerk-DM who is railroading us poor stupid players." Moreover, "the players are just a bunch of chaotic nellys who can't follow a simple guideline made by my glorious mind." Dangerous road to walk my friend. Just TALK TO YOUR PLAYERS OUT OF GAME.
ChronosCrow 01-14-05, 06:39 PM	Here's what I do: First off I don't allow any evil alignments. If your character becomes evil, or is acting too evil for the alignment switch, then I take your character. I like my games neutral to good and my PC's know that. THey keep it that way too. Another way is I have a house rule made up by a friend of mine: The Alignment system checker you have 2 rows, each row has a buch of dots or tick marsk to look at ||||G||||N||||E|||| ||||L||||N||||C|||| G=good N=neutral E=Evil L=lawful N=neutral C=chaotic if my PC is just starting the game and their alignment is Lawful good he starts right at G and L. Through the course of the game if they do more good acts she'll move closer to the left on the first scale. When you get to the pinnical of either point of the scale then you get a certain bonus. I think it was like +2 to some of your skills or attack bonuses. If you change alignment dramatically without talking to me about it during game, say a change from Good to Neutral, then you loose a level until you either adjust to you're new alignment, which takes time, or you go and do something perpousfully to get the alignment back. It's up to the DM to judge what is good/neutral/evil/chaotic/lawful so at times it might be hard.
Siberys 01-15-05, 11:21 AM	Okay, I do allow evil characters. only in eberron, though. and then there are no CE characters. CE is all about Slaughter, Slaughter, Slaughter. You wanna do that, play a Video Game. However, other evil characters (Particularly LE ones) tend to be more Complex. your traditional "Raistlin Majere/Sell all of your Souls for more power" kinda guy is great for Eberron. The only problem is munchkinizing. If a player of mine starts killing peasants for no reason, No more character. Of course, I mainly allow LE and NE for roleplaying purposes only. My :twocents:
Gurv 01-15-05, 11:43 AM	Forget alignment. Alignment is a tool for the DM to use to decide who is affected by various spells, weapons, etc. This is even more the case in Eberron, where even a cleric can slide in alignment as long as he remains true to his cause. What you should be focusing on is the cause. If someone is playing an evil character who nevertheless goes along with the party, keeps disruptions to a roleplaying-style minimum, and completes the goals of the adventure without robbing the DM and other players of their fun...well let him. The antiheroes of Eberron are awesome! The question is: do your players know what the goal is? It may seem incredibly obvious to the DM what the goal of the game is, but it is never going to be that clear to the players. Some players never learn to ask themselves "What does the DM want us to do here?" and some never seem to realize that there IS a goal to the game. Other than character death, some players have no idea that they can fail at all. I would suggest switching to rewarding the players for accomplishing goals rather than for defeating monsters and overcoming challenges. In other words, tell them that overcoming challenges will not be rewarded unless it in some way directly advances the plot. Tell them what the plot is. Although your karma idea isn't entirely bad, I would do it the other way. Instead of denying AP and doling them out when the players do right, let them have their AP. Give bonus AP when the players advance the plot, maybe more than one if their actions are truely impressive (they're expendable resources anyway).
Jarlaxle_The_Rogue 01-15-05, 12:23 PM	The Karma idea is interesting but I think it would have the potential destroy you PCs. But do your action points stay with you when you level up.
Jarlaxle_The_Rogue 01-15-05, 12:26 PM	The Karma idea is interesting but I think it would have the potential destroy you PCs. Instead of giving 5them AP when they do good deeds give them all thier AP at the begaining of level but take away Ap for bad deeds.
My Lego 01-15-05, 04:11 PM	Have you ever tried just rolling with the tide? Letting the players play the characters the way they want? This work suprisingly well if the whole group agrees on what kind of evil they want to propagate and gives them a chance of playing the bad guys. Let people cower in fear, let them demand things, let them fight inexperinced adventuring groups and run from powerful ones, make them realize that they need a criminal organization to back them up or every one will try to bite their pinky off. Basically roll with it, if it doesn't work out you could always call it quits but trust me you may be surpriced. :shocked:
therazoreater 01-15-05, 04:29 PM	And remember just because their aren't a lot of high level NPC's in eberron, doesn't mean their aren't enough benevolent heroes out there to give the pc's some difficulty. If they get evil enough, you can have them hunted by the followers of the Silver Flame. Torture, burned at the stake, yes yes. As far as the karma style rule, I don't see where it could be a problem. I am biased, being a Shadowrun fan and all.
JabBond 01-15-05, 05:05 PM	One adjustment you might need to make to the Karma AP system: Don't reset the APs at the beginning of each level. Let them carry over! After all, good deeds (or bad) can affect your reputation for a long time. That way, the ones who do not strive for good lack the resources of those who are solving problems the way you'd like. But, you do need to make this clear to your players. If they really want to play evil-ish, you will take away quite a bit of their fun. If they're willing to give it a try, make sure you represent their deeds with non-treasure rewards as well... for example: DM: hey, John, for negotiating travel through the barbarians' tribal grounds without shedding blood, you get an AP. The tribe shaman gives you a small medallion to show you are a friend of this group. +1 to your Cha skills relating to them.
misanthropictodd 01-15-05, 06:55 PM	having played shadowrun before.. the karma system may work.. however i have played with a couple of players who did not find it much of a detterant it has already been said that you should talk to your players about the style of campaign you guys want to play... now i have to get ready for a 2-3 hour debate :banghead: about the direction of our campaign ugqqqx evil characters are not the worst problem you can have. egocentric players are fun to:nonono:
BullyBoy 01-15-05, 07:23 PM	I want to borrow the Karma system from Shadowrun and apply that to Action Points. Karma in Shadowrun is awarded to players for doing good things, they are able to use Karma for the same purpose as Action Points in D&D. This is similar to how Action Points are used in the d20 AEG book "Good". Rather than rewarding characters for doing good things, it rewards them for doing heroic things. So paying for a month's food for some ophans wont gain you an Action Point, but running into a burning building to save them will. I had a similar problem, where I specified to the players that they should make their characters heroes. Once we started playing, one of the characters was being played pretty evil. He assaulted a shop keeper and robbed him, in order to save a few gold coins. My response was two-fold. Firstly, I took the player aside, after the game, and explained to him that his character is starting to become too disruptive, which is what I was trying to avoid. Secondly, when the characters came back into that area of town, the city-watch was waiting for them. The whole party was basically ambushed and thrown in jail - no explaination, no trial. The shopkeeper was then allowed to take what he wanted out of their possessions in compensation. Their patron bailed them out, in return for a favour. When the rest of the party found out that all this was because of the actions of one character, the went nasty on his ass (especially the party cleric)... That character learnt a valuable lesson that day - that there are too many repurcussions for such evil acts.