Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aethan 04-02-07, 07:41 PM	Okay, so no spoilers here, but... In the latest CoS game I ran there was a point at which the PCs became divided on the fate of an NPC. Two of the party wanted him alive, three of them wanted him dead, and one abstained (due to unconsciousness.) This is very typical of the CoS games we play, which often have a couple of Children of Xoriat amongst them. The Children often end up short-circuiting what everyone else is trying to do, because in the middle of negotiations, they attack the NPC the others are talking to, and so on. Short of making sure that these PCs don't play together, can anyone suggest how they've handled this at their own games? It's unrealistic to assume that the more reasonable PCs would continue to go on missions with the more un-reasonable ones. Sure, I could say, "Sorry, these are your marching orders," but that leads to disatisfied players. Can anyone offer some advice on other possible ways to handle this kind of situation?
Peter_Seckler 04-02-07, 08:12 PM	(If it's the CS mod I'm thinking of, the conflict was probably between Instruments of Change and Mourners. Although, man, the Children of Xoriat are pretty much insane.) ANYhow, I agree with you. I didn't like to see the players fighting over the fate of the NPC like that. I GM'd that mod (if this is the one I think it is) 4 times, and there was kind of a show-stopper nearly everytime that almost got to be a source of OOC conflict and argument. One time, eventually they had knocked (the NPC) out while they argued over his fate. And then one guy finally relented and said he'd go along with the plan to let him be imprisoned.. and then kinda slunk back into the shadows. Then as they were preparing to move out, he suddenly came back and stabbed the (unconscious) NPC! I don't *see* an alternate tactic in this particular mod to avoiding the situation, and I just kinda white-knuckled it each time hoping my table didn't suddenly explode into a nerd-riot. :) Hopefully Greg will have mercy on us in the future and allow for the Obscura to somehow continue to screw each other over, but secretly.
pedr 04-02-07, 09:10 PM	Well as this is being discussed again, I'd like to suggest a change from the 'no PvP' rule to a rule similar to Living Greyhawk's new rule: No attacking another PC with intent to cause serious or permanent harm, without the other player's consent. Other PvP is essentially OK - grappling, tripping, non-lethal damage etc. Of course the trouble with this is that it gives the 'strong' PCs the upper hand - but perhaps that is good for verisimilitude: if you can't pull off your faction's/Obscurum's goals then the goals will be foiled. I am not sure if it makes for good RPGA play or not - perhaps we'll look back on XE as an experiment! - but it doesn't just happen with an 'evil is OK' campaign: there's lots of discussion/criticism of certain LG mods at the moment where intra-party conflict is part of the set-up. I just think that if you have that set-up, you have to allow the PCs the flexibility to act in character. It's somewhat ridiculous to have a situation where person A has the mcguffin, person B and the rest of the party are 10x stronger than person A, but the campaign rules provide no way for the party to get the mcguffin from person A.
Xandore 04-09-07, 11:59 AM	Possible spoilers (I don't think really, but some people freak if you read the one liner under a movie title). I would rather there either be no internal conflict allowed within a group period, or PvP allowed so I can eliminate the problem. The last adventure (Night of Shadows I think it was called) I pretty much wanted to just get to the objectives, but some of the others wanted to spend 3 to 4 hours gathering information. From what happened after all the time spent it seemed to have ZERO impact on the encounters. Now I saw this happening after around 20 minutes and wrote a note to the DM detailing what I would be doing. Then two of the other players started plotting against my character so I decided not to rejoin the group as I had planned. When the adventure was over and the DM told them I wouldn't be arrested, they then complained I shouldn't receive credit for the adventure then. I felt I did indirectly participate with adding chaos to the adventure (burned down 12 buildings). I had intended to rejoin the group until I found they were planning on setting me up. So I would like if this sort of thing were not permitted or if it is then allow me to attack and if possible kill their characters. My character doesn't like the indirect backstabbing that apparently is permitted, but prefers more direct action. On a positive note one of the other players disliked the backstabbing enough that he left evidence of both of them at one or more of the crime scenes. I've been both DMing and playing in games since 1979. I have found nothing ruins a game faster than infighting. I quite DMing 2 groups because of infighting and have dropped out of a few games as a player because of it.
Timlagor 04-26-07, 03:24 PM	I agree entirely that any game which fosters infighting should allow that fighting to actually occur. I have no problem with PCs being set against each other so long as any pressure for them not to kill each other off comes from inside the game world and the players understand the situation from the beginning (and they are mature about it). In this case I have no problem with the Cabal ordering its members not to kill (or even hurt) each other but that shouldn't automatically make it impossible ..especially when your Obscura would (quietly) approve you actions even while you were rebuked by the Cabal as a whole.
Skerrit 04-26-07, 08:05 PM	I would agree with you if all players were mature. In the end they won't be, and someone will use it as an excuse to target other players they do not like, or sensitive players might end with up very hurt feelings if things go poorly and their PC dies. These are situations we must deal with. The nature of an evil organization, and part of the fun, is the fact that its members are sometimes their own worst enemies. It's part of what sets the Cabal apart from the other factions. Unfortunately the system we have for dealing with it in the shared campaign isn't perfect. I'm always happy to listen to any ideas you might have on how to have the Obscura compete with each other, but keep from murdering each other.
thearcept 04-28-07, 04:42 AM	I am a master level RPGA game master. I have found that telling the PC's at the begining of the adventure to keep their secret quest actually a secret, even from each other is paramount. There is a section in the campaign standards 2.0 that addresses PcVPc combat in a section called PC vs PC combat on page 15 . It says no. If you talk to the DM pre - adventure and have him remind people that fact, and suggest that if they are assigned to kill someone they do it in private...all problems are solved as you will totally avoid the direct conflict with that simple action. ive not seen a Game yet where the NPC cant be killed in private by any member of COS. Actually, it makes the secret part of the cabal seem all the more secret. I always suggest sliding the DM notes when playing COS. Secrets from your buddies make the creepy killer factor better in my opinon. Poisen, accidental falls, and missing persons are all really cool ways to do COS. The occasional "wow theres so much blood in this room, but wheres the body?" works wonders also. Of course the COS doesnt want a sloppy killer thats gonna draw the law down on the group, any agent, anyone that the COS works with (until they need to go away of course). Try to remind the group of this, without breaking floor rules of play.. and everyone should have a much better time. -David Parker
Timlagor 05-01-07, 03:24 PM	I would agree with you if all players were mature. In the end they won't be, and someone will use it as an excuse to target other players they do not like, or sensitive players might end with up very hurt feelings if things go poorly and their PC dies. These are situations we must deal with. The nature of an evil organization, and part of the fun, is the fact that its members are sometimes their own worst enemies. It's part of what sets the Cabal apart from the other factions. Unfortunately the system we have for dealing with it in the shared campaign isn't perfect. I'm always happy to listen to any ideas you might have on how to have the Obscura compete with each other, but keep from murdering each other. If you can't trust people (including the GMs) with PvP then you shouldn't really be trusting them with being Evil -you certainly shouldn't have them be evil and then set them at odds with each other!
lseelba 05-02-07, 03:58 AM	If you can't trust people (including the GMs) with PvP then you shouldn't really be trusting them with being Evil -you certainly shouldn't have them be evil and then set them at odds with each other! I pretty much decided against DM'ing any CoS mods not because they were bad mods (I think CoS 4 is really cool), but because I didn't want to deal with the PvP and people always wanting to be evil and steal from and murder NPCs. I'd LOVE to find a group with the maturity to play CoS well without too much infighting :D
Timlagor 05-02-07, 07:56 AM	Just to be clear.. 1) If you don't like it there's plenty of other material in the Campaign. 2) I never let my complaints get in the way of a game Iseelba: does that mean you'll be excluding Cabal people from your Lich game? (no objection from me if you are but it's something you might like to let people know before they plan on it)
smerwin29 05-02-07, 08:56 AM	I'm sure this has been said before, but I will repeat it. This issue is not just a Cabal issue, and it is not just an XE issue. Any situation in any campaign where you have two characters who want two different things, you are going to have problems. Whether it is two good characters differing about what to do with a captured brigand who gave them useful information, or evil characters working against each other. There is no good way to handle it that is realistic in-game. But the RPGA cannot and should not allow PvP, because even though there are some players who are mature enough to handle it, there are just as many who aren't. The best solution is this: have the DM hear from each side what they want and how they plan to achieve their goal, and the DM makes a decision on what happens. Plain and simple. Players just have to understand that is the way it is.
WolfStar76 05-02-07, 12:36 PM	<snip> the RPGA cannot and should not allow PvP, because even though there are some players who are mature enough to handle it, there are just as many who aren't. <snip> the DM makes a decision on what happens. Plain and simple. Players just have to understand that is the way it is. What's the rule for players who aren't mature enough to understand that's the way it is? :D
pedr 05-02-07, 12:48 PM	There is no good way to handle it that is realistic in-game. But the RPGA cannot and should not allow PvP, because even though there are some players who are mature enough to handle it, there are just as many who aren't.If you voluntarily attack another PC with the intent to do serious or permanent harm, without the other player’s permission, your PC’s alignment is automatically shifted to evil. You are allowed to defend yourself if necessary, such as if another PC is dominated, but you may not use lethal force unless unavoidable, at the GM’s discretion. This is a severe penalty and should be used with caution.... no PC may attack another PC while under their own control ... Any PC which voluntarily attacks another PC is immediately retired from play and is marked as permanently dead by the DM. ... When targeting area of effect abilities ... you may not hit another PC without their express permission. Doing so is considered attacking them. ... Attacking an ... item owned by another PC is considered the same as attacking another PC. Can you explain the difference? In LG it is permitted to grapple, sunder, do non-lethal damage, so long as the DM doesn't consider it to cause 'serious or permanent harm'. In XE, this is not permitted. This cannot, then, be an RPGA-level rule, and makes the interaction between Obscura/Factions extremely difficult to adjudicate. In LG, I could even (as a player) say: "My character is going to do x, y and z. I know you probably don't want him to, so feel free to try to stop him, even using lethal force if necessary." I can't say that in XE, even if it is how I feel.
smerwin29 05-02-07, 01:32 PM	What's the rule for players who aren't mature enough to understand that's the way it is? :D They are forced to answer player questions until such a time as they cry for mercy. :eek:
lseelba 05-02-07, 01:36 PM	Just to be clear.. 1) If you don't like it there's plenty of other material in the Campaign. 2) I never let my complaints get in the way of a game Iseelba: does that mean you'll be excluding Cabal people from your Lich game? (no objection from me if you are but it's something you might like to let people know before they plan on it) Not at all. The more factions the merrier. But it is one of the reasons I asked for experienced players, whose character had at least played one mod since the level bump. The last thing I want is someone bringing a brand new 4th level CoS character (who they have nothing invested in) to the table and undermining the entire party at every step because 'my character is supposed to be evil'.
smerwin29 05-02-07, 01:52 PM	Can you explain the difference? I think the difference is apparent. In XE you cannot attack another PC in any way. In LG you can do certain things, as you point out. In LG it is permitted to grapple, sunder, do non-lethal damage, so long as the DM doesn't consider it to cause 'serious or permanent harm'. In XE, this is not permitted. This cannot, then, be an RPGA-level rule, and makes the interaction between Obscura/Factions extremely difficult to adjudicate. I am not aware that there is any RPGA-level rule covering this, and if there is/was/will be, I would venture a guess that it would more like the XE version of the rule rather than the LG version. In LG, I could even (as a player) say: "My character is going to do x, y and z. I know you probably don't want him to, so feel free to try to stop him, even using lethal force if necessary." I can't say that in XE, even if it is how I feel. Correct. The reason for the XE version of the rule is because we want to eliminate PvP. Our experiences at GenCon last year were quite explicit in showing us that PvP does not belong in the campaign in any form. Yet the nature of the game means that there is always going to be conflicts between PCs, whether the plot adds it or not. So we go back to what I said earlier. If there is a conflict at the table, the PCs should describe what they choose to do to the DM. The DM should take everyone's actions and situations into consideration, and then make a ruling on what happens. The players live with that decision, and the game goes on. Here's what I am trying to get at. There are going to be the possibility of hurt feelings and anger no matter what. PC 1 wants to kill NPC A. PC 2 wants to keep NPC A alive. Allowing any sort of physical altercation, be it grappling, nonlethal, harmless spells, etc. ramps up the tension, and then you see a huge increase in rules arguments and the like. The situation tends to get nasty really fast. If you have the DM handle the situation without the need to go through the process of the conflict, there is still hurt feelings, but the players are angry at us for not allowing it rather than angry at each other. I understand that people aren't necessarily happy with this, and many players would be mature enough to handle the "playing out" of the conflict. But as long as there are players who aren't, or as long as there are players who are uncomfortable with it, we need to say, "No" and let that be that. It's not like we haven't hashed this out at length among ourselves as campaign staff. We each have different opinions on the matter, but the real-life feelings of the players has to take precedence over the veracity of the in-game results. And yes, I know that some adventures put the PCs into direct conflict. If I do that in my adventures, I try to make sure there is a reasonable way for everyone to succeed. In fact, in Well of Woe, I changed the adventure from what it was originally designed as specifically to make sure that each Faction could fulfill its mission by working together. And players still had conflicts. In fact, in some cases they worked very hard to manufacture conflict. Imagine that. At the creation of the next XECS, we will get together and talk again, both amongst ourselves and with RPGA HQ about where we stand and what changes we might or might not want to make. Shawn
pedr 05-02-07, 02:22 PM	Thank you for that post, Shawn. Very helpful! Particularly useful is the advice about how to deal with the conflicts in a practical way. Thanks again!
Diablo05 05-03-07, 05:12 PM	I totally aggree tha PKing shouldnt be allowed. Not only for the above stated reasons, but because your cheating yourself out of some pretty cool role play. These conflicts can create some really interesting player conflict, and thats NOT a bad thing! I love it when a mod gives me a chance to do create my own conflict amongst the party members rather than just following the flow of the box text. Now, why would you want to ruin that role play opportunity with a solution as juvenile and assanine as player killing? Be creative! And, I hate the explanation of "My character is evil, Im supposed to kill everybody". No... the Cabal would not be happy if you go around killing your teammates. If the game was fully realistic (as PKers would like), that sort of character would most likely be hunted down and killed by his own. And, what kind of resolution is that anyway? The big bad Blackguard would win everytime (or whoever the groups heavy hitter is). What kind of boring system of conflict resolution is that? That being said... if you DO have a mature group of players who know how to play evil well... heck, go ahead with the less-than-lethal combat. I realize its against the rules, but ya know, I have yet to see Greg show up at one of my tables with the XE Police in tow. Dont get me wrong, the rules are there for a good reason and should be followed... but, if EVERYONE at the table is mature and consenting (as is the case in my home games), I say go for it, so long as everyone aggrees that it will increase the enjoyment of the game. I play a rogue-ish type in the CoS... I have no problem with the Blackguard being able to beat my face in if things come to that, because its my own damn fault for not being sneaksy enough. Of course... the Blackguard may find some knockout poison in his food later... but its all in good fun.
Soltares 05-25-07, 02:56 PM	I'm sure this has been said before, but I will repeat it. This issue is not just a Cabal issue, and it is not just an XE issue. Any situation in any campaign where you have two characters who want two different things, you are going to have problems. Whether it is two good characters differing about what to do with a captured brigand who gave them useful information, or evil characters working against each other. Ironically, this has always been referred to as 'the Paladin problem' in my experience and is why we rarely allow them in our games. Too much party conflict. It's one thing to play a selfish opportunistic amoral sort of person, who has an agenda, and will cut all sorts of questionable corners to realize it. It's completely another thing to play an arrogant psychotic idiot who is going to get himself (and lots of other people) killed off within an hour and ruin the evening for everyone, regardless of the alignment on his sheet. I guess the big difference is that it's okay for the character to be a selfish jerk, but if the *player* is a selfish jerk, it gets less fun for everyone.
lseelba 05-26-07, 01:40 AM	Ironically, this has always been referred to as 'the Paladin problem' in my experience and is why we rarely allow them in our games. Too much party conflict. It's one thing to play a selfish opportunistic amoral sort of person, who has an agenda, and will cut all sorts of questionable corners to realize it. It's completely another thing to play an arrogant psychotic idiot who is going to get himself (and lots of other people) killed off within an hour and ruin the evening for everyone, regardless of the alignment on his sheet. I guess the big difference is that it's okay for the character to be a selfish jerk, but if the *player* is a selfish jerk, it gets less fun for everyone. Whats the difference between a Paladin and an LG Cleric? Do you disallow LG too?
Shadowed Intent 05-26-07, 06:20 PM	It's completely another thing to play an arrogant psychotic idiot who is going to get himself (and lots of other people) killed off within an hour and ruin the evening for everyone, regardless of the alignment on his sheet. Seems like that should be called the arrogant psychotic idiot problem. I think I am all in favor of not allowing them. (I suspect such a player can ruin an evening, no matter the alignment on his character sheet)