Character involvement - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Character involvement

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
noblesix
Apr 05, 2011 10:26:20 So, I've been brainstorming ideas for a short campaign based on Journey to the West. For those of you unfamiliar, the long and short is that the players would need to escort a pacifist monk to a distant land to pick up some important texts, all the while defending him from the demons who think that eating him will make them immortal. The monk also happens to be charitable to the point of suicide, insisting on helping every wayward soul he meets, even if he knows they could just be a demon in disguise. The players would be offered this opportunity by a deity or king or whoever in exchange for absolution from past indiscretions.

The problem I foresee is this: how do I ensure that the players simply don't abandon the monk? Sure, they do have a reason not to, but the characters are already powerful, and they may simply not care about being forgiven by whoever hands them the mission.

There are three options that I've thought of (but there's probably others):

1) In the original story, one of the heroes was fitted with a headband that could only be removed by the monk and would cause headaches if the monk chanted a certain phrase. I could put those on the PCs, so the monk has leverage, but that seems a tad unfair to the players if they truly didn't want to help the monk.

2) Politely ask the players not to make evil characters. The people I usually play with eventually associate "evil" with "murderous nutjobbery." If any of them play an evil character, either the monk or one of the fellow party members will end up taking a dirt nap. I loathe to place limitations on character personalities, though.

3) Do nothing and hope for the best. If I present the players with the story as-is, they'd likely play it out without going out of their way to derail it. This, however, is not guaranteed, and in my other games with this group of friends, things have turned ugly (a phrase here meaning "half the party was killed, the other half is plotting each other's downfall").

Thoughts? I think I one of my above options is the way to go, but I always like to get outsider input.
#2
barvas
Apr 05, 2011 11:27:52 From an economics perspective, what you need to do is align the PCs interests with ensuring that the monk reaches the drop point. If absolution isn't a motivator (and for most Players it wouldn't be) then the default RPG solution is a very big bribe reward, which of course they would not be able to collect on without completing the mission. It needs to be large enough that everytime the monk does something that is annoying, they grumble but go along with it in order to avoid missing out on the reward.

However, the best thing would be to personalize the reward, promising each PC something that he really, really wants. If they are just creating their characters for this mini-campaign, this may be difficult to achieve.

I'd also watch out for the PCs deciding that they are "done" with this monk making the journey longer than it needs to be, tying him up and dragging him to the location while bypassing all of your "tests."

Be careful with this type of campaign. It may be the type of story you want to tell, but if it is not the type of story the players want to hear, then they will resist the linearity of it and you will get frustrated.
#3
yronimosw
Apr 05, 2011 16:37:33 I would steer clear of the Headband of Railroading: that would be fairly heavy-handed, and everyone involved would resent that.

Change up the potential rewards, and tailor them to the party where needed.

Instead of delivering a McGuffin, the monk might be the only person with the skills to retrieve a cure at the destination for a plague troubling the party's home town; the cure might be found in a book in a library written in a language that only the monk can decipher, and the library will not let the rare tome out of their sight. Most good, lawful, and neutral characters would never condemn an entire town to death, especially if there's a chance that they might catch the plague. Some parties might need a little extra incentive, too; if the party doesn't seem to be inclined to help out, perhaps having one of the party members waking up one morning with the first symptoms of the plague might change some minds.

A standard motivation for anti-heroes in some action/war movies is for authorities to offer a pardon for any crimes they might be accused of (or framed for). This can be a perfect motivation for one or more Roguish characters. Their pardons might be dependent on the monk giving a report of their good conduct, in person, upon their safe return.

Monks, Paladins, Clerics, and lawful Fighters and Rangers would probably naturally want to ensure the quest is completed if it were given by the head of a religious order they are all members of, a quest to protect one of their own brothers on his pilgrimage to retrieve the McGuffin for the good of the order; these types of characters would be naturally open to being persuaded to help the monk out with the side-quests, given a good enough justification for the delay.

Mercenary characters will probably require little more than a good enough reward ("bribe", as Barvas called it); in fact, the side quests might look more attractive than the main quest to such characters, if the opportunity for getting some extra coin and other goodies presents itself in the side-quests, in which case some other characters might have to discourage both the good monk and those everything-has-a-price PCs from the constant delays.

Barvas also has a great point about the danger of the PCs marching the monk double-time at sword-point straight to the destination after getting annoyed at the constant delays. The "good conduct" report condition for the pardons may be one way of discouraging this. The religious order plot-hook as described above for certain types of PCs can also provide a way of discouraging this, if the PCs are told by the quest-giver to ensure the monk reaches the destination, but also to do what good they can along the way (it could be that the journey is more about testing the faith and growth for these good characters than about whatever excuse the monk has for taking them on the journey.) Meanwhile, those easily-bought mercenary types can be encouraged to take part in the side-quests simply through the promise of treasure.

Feel free to discourage the infamous "chaotic stupid" alignment (and also "lawful anal" if appropriate.) Those are the nick-names for those extremes of PC "personality" that leave players convinced their characters will mindlessly do nothing but suicidally stupid acts of violent and irresponsible good and evil without any sense of perspective or balance, just because it's what a maniacal-free-spirited-evil-guy-in-a-black-trenchcoat or a holy-warrior-on-a-single-minded-quest-in-shining-armor-against-evil would (supposedly) do. It may seem at first glance like you are stamping out player creativity by not allowing them to play certain types of personalities, but in reality what you are doing is removing the most obvious, tired, annoying, and un-creative interpretations of alignment, and leaving open the rich soil of the more neutral alignments for characters to explore, where "good" characters sometimes have to make tough choices and do bad things for good reasons (and good things for bad reasons), and "evil" characters often do good and lawful things for good reasons in between falling victim to weaknesses that cause them to do things they regret, and where being given a choice means much more than being programmed to backstab or smite random strangers or good friends, for no other reason than "the LOLZ" and the pretense of some thinly-disguised excuse to justify random violence.
#4
noblesix
Apr 05, 2011 18:44:49
Instead of delivering a McGuffin, the monk might be the only person with the skills to retrieve a cure at the destination for a plague troubling the party's home town; the cure might be found in a book in a library written in a language that only the monk can decipher, and the library will not let the rare tome out of their sight. Most good, lawful, and neutral characters would never condemn an entire town to death, especially if there's a chance that they might catch the plague. Some parties might need a little extra incentive, too; if the party doesn't seem to be inclined to help out, perhaps having one of the party members waking up one morning with the first symptoms of the plague might change some minds.

I see your point here, but the monk is himself the McGuffin; the story is less about him and more about the characters needing to protect him. He is stupid good to the point that he is constantly putting himself in danger. Though I do like the idea of self-preservation as a motive to go along with the quest.
I suppose the motivations for most of the characters would be from other parties such as the quest-giver, whether it's absolution or a big pile of money. And as Barvas did mention, maybe it is contingent on the conduct of the heroes. I guess what bothers me is that the players would just keep in the spirit of going off the rails, when the story is really about the characters becoming heroic figures through redemption.
#5
theapokalypseshovel
Apr 05, 2011 19:32:33 As an interesting idea, why not ditch alignment entirely and inform your players that they need to make 3 motivations for their character instead (and making money/gaining power isn't a motivation; it's a means to a goal, what is that goal?). Thus you have sneakily figured out a means by which to motivate the players and discouraged the metagame influence of silly words like good and evil. Some motivations would obviously lean towards good or evil, and you could definitely influence them by manipulating the story.
Alternatively have the players give themselves 3 positive traits (Reliable, Friendly, Charitable) 3 neutral traits (Brash, Thick skinned, Ambitious) and 3 negative traits (Cowardly, Manipulative, superiority complex). The positive or negative here refers to how others might react to them socially, neutral traits being the more situational traits. You can then give them bonuses of +1 or so for acting in a way that suits their 'personality'.
Show
Pict Bocket, halfling rogue
Positive: Humorous, Creative, Team-player
Neutral: Strong Opinions, Eager, Easily-amused
Negative: Manipulative, Greedy, Cowardly
#6
noblesix
Apr 06, 2011 10:42:57
As an interesting idea, why not ditch alignment entirely and inform your players that they need to make 3 motivations for their character instead (and making money/gaining power isn't a motivation; it's a means to a goal, what is that goal?). Thus you have sneakily figured out a means by which to motivate the players and discouraged the metagame influence of silly words like good and evil. Some motivations would obviously lean towards good or evil, and you could definitely influence them by manipulating the story.
Alternatively have the players give themselves 3 positive traits (Reliable, Friendly, Charitable) 3 neutral traits (Brash, Thick skinned, Ambitious) and 3 negative traits (Cowardly, Manipulative, superiority complex). The positive or negative here refers to how others might react to them socially, neutral traits being the more situational traits. You can then give them bonuses of +1 or so for acting in a way that suits their 'personality'.

I would also make magic items unpurchasable. The party either finds magic items or their equipment becomes magical over time by traveling with the monk. Gold only is worthwhile for nonmagic goods and isn't as much of a draw, though now you have quite meaningful side-quests to retrieve items to help along the path.

I don't think I'd ditch alignment entirely, but I like this idea of making it secondary; the characters should have concrete desires and needs, and alignment is simply a guide on how to fulfill them. I think it'd be good to nerf magic items as well; characters who want magic gear have to earn it as they continue on the quest they've been tasked with.
I like these suggestions; it helps me prevent complete derailment and but still give the players freedom.
#7
Kaganfindel
Apr 12, 2011 16:58:05
If they're generating characters for the campaign, just tell the players straight up that for the campaign you have planned to really work, their characters have to have some stake in bearing the monk to his destination. Be up front with them and get their cooperation without having to guide them to it. This is the major premise of the campaign, so in order to play in it, they have to build a character that fits into the story.

If your players have trouble getting on board with that because it's not sanboxy enough for their tastes, maybe there are ways you can let them guide the journey with their own decisions. Unless you've got this story tracked out from start to finish (and at that point, what's the point of playing the campaign?) then all they really need to agree to, all that needs to happen is the monk has to get to the place and do the stuff with the thing, right? I's over there somewhere. Let 'em get there however they like and for whatever reason they can come up with, but leave it on them to come up with a reason to need this guy to get where he's going.
#8
Book5
Apr 12, 2011 20:24:54 Not sure how well it will work (and have only rarely employed myself) tactic technique way to cheat Method! of getting a squabbling party past a point of internicine conflict is the 'and then such and such happend, he died, and you find yourselves ten miles down the road facing a half legion of goblins between you and your destination). This is basically where you realize that half the players are plotting against the other players (meta gaming really) and have lost all attachment to *the story* and its integrity. Personally (as this is *usually* a meta gaming problem) I pick the *player* that has been the largest instigator of 'in-character' conflict and kill that one. I have run a game when the inter-character conflicts were part of the players initial character (and my over arching plot) and in that case I `versed it and ended up putting her in charge of the newly brainwashed party (NWO-WoD1).

The way to employ this method is at the end of a game session where everything pretty much went fubar and you are going to have to do continuity edits ..anyway. One or more players need to make new characters (this alone can abate interplayer conflicts as the fresh ideas borne from the character creation process need time to come out). You could rupture the player group doing this, but when your players are already backstabbing each other for funsies ..you can usually get away with it. Be creative. Take control of the narrative and draw things out to the *actual* logical conclusions, instead of letting the players simply 'squabble' for position in their mini-hierarchy. I also like to designate a 'main character' whose storyline is 'more important' than the others. The most diplomantic way to do that is ask everyone who wants their character to live the most, and then offer that player the surity of their character's survival (by cheating if necessary) in exchange for complicance to the plot. Worked for me, before. I have had players intentionally throw their characters into certain doom purely to create a new character ..a particular winged naga paladin comes to mind.. :hehe:

Another thought,
Along the lines of the Stupid Good, and what Barvas said.

Making the Monk himself an outlet for the character's potential side fighting. Use the monk to take control (in character) of any squabbles that occure. Find ways of making him the focus of their attention constantly. This could be easy or hard depending on how much of a prankster you are personally. Keeping the players attention focused where you want it, is one of the first arts of a good dungeon master. Make them hate him, make them love him, whatever you do keep their mind on him and his actions. To do that you need to unravel your players motivations and find creative ways to put interacting with the monk in between those goals and the player's character. Even granting the monk powers beyond his technical capacity when manipulating the player's characters, but leaving him a dead weight in a fight. I would not use the headache collar. Rather leave it be and use manipulation to achieve your goals instead of in character items. The source of player v player problems is players, not characters and rarely is an in character item the solution ..though..

One time I created a scenario start point where all the players were slaves with implant stones. These stones were keyed to stones on their beds (which were stone bunks in a dungeon). Dark wizard, experiments, and catacombs oh my! The solution to escaping was a half-trick to also keep the party together when it might be more reasonable for them to split up. You could not touch your own stone or be reduced to a strength score of zero. However, you could hold someone else's stone and not suffer any penalties. The first step of the adventure was to either make a 20+ on a hunch check, or (the players) figure out (through tests) that if they each carried the others stones they could escape through the unblockaded caverns ..so long as they stayed within a certain distance of each other! I pulled that trick off twice actually ..and no one seemed to consider themselves railroaded. I feel that in this case the reason it worked was that it was a minor and work aroundable problem that had a *minor* inter player motivation. In that light ..if you *do* decide to use the headband, you should consider creating a 'trainwreck' sub plot of how to get out of their quest/gease or a 'how to compensate for the death of the monk' type stuff.

Personally I always keep the 'if you can't beat em join em' plot diversion in mind when dealing with sacred quests. Similarly I keep the 'redemption story' ideas in mind when dealing with evil plots. The last thing I try to do is keep the players from following their inspiration, and only rarely have I had an entire team of players embroil themselves into a completely plot breaking digression ..though I did have to throw an entire legion of Orc and Goblins at a group of players that were wittingly going off board. I had told them not too, and the reason (didn't have anything there plot wise) and when an immediate resolution did not spring to mind (like a good way to restructer the next phase (getting an airship) of the plot into the scenario) I just ..told em' K! head that way and it'll be fights for the next three game sessions while I figure out what to do ..sigh. They held that pass for a game session and a half! Then they decided to go run. Back to town for healing, and then seemingly quite happily went back to following the crumb trail toward the next chapter of the story.
#9
pruano
Apr 21, 2011 15:02:57 Wrath of God!

The monk is actually an agent of a god, and by accepting the duty they are honor bound.

If they deviate from it, strange and terrible things start to happen (ie. curses).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 noblesix Apr 05, 2011 10:26:20	So, I've been brainstorming ideas for a short campaign based on Journey to the West. For those of you unfamiliar, the long and short is that the players would need to escort a pacifist monk to a distant land to pick up some important texts, all the while defending him from the demons who think that eating him will make them immortal. The monk also happens to be charitable to the point of suicide, insisting on helping every wayward soul he meets, even if he knows they could just be a demon in disguise. The players would be offered this opportunity by a deity or king or whoever in exchange for absolution from past indiscretions. The problem I foresee is this: how do I ensure that the players simply don't abandon the monk? Sure, they do have a reason not to, but the characters are already powerful, and they may simply not care about being forgiven by whoever hands them the mission. There are three options that I've thought of (but there's probably others): 1) In the original story, one of the heroes was fitted with a headband that could only be removed by the monk and would cause headaches if the monk chanted a certain phrase. I could put those on the PCs, so the monk has leverage, but that seems a tad unfair to the players if they truly didn't want to help the monk. 2) Politely ask the players not to make evil characters. The people I usually play with eventually associate "evil" with "murderous nutjobbery." If any of them play an evil character, either the monk or one of the fellow party members will end up taking a dirt nap. I loathe to place limitations on character personalities, though. 3) Do nothing and hope for the best. If I present the players with the story as-is, they'd likely play it out without going out of their way to derail it. This, however, is not guaranteed, and in my other games with this group of friends, things have turned ugly (a phrase here meaning "half the party was killed, the other half is plotting each other's downfall"). Thoughts? I think I one of my above options is the way to go, but I always like to get outsider input.
#2 barvas Apr 05, 2011 11:27:52	From an economics perspective, what you need to do is align the PCs interests with ensuring that the monk reaches the drop point. If absolution isn't a motivator (and for most Players it wouldn't be) then the default RPG solution is a very big bribe reward, which of course they would not be able to collect on without completing the mission. It needs to be large enough that everytime the monk does something that is annoying, they grumble but go along with it in order to avoid missing out on the reward. However, the best thing would be to personalize the reward, promising each PC something that he really, really wants. If they are just creating their characters for this mini-campaign, this may be difficult to achieve. I'd also watch out for the PCs deciding that they are "done" with this monk making the journey longer than it needs to be, tying him up and dragging him to the location while bypassing all of your "tests." Be careful with this type of campaign. It may be the type of story you want to tell, but if it is not the type of story the players want to hear, then they will resist the linearity of it and you will get frustrated.
#3 yronimosw Apr 05, 2011 16:37:33	I would steer clear of the Headband of Railroading: that would be fairly heavy-handed, and everyone involved would resent that. Change up the potential rewards, and tailor them to the party where needed. Instead of delivering a McGuffin, the monk might be the only person with the skills to retrieve a cure at the destination for a plague troubling the party's home town; the cure might be found in a book in a library written in a language that only the monk can decipher, and the library will not let the rare tome out of their sight. Most good, lawful, and neutral characters would never condemn an entire town to death, especially if there's a chance that they might catch the plague. Some parties might need a little extra incentive, too; if the party doesn't seem to be inclined to help out, perhaps having one of the party members waking up one morning with the first symptoms of the plague might change some minds. A standard motivation for anti-heroes in some action/war movies is for authorities to offer a pardon for any crimes they might be accused of (or framed for). This can be a perfect motivation for one or more Roguish characters. Their pardons might be dependent on the monk giving a report of their good conduct, in person, upon their safe return. Monks, Paladins, Clerics, and lawful Fighters and Rangers would probably naturally want to ensure the quest is completed if it were given by the head of a religious order they are all members of, a quest to protect one of their own brothers on his pilgrimage to retrieve the McGuffin for the good of the order; these types of characters would be naturally open to being persuaded to help the monk out with the side-quests, given a good enough justification for the delay. Mercenary characters will probably require little more than a good enough reward ("bribe", as Barvas called it); in fact, the side quests might look more attractive than the main quest to such characters, if the opportunity for getting some extra coin and other goodies presents itself in the side-quests, in which case some other characters might have to discourage both the good monk and those everything-has-a-price PCs from the constant delays. Barvas also has a great point about the danger of the PCs marching the monk double-time at sword-point straight to the destination after getting annoyed at the constant delays. The "good conduct" report condition for the pardons may be one way of discouraging this. The religious order plot-hook as described above for certain types of PCs can also provide a way of discouraging this, if the PCs are told by the quest-giver to ensure the monk reaches the destination, but also to do what good they can along the way (it could be that the journey is more about testing the faith and growth for these good characters than about whatever excuse the monk has for taking them on the journey.) Meanwhile, those easily-bought mercenary types can be encouraged to take part in the side-quests simply through the promise of treasure. Feel free to discourage the infamous "chaotic stupid" alignment (and also "lawful anal" if appropriate.) Those are the nick-names for those extremes of PC "personality" that leave players convinced their characters will mindlessly do nothing but suicidally stupid acts of violent and irresponsible good and evil without any sense of perspective or balance, just because it's what a maniacal-free-spirited-evil-guy-in-a-black-trenchcoat or a holy-warrior-on-a-single-minded-quest-in-shining-armor-against-evil would (supposedly) do. It may seem at first glance like you are stamping out player creativity by not allowing them to play certain types of personalities, but in reality what you are doing is removing the most obvious, tired, annoying, and un-creative interpretations of alignment, and leaving open the rich soil of the more neutral alignments for characters to explore, where "good" characters sometimes have to make tough choices and do bad things for good reasons (and good things for bad reasons), and "evil" characters often do good and lawful things for good reasons in between falling victim to weaknesses that cause them to do things they regret, and where being given a choice means much more than being programmed to backstab or smite random strangers or good friends, for no other reason than "the LOLZ" and the pretense of some thinly-disguised excuse to justify random violence.
#4 noblesix Apr 05, 2011 18:44:49	Instead of delivering a McGuffin, the monk might be the only person with the skills to retrieve a cure at the destination for a plague troubling the party's home town; the cure might be found in a book in a library written in a language that only the monk can decipher, and the library will not let the rare tome out of their sight. Most good, lawful, and neutral characters would never condemn an entire town to death, especially if there's a chance that they might catch the plague. Some parties might need a little extra incentive, too; if the party doesn't seem to be inclined to help out, perhaps having one of the party members waking up one morning with the first symptoms of the plague might change some minds. I see your point here, but the monk is himself the McGuffin; the story is less about him and more about the characters needing to protect him. He is stupid good to the point that he is constantly putting himself in danger. Though I do like the idea of self-preservation as a motive to go along with the quest. I suppose the motivations for most of the characters would be from other parties such as the quest-giver, whether it's absolution or a big pile of money. And as Barvas did mention, maybe it is contingent on the conduct of the heroes. I guess what bothers me is that the players would just keep in the spirit of going off the rails, when the story is really about the characters becoming heroic figures through redemption.
#5 theapokalypseshovel Apr 05, 2011 19:32:33	As an interesting idea, why not ditch alignment entirely and inform your players that they need to make 3 motivations for their character instead (and making money/gaining power isn't a motivation; it's a means to a goal, what is that goal?). Thus you have sneakily figured out a means by which to motivate the players and discouraged the metagame influence of silly words like good and evil. Some motivations would obviously lean towards good or evil, and you could definitely influence them by manipulating the story. Alternatively have the players give themselves 3 positive traits (Reliable, Friendly, Charitable) 3 neutral traits (Brash, Thick skinned, Ambitious) and 3 negative traits (Cowardly, Manipulative, superiority complex). The positive or negative here refers to how others might react to them socially, neutral traits being the more situational traits. You can then give them bonuses of +1 or so for acting in a way that suits their 'personality'. Show Pict Bocket, halfling rogue Positive: Humorous, Creative, Team-player Neutral: Strong Opinions, Eager, Easily-amused Negative: Manipulative, Greedy, Cowardly
#6 noblesix Apr 06, 2011 10:42:57	As an interesting idea, why not ditch alignment entirely and inform your players that they need to make 3 motivations for their character instead (and making money/gaining power isn't a motivation; it's a means to a goal, what is that goal?). Thus you have sneakily figured out a means by which to motivate the players and discouraged the metagame influence of silly words like good and evil. Some motivations would obviously lean towards good or evil, and you could definitely influence them by manipulating the story. Alternatively have the players give themselves 3 positive traits (Reliable, Friendly, Charitable) 3 neutral traits (Brash, Thick skinned, Ambitious) and 3 negative traits (Cowardly, Manipulative, superiority complex). The positive or negative here refers to how others might react to them socially, neutral traits being the more situational traits. You can then give them bonuses of +1 or so for acting in a way that suits their 'personality'. I would also make magic items unpurchasable. The party either finds magic items or their equipment becomes magical over time by traveling with the monk. Gold only is worthwhile for nonmagic goods and isn't as much of a draw, though now you have quite meaningful side-quests to retrieve items to help along the path. I don't think I'd ditch alignment entirely, but I like this idea of making it secondary; the characters should have concrete desires and needs, and alignment is simply a guide on how to fulfill them. I think it'd be good to nerf magic items as well; characters who want magic gear have to earn it as they continue on the quest they've been tasked with. I like these suggestions; it helps me prevent complete derailment and but still give the players freedom.
#7 Kaganfindel Apr 12, 2011 16:58:05	If they're generating characters for the campaign, just tell the players straight up that for the campaign you have planned to really work, their characters have to have some stake in bearing the monk to his destination. Be up front with them and get their cooperation without having to guide them to it. This is the major premise of the campaign, so in order to play in it, they have to build a character that fits into the story. If your players have trouble getting on board with that because it's not sanboxy enough for their tastes, maybe there are ways you can let them guide the journey with their own decisions. Unless you've got this story tracked out from start to finish (and at that point, what's the point of playing the campaign?) then all they really need to agree to, all that needs to happen is the monk has to get to the place and do the stuff with the thing, right? I's over there somewhere. Let 'em get there however they like and for whatever reason they can come up with, but leave it on them to come up with a reason to need this guy to get where he's going.
#8 Book5 Apr 12, 2011 20:24:54	Not sure how well it will work (and have only rarely employed myself) tactic technique way to cheat Method! of getting a squabbling party past a point of internicine conflict is the 'and then such and such happend, he died, and you find yourselves ten miles down the road facing a half legion of goblins between you and your destination). This is basically where you realize that half the players are plotting against the other players (meta gaming really) and have lost all attachment to the story and its integrity. Personally (as this is usually a meta gaming problem) I pick the player that has been the largest instigator of 'in-character' conflict and kill that one. I have run a game when the inter-character conflicts were part of the players initial character (and my over arching plot) and in that case I `versed it and ended up putting her in charge of the newly brainwashed party (NWO-WoD1). The way to employ this method is at the end of a game session where everything pretty much went fubar and you are going to have to do continuity edits ..anyway. One or more players need to make new characters (this alone can abate interplayer conflicts as the fresh ideas borne from the character creation process need time to come out). You could rupture the player group doing this, but when your players are already backstabbing each other for funsies ..you can usually get away with it. Be creative. Take control of the narrative and draw things out to the actual logical conclusions, instead of letting the players simply 'squabble' for position in their mini-hierarchy. I also like to designate a 'main character' whose storyline is 'more important' than the others. The most diplomantic way to do that is ask everyone who wants their character to live the most, and then offer that player the surity of their character's survival (by cheating if necessary) in exchange for complicance to the plot. Worked for me, before. I have had players intentionally throw their characters into certain doom purely to create a new character ..a particular winged naga paladin comes to mind.. :hehe: Another thought, Along the lines of the Stupid Good, and what Barvas said. Making the Monk himself an outlet for the character's potential side fighting. Use the monk to take control (in character) of any squabbles that occure. Find ways of making him the focus of their attention constantly. This could be easy or hard depending on how much of a prankster you are personally. Keeping the players attention focused where you want it, is one of the first arts of a good dungeon master. Make them hate him, make them love him, whatever you do keep their mind on him and his actions. To do that you need to unravel your players motivations and find creative ways to put interacting with the monk in between those goals and the player's character. Even granting the monk powers beyond his technical capacity when manipulating the player's characters, but leaving him a dead weight in a fight. I would not use the headache collar. Rather leave it be and use manipulation to achieve your goals instead of in character items. The source of player v player problems is players, not characters and rarely is an in character item the solution ..though.. One time I created a scenario start point where all the players were slaves with implant stones. These stones were keyed to stones on their beds (which were stone bunks in a dungeon). Dark wizard, experiments, and catacombs oh my! The solution to escaping was a half-trick to also keep the party together when it might be more reasonable for them to split up. You could not touch your own stone or be reduced to a strength score of zero. However, you could hold someone else's stone and not suffer any penalties. The first step of the adventure was to either make a 20+ on a hunch check, or (the players) figure out (through tests) that if they each carried the others stones they could escape through the unblockaded caverns ..so long as they stayed within a certain distance of each other! I pulled that trick off twice actually ..and no one seemed to consider themselves railroaded. I feel that in this case the reason it worked was that it was a minor and work aroundable problem that had a minor inter player motivation. In that light ..if you do decide to use the headband, you should consider creating a 'trainwreck' sub plot of how to get out of their quest/gease or a 'how to compensate for the death of the monk' type stuff. Personally I always keep the 'if you can't beat em join em' plot diversion in mind when dealing with sacred quests. Similarly I keep the 'redemption story' ideas in mind when dealing with evil plots. The last thing I try to do is keep the players from following their inspiration, and only rarely have I had an entire team of players embroil themselves into a completely plot breaking digression ..though I did have to throw an entire legion of Orc and Goblins at a group of players that were wittingly going off board. I had told them not too, and the reason (didn't have anything there plot wise) and when an immediate resolution did not spring to mind (like a good way to restructer the next phase (getting an airship) of the plot into the scenario) I just ..told em' K! head that way and it'll be fights for the next three game sessions while I figure out what to do ..sigh. They held that pass for a game session and a half! Then they decided to go run. Back to town for healing, and then seemingly quite happily went back to following the crumb trail toward the next chapter of the story.
#9 pruano Apr 21, 2011 15:02:57	Wrath of God! The monk is actually an agent of a god, and by accepting the duty they are honor bound. If they deviate from it, strange and terrible things start to happen (ie. curses).