|
Post by henryhankovitch on Jun 8, 2012 20:10:03 GMT -8
For about a year, I was playing in a Rogue Trader game with my regular group. Good times were had by all, shenanigans ensued, etc. The campaign came to a close, and I took over GMing.
Now I'm going to start GMing a new Rogue Trader campaign, set in the same continuity about 15 years after the last game. And my friend--the GM from the last campaign--has come up with a character from one of the factions that our PCs dicked over previously. He's out for revenge--specifically targeting my old character, among others.
So now I have this conflict of interest. I liked that character; I don't want him to get destroyed because I'm happy with the place his story ended. On the other hand, this game is about these new PCs, not this NPC I happen to like. It's a good character concept, and I have no other reason to pooh-pooh it. I could always just ignore that part of the character background and never provide opportunities for direct interaction, but that just seems like a passive-aggressive form of douchebaggery. That would mean ignoring the player's central source of conflict.
So am I a douchebag for not wanting a PC to go gunning for a certain NPC just because I happen to be attached to it?
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Jun 8, 2012 21:32:57 GMT -8
I realize that every story has two sides and I haven't heard your friend's reason for this, but I kind of think that they're being a bit of a douche bag for wanting to do this.
First, I would sit down with your friend and ask them directly why they're interested in this story line for their new character. Maybe they just think it's a cool way to provide some continuity between the two games. But if the entire group of people dicked over the organization this new PC is from, why does the player feel the need to specifically target your old PC for revenge rather than the whole group? Ask them that.
You said this new game is taking place 15 years after the old one concluded. Was this new PC part of the organization 15 years ago? Did this new PC meet your old PC? Was this new PC directly affected by the actions your old PC took? I mean, if your old PC group dicked over this organization so badly that they'd essentially send out assassins after you, why has it taken them 15 years to do so?
Basically, I would make the player justify why their character would specifically go after your old PC. If they can't do that to your satisfaction, then I would ask them (politely) to find a new motivation for their character. I think you are well within your rights to simply say "Look, I'm really happy with the way my PC's story ended 15 years ago. Your PC specifically hunting down my old character robs me of that closure. I don't think that's fair. I, as the GM, would not send an assassin after your PC without your consent, and I think my character deserves the same respect." In all honesty your friend just may not have considered how you'd feel about this. Lay it all out for him and let them know.
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 9, 2012 7:37:52 GMT -8
Essentially what Hyve said.
Your character that you played is no longer part of the story unless you want him to be, and were it me, I would resist the temptation to do that for a number of reasons. Foremost among them would be that as the gm it's no longer my story, it's their story.
So, for that reason I would suggest to the player that though I liked the ideas behind their character and supported them, I would really prefer it if they picked a different focus.
Just my 2 krupplenicks on the subject, your mileage may of course vary.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 9, 2012 9:41:06 GMT -8
If the character concept is just to see a different perspective to the previous game and kind of tie them together. Cool. You should ask the player if really wants to hunt down you old pc or if it is just the TV show storyline that drives the plot but doesn't happen, like in Gilligan's Island everyone tries to escape but if that happened there would be no show. If the player really wants to murder the old PC that is douchey. And you know the old saying you have to fight douche with douche. Now I am not very famiiliar with the Rogue Trader/40k, but this is 15 years later and your the GM. Maybe your old PC now has Chainsaw "Excalibur", or has become Leader of a planet with a few billion bodyguards. Maybe he already died happily from too much booze and floozies. Here's my Douchey DM trick. Every once in a while I want my PCs to run from something not in a "railroad story" kind of way, but more of a "the 1st level fighter shouldn't charge Orcus" kind of way. I stop using the dice. I look the player in the eyes and roll the dice but never look at what rolled. Then I descriptively say Orcus punches you in the face take X damage or your wounded etc. This normally gets the point across. The dice are fun and I love the random things that can occur, but sometimes story trumps dice.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jun 9, 2012 14:06:29 GMT -8
Small nitpick.... Gilligan and crew did escape the island. ^.^ Am I dating myself there?
I'm going to backup JiB and Hyve... Just talk to the player first. Being a douche back with out seeing if there is some give is just silly.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 9, 2012 14:26:06 GMT -8
Small nitpick.... Gilligan and crew did escape the island. ^.^ Am I dating myself there? I'm going to backup JiB and Hyve... Just talk to the player first. Being a douche back with out seeing if there is some give is just silly. lol. Gilligan cast did escape the island in the TV movie spinoff. The TV show ended with them trapped on the island. So either you're not old enough to remember that or you're so old you forgot And I will clarify I did say talk to the player, before I said "I'll see your douche-baggery and raise you a double douche" However if the guy is being a dick because he gets enjoyment from it then there is little to be done about it other than the oh so frequently mentioned play with someone else. And in that wee bit of return Dounchey-ness there is nothing to say that the old PC has gone on to bigger and better things, like I said I don't all the much about 40k, but it is in space and that is a large place to find 1 dude. Finding a reason to make it impossible is not that difficult. And in the end if the GM really doesn't want you to kill someone then you can't. Can this lead to arguments? Yes. Should you be able to talk through these arguments? If the people you play with are your friends then yes.
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Jun 9, 2012 16:55:42 GMT -8
Not to mention just because he is looking for the PC does not mean he will ever find them.
Rolls dice with out looking. Nope no sign of him here.
|
|
oldnemrod
Apprentice Douchebag
Posts: 92
Preferred Game Systems: WOD (old and new), 4E DnD, Shadowrun, 5E DND,
Currently Playing: Star Wars Saga Edition( I'M A MANDALORIAN!)
Currently Running: 5E Hoard of the Dragon Queen
|
Post by oldnemrod on Jun 9, 2012 17:07:38 GMT -8
Why not have your NPC be a recurring character that slowly tries to get the PC to overcome his revenge plot? Not so much ignore his idea but give it more meaning? Its been done time and again of search out revenge hook and get said revenge. It would be another thing to search out revenge hook and maybe team up against the worse of the two evils? NPC or PC on a path of redemption?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2012 22:17:17 GMT -8
No you aren't a douche bag for not wanting it to happen. You would be a douche bag for not letting it legitimately happen.
You gave up the rights to be protective when you stepped to the other side of the screen and set it in the same universe. Everything is killable, everything is fair game, even your darlings
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jun 9, 2012 22:45:40 GMT -8
You gave up the rights to be protective when you stepped to the other side of the screen and set it in the same universe. No, he didn't.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 10, 2012 6:49:43 GMT -8
You gave up the rights to be protective when you stepped to the other side of the screen and set it in the same universe. No, he didn't. Seconded. Is a game the Player's story? I would say the Player's "Characters" are the protagonists or at least the main characters, however the story belongs to everyone who sits at the table. Most players do not want to sit at a table with a GM that is re-telling them his novel where nothing can change. On the other hand not many GMs want to run a game for spastic players that decide they're going to avoid any semblance of telling a story and attack any gazebo that looks at them funny. Or players that would rather play WoW or text instead of contributing. Obviously there are sandboxes where there isn't a story hook, but that is the game the group has decided to play in which the story is being made up on the fly with everyone contributing. I think the easiest fix is that since this game does take place in space so a PC can seek revenge and never find the guy. It took Inigo Montoya 20 years to find the six fingered man on a small continent where the fastest mode of transportation was horse or boat. Give me light speed with a few million miles to hide in and I am a ghost.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 10, 2012 8:06:54 GMT -8
THIS the story belongs to everyone who sits at the table. It might be because of what I have recently gone through in my group of WoW RPG players, or simply because I hate competitive PvP games, but this reeks of player vs. player, low character - player wall to hide behind, kind of vicarious murder. Because it stinks like old socks in a gym locker, I am another voice in recommending you talk to your player(s) for an airing.
|
|
|
Post by malifer on Jun 10, 2012 11:25:57 GMT -8
THIS the story belongs to everyone who sits at the table. It might be because of what I have recently gone through in my group of WoW RPG players, or simply because I hate competitive PvP games, but this reeks of player vs. player, low character - player wall to hide behind, kind of vicarious murder. Because it stinks like old socks in a gym locker, I am another voice in recommending you talk to your player(s) for an airing. I do not understand. I think we agree? As I am also not for PvP games. My point was for one person at the table to demand for the collaborative storytelling go only their way without input from the others is not fun. Whether or not that person is a player or a GM they are entitled to fun. To kill the Henry's retired PC is not fun for Henry. If this is only way for this player to fun it will be detriment to the game. Henry should express this, if however it's just a background story the player wants to tie it to the old campaign there is nothing that says Henry is forced to watch as his retired PC is maimed or murdered in a game he is running for his friends. Perhaps the player just wants to blame Henry's character for everything the same way Mel Gibson blames Jewish people. But if the Player is demanding he get to kill the Old PC, perhaps the player just needs a new character. not fun = doing it wrong
|
|
daniel
Journeyman Douchebag
Posts: 217
|
Post by daniel on Jun 10, 2012 17:27:08 GMT -8
I think this might just be one of those cases ware ye old powerful words of GMing need to be brought out and used "NO"
Seriously if you as a GM are not comfortable with something, don't do it period this goes for anything really. Because at the end of the day for the game to have any sort of chance to be fun first and foremost the GM has to be into it.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 10, 2012 20:50:23 GMT -8
We fully agree! 100% THIS It might be because of what I have recently gone through in my group of WoW RPG players, or simply because I hate competitive PvP games, but this reeks of player vs. player, low character - player wall to hide behind, kind of vicarious murder. Because it stinks like old socks in a gym locker, I am another voice in recommending you talk to your player(s) for an airing. I do not understand. I think we agree? As I am also not for PvP games. My point was for one person at the table to demand for the collaborative storytelling go only their way without input from the others is not fun.Whether or not that person is a player or a GM they are entitled to fun. To kill the Henry's retired PC is not fun for Henry. If this is only way for this player to fun it will be detriment to the game. Henry should express this, if however it's just a background story the player wants to tie it to the old campaign there is nothing that says Henry is forced to watch as his retired PC is maimed or murdered in a game he is running for his friends. Perhaps the player just wants to blame Henry's character for everything the same way Mel Gibson blames Jewish people. But if the Player is demanding he get to kill the Old PC, perhaps the player just needs a new character. not fun = doing it wrong
|
|