Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2012 13:41:08 GMT -8
I see no problem with the character concept. Revenge is what fuels your friend's character. Perhaps in the course of your adventures he gets the opportunity to pick off a few people that wronged his race. As for demanding the right to get to kill your old PC... that is ridiculous (if that is what this person is doing). That's not how gaming works.
If it becomes his soul purpose for playing in the game then I would say he has lost focus and that would need to be addressed separately.
Thickhead
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 11, 2012 19:12:46 GMT -8
I see no problem with the character concept. Revenge is what fuels your friend's character. Perhaps in the course of your adventures he gets the opportunity to pick off a few people that wronged his race. As for demanding the right to get to kill your old PC... that is ridiculous (if that is what this person is doing). That's not how gaming works. If it becomes his soul purpose for playing in the game then I would say he has lost focus and that would need to be addressed separately. Thickhead I don't see a problem with the concept, but I also don't see a problem with the now gm not wanting his character to catch a case of the deads either. The answer is as is so often the case, dialog between player(s) and gm. Cheers, JiB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2012 7:50:48 GMT -8
Everything should be killable. Nothing should be off limits; an emperor, a king, a guild master, the sheriff, the wench at the tavern. If the player can reasonably kill or get to someone/something, they should be allowed to. but this shouldn't have to be said.
I hate it when a GM BS's me out of a righteous action, and I don't do it to my players. If I am shaking hands with the mayor for a photo op and I have a 45 in my pocket, there should be no reason why I can't shoot him in the face and kill him. yes the consequences might be that I am arrested or shot and killed on sight, but don't BS me out of a kill because it was a major plot character. Screw you. The mayor doesn't have a twin brother, there is no LMD, he isn't suddenly invulnerable, he didn't get to roll a nat 20 on a dodge.
On the other hand, the player needs to have a good reason to do what they are doing. Is it in character? is it reasonable? If not, then it doesn't happen. Another issue is what the other players are doing or want to do? This might turn PVP but the player has to realize this when he is drawing it up. If they know that the rest of the party isn't interested in joining this crusade, he might go it alone, however he might also convince them to join his side by leaving clues and his reasons for doing so. but that's "life".
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Jun 18, 2012 10:12:16 GMT -8
I'm not saying that the now gm's character SHOULD be off limits to kill, only that I understand him not wanting his character to be killed.
Were it me, I'd allow it but I wouldn't necessarily make it easy. As always, the villains are as smart as the pc's and have access to at least the same resources, so I would work it into the story and try to make it involved and fun.
JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Jun 18, 2012 10:21:07 GMT -8
This competitive play has no place in my game. Full stop. RPGs are beautiful in the fact that every table plays diffferently so I can only speak for myself. However, ban on PvP does not rule out in-game tension between party members. That's my two cents. YMMV.
|
|
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 18, 2012 20:03:11 GMT -8
Everything should be killable. Nothing should be off limits; ... I hate it when a GM BS's me out of a righteous action, and I don't do it to my players. I totally agree killwatch, but in this case I don't think the GM is BSing anyone out of a righteous action. The GM isn't saying "no" to something that's happening in the game, he hasn't "cheated" the player out of their action to preserve his storyline, and he hasn't given the bad guy a magic invisible hot air balloon so that he can escape. As far as I can tell, the GM hadn't even included his old PC as an NPC in this campaign; that's something the player brought into it all on his own. One thing to consider is how the revenge storyline will affect the other players. Setting aside the feelings of the GM having his old PC stalked and potentially killed, how will the new assassin PC interact with the other players and the current story? If the revenge angle can be used as a motivator by the GM to engage the assassin PC in the story that emerges from group action, then I would allow it. But if the player has his PC ignore absolutely everything, including the interests of the other players, and only focuses on this revenge story, then no. Other PCs: Hey! Look at this cool artefact we found. I wonder where it came from. Let's check it out. Assassin PC: No. It doesn't lead to my target. Go on without me. I'll stay on the ship. Later... Other PCs: OK. We found out there's some connection to a corrupt government official and the artefact. He's having a party tonight, and we snagged tickets to snoop on him. Assassin PC: (checks the database) Eh. That official's not connected to my target at all. I'm not interested. I'll stay on the ship. If that's all that's going to happen, then the assassin guy is just being a douche.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Jun 18, 2012 22:09:18 GMT -8
Although, right now I am really digging the idea of a mayor in a supers game with cloning powers, who sends out his doubles on public appearances to protect himself...
^.^
|
|