Handling Talkers as NPCs

[atomicpif]

I have had this question for years. I just haven't picked the game up and played it in years either.
I thought I might have posted it in the past, but didn't find the thread. It's the question that really keeps me from bringing the game out and getting it played.

How do you handle when the NPCs are the talkers?

I've had 99% of my players in the past be completely gung ho shoot first type of people. Occasionally, they meet an NPC that just wants to live, so, acting first, the NPC tries to talk the Player out of killing them. So I roll against the players resolve, and sometimes, I'll spend a story point and the NPC will win, doing damage to the players resolve. This is never enough to reduce their resolve in one round to 0. As such, not quite convinced, on the player's turn to act, he shoots the NPC anyway. The best I can come up with is to give him a -2 on the shot, because he already used one action this round to "Defend" against the convince attempt.

Another situation that has come up, I had one party ambushed by a patrol unit. When the leader of the patrol started to ask the players what they were doing here, one of my players cuts in with: "I'm going to shoot him in the head before he can speak."

Part of me wants to respond with, "You can't, the rules say talkers go first". But in my experience saying they can't do something because the rules say so, is generally not a good idea. I ended up letting him do as he said, but penalized him several story points for acting very un-doctor like. And that couldn't have been satisfying for the player either. I kind of felt like no one won in that scenario, my narrative didn't advance and the player was penalized for doing something he wanted to do.

Finally, I had a party arrive on an asteroid base. They decided when they were noticed, their best bet was to kill the scientist who noticed them. Then they proceeded to knock out or kill the rest of the scientists on the base. Shortly afterward, the base was attacked by an unknown lifeform, they killed all of them too with no though of trying to figure out what they were, why they were attacking, what the base was there for.

There are many situations in a game like Doctor Who that could influence a players' actions, but players who are used to doing what they want and only rolling to determine if they hit and how much damage they do, are usually very resistant to the idea that they can't do something because an NPC convinced them it's a bad idea.

The worst part is, I could say "I've got bad players", but we're all a team in a roleplaying game, it's just as much my fault as it is theirs that Doctor Who hasn't really worked. So I must be doing something wrong.

So, this kind of turned into a ramble, but for those that have been playing this game for a while, how do you handle such situations? Are there any tips for guiding players into a more exploratory/pacifistic style? Or do you just find friends who are excited to play "Doctor Who" and not "Let's explore time and space to meet incredible new creatures and kill them."

[thereviewer]

Jun 1, 2017 19:17:28 GMT atomicpif said:

I have had this question for years. I just haven't picked the game up and played it in years either.
I thought I might have posted it in the past, but didn't find the thread. It's the question that really keeps me from bringing the game out and getting it played.

How do you handle when the NPCs are the talkers?

I've had 99% of my players in the past be completely gung ho shoot first type of people. Occasionally, they meet an NPC that just wants to live, so, acting first, the NPC tries to talk the Player out of killing them. So I roll against the players resolve, and sometimes, I'll spend a story point and the NPC will win, doing damage to the players resolve. This is never enough to reduce their resolve in one round to 0. As such, not quite convinced, on the player's turn to act, he shoots the NPC anyway. The best I can come up with is to give him a -2 on the shot, because he already used one action this round to "Defend" against the convince attempt.

Another situation that has come up, I had one party ambushed by a patrol unit. When the leader of the patrol started to ask the players what they were doing here, one of my players cuts in with: "I'm going to shoot him in the head before he can speak."

Part of me wants to respond with, "You can't, the rules say talkers go first". But in my experience saying they can't do something because the rules say so, is generally not a good idea. I ended up letting him do as he said, but penalized him several story points for acting very un-doctor like. And that couldn't have been satisfying for the player either. I kind of felt like no one won in that scenario, my narrative didn't advance and the player was penalized for doing something he wanted to do.

Finally, I had a party arrive on an asteroid base. They decided when they were noticed, their best bet was to kill the scientist who noticed them. Then they proceeded to knock out or kill the rest of the scientists on the base. Shortly afterward, the base was attacked by an unknown lifeform, they killed all of them too with no though of trying to figure out what they were, why they were attacking, what the base was there for.

There are many situations in a game like Doctor Who that could influence a players' actions, but players who are used to doing what they want and only rolling to determine if they hit and how much damage they do, are usually very resistant to the idea that they can't do something because an NPC convinced them it's a bad idea.

The worst part is, I could say "I've got bad players", but we're all a team in a roleplaying game, it's just as much my fault as it is theirs that Doctor Who hasn't really worked. So I must be doing something wrong.

So, this kind of turned into a ramble, but for those that have been playing this game for a while, how do you handle such situations? Are there any tips for guiding players into a more exploratory/pacifistic style? Or do you just find friends who are excited to play "Doctor Who" and not "Let's explore time and space to meet incredible new creatures and kill them."

I kinda had this problem with my DWAITAS Adventures last time, but I also saw a lot more change as well.

Basically, my friend who plays the main character of Kanya (a Time Lord Archeologist from pre-Time War Gallifrey,) often tended to miss certain details. For instance, in the last game we played which was my own reworking of the adventure Seeing Eyes from the Twelfth Doctor edition of the Doctor Who RPG Rulebook, she realized that the kids in the classroom were viewing an illusion surrounding her via a perception filter, but took a whole three minutes to figure out her companion was one of the illusion creatures as well despite him looking at her pleadingly. In fact, when she finally did free him, his first question was why it took so long to recognize him. However, she did improve more into the last act as she managed to escape the ship which in my version was being controlled by the Krillitanes who were using the Clockwork Droids and needed to abduct kids in order to keep their ship in order. During an escape, she came up with a nonviolent solution by causing the speakers to start blasting the song 'What Does the Fox Say?' and amplifying it via her sonic device.

My advice to you would be to suggest to your players that they try a little bit of improvising in their solutions. Ask them politely to try and think outside the box. It doesn't have to be perfect, but ask if they can think of any nonviolent solutions. Some of the best podcasts I've listened to featuring roleplaying sessions have the funniest payoffs thanks to players improvising the craziest things. For instance, on the Terrible Warriors Podcast, the players in that game were playing DC characters who were transported to the another universe and the guy playing as Batman (wearing the Superman Beat-Em-Up Bat-Armor that was featured in the Dark Knight Returns Comic,) stormed into the elevator to one of the most secure buildings of that world, and hotwired it to get to the top floor as we were reminded by the GM and players that this Batman was the guy who took a mutant gang leader and beat him within an inch of his life in a heap of mud and waste declaring "This isn't a mudhole... It's an operating table. And I'm the surgeon" whilst breaking the mutant leader's leg, his will, and his hold over his followers. It also led into one of my favorite internet meme's which was presented here where they referred to Batman as "Crazy Steve" as was coined in a comic review show to refer to the version in the infamous All-Star Batman and Robin comic where Batman acts less like a hero and utters a rather offensive phrase which I won't mention here, but you've probably seen it around the internet a couple of times.

Hope this advice helps you, man.

[Stormcrow]

Jun 1, 2017 19:17:28 GMT atomicpif said:

I've had 99% of my players in the past be completely gung ho shoot first type of people. Occasionally, they meet an NPC that just wants to live, so, acting first, the NPC tries to talk the Player out of killing them. So I roll against the players resolve, and sometimes, I'll spend a story point and the NPC will win, doing damage to the players resolve. This is never enough to reduce their resolve in one round to 0. As such, not quite convinced, on the player's turn to act, he shoots the NPC anyway. The best I can come up with is to give him a -2 on the shot, because he already used one action this round to "Defend" against the convince attempt.

Never enough? An NPC pleading for his life who succeeds in his "attack" lowers the target's Resolve by an amount equal to the NPC's Presence. If he spends a Story Point—which he's likely to do given his life is on the line—he can raise that to 1.5 × Presence. The average person, with a Presence of 3, spending a Story Point will lower the target's Resolve by 4 points. This will work on a lot of characters. If the character has more Resolve than that, he's stubborn and hard to persuade.

But you're right about giving the attacker a -2 on the shot.

Another situation that has come up, I had one party ambushed by a patrol unit. When the leader of the patrol started to ask the players what they were doing here, one of my players cuts in with: "I'm going to shoot him in the head before he can speak."

Part of me wants to respond with, "You can't, the rules say talkers go first". But in my experience saying they can't do something because the rules say so, is generally not a good idea.

In this case, "because the rules say so" is a good reason to make them wait. That's the way the Doctor Who universe works, and if you want to play there, you have to play by the rules. The players already benefit by these rules; the bad guys can't kill them before they have a chance to do something. Ask them if they think Daleks should be able to shoot before the players can react.

I ended up letting him do as he said, but penalized him several story points for acting very un-doctor like. And that couldn't have been satisfying for the player either. I kind of felt like no one won in that scenario, my narrative didn't advance and the player was penalized for doing something he wanted to do.

Finally, I had a party arrive on an asteroid base. They decided when they were noticed, their best bet was to kill the scientist who noticed them. Then they proceeded to knock out or kill the rest of the scientists on the base. Shortly afterward, the base was attacked by an unknown lifeform, they killed all of them too with no though of trying to figure out what they were, why they were attacking, what the base was there for.

These are textbook examples of how to have Story Points taken away from you. See "Losing Story Points" in the rule book. "If the Gamemaster feels that your character has killed someone or something that was unnecessary, you will lose ALL of your Story Points. If it is done in a particularly cold-hearted way, the Gamemaster may even deduct half of all of the other players' Story Points too, as they should have stopped you."

Basically, be draconian when it comes to penalizing Story Points for unnecessary killing or cruelty. Players can DO whatever they want, but only those who play by the conventions of Doctor Who stories are rewarded with the ability to manipulate the story. If you play a killer, you will be unable to survive the death traps that are Doctor Who adventures.

There are many situations in a game like Doctor Who that could influence a players' actions, but players who are used to doing what they want and only rolling to determine if they hit and how much damage they do, are usually very resistant to the idea that they can't do something because an NPC convinced them it's a bad idea.

This is true. One of the ideas behind RPGs is that you can direct your character to do ANYTHING. Telling a player he can't take an action because his character has been convinced not to seems to fly in the face of that, and in a way it does. But the Doctor Who game is trying to model the show, in which talking and mental ability often overcome violence. To make the game follow those lines, it allows the game master to temporarily take control of your character. It presents this as "damage," just like a physical injury. If your arm is broken, you can't use your arm. If your will is broken, you can't use your will.

You need to persuade your players to go along with this style of play for the sake of the Doctor Who vibe.

The worst part is, I could say "I've got bad players", but we're all a team in a roleplaying game, it's just as much my fault as it is theirs that Doctor Who hasn't really worked. So I must be doing something wrong.

You don't have bad players; you have players who are used to doing things a certain way that doesn't apply to Doctor Who. You just need to explore new ways of doing things. Stick to rules to teach them how talking and running and doing are actually MORE EFFECTIVE TACTICS in the game than fighting. There are few games that could make that claim.

[Hedgewick]

Jun 2, 2017 13:36:20 GMT Stormcrow said:

But the Doctor Who game is trying to model the show, in which talking and mental ability often overcome violence... You need to persuade your players to go along with this style of play for the sake of the Doctor Who vibe... You don't have bad players; you have players who are used to doing things a certain way that doesn't apply to Doctor Who. You just need to explore new ways of doing things.

Absolutely. Craig Ferguson put it best. What is Doctor Who if not a celebration of "the triumph of intellect and romance over brute force and cynicism"? The rules of the Doctor Who RPG reinforce these values, and there should be no hesitancy in applying the requisite consequences to cold-blooded killing. If you dare to venture into the Doctor Who universe, you're going to have to play by its rules.

[atomicpif]

Jun 2, 2017 13:36:20 GMT Stormcrow said:

Never enough? An NPC pleading for his life who succeeds in his "attack" lowers the target's Resolve by an amount equal to the NPC's Presence. If he spends a Story Point—which he's likely to do given his life is on the line—he can raise that to 1.5 × Presence. The average person, with a Presence of 3, spending a Story Point will lower the target's Resolve by 4 points. This will work on a lot of characters. If the character has more Resolve than that, he's stubborn and hard to persuade.

They can spend a story point to increase the 'damage' by 1.5? Out of curiosity, is that in the rules? I knew you could raise the levels of Failures into a success by spending story points, but didn't think you could raise a Success into a Fantastic.

Otherwise, I really like all the advice here. Thank you very much, it is what makes Doctor Who different from all the other RPGs out there.
So focusing on that is a good idea.

[Stormcrow]

You're right, the NPC can't use Story Points to raise his success at persuasion above Success. He'll have to roll that Fantastic result naturally. (You can still let him spend a Story Point or two on extra dice for the roll.)

[Stormcrow]

One other bit of advice that occurs to me. There is a temptation to treat every situation like an Extended Conflict, with rounds and reactions and damage. However, unless you KNOW the Conflict is going to last over a series of actions that you want to track, it's usually better to forgo all that and use a regular Conflict.

In the case of an ambush and an NPC pleading for his life, this doesn't strike me as requiring an Extended Conflict to resolve. The player wants to shoot the NPC in the head. The NPC wants the player to spare his life. The player rolls his Coordination + Marksman (with a -4 Complication for targeting the head) vs. the NPC's Presence + Convince. Whichever side his the higher total wins, and you calculate that side's level of success normally.

Don't worry that the two actions don't seem to address each other directly. In the 10th Doctor edition of the rules (pp. 57–58), there's an example in the Player's Guide in which Mickey Smith encounters a Cyberman. Mickey rolls Presence + Convince to persuade the Cyberman not to shoot him. The Cyberman rolls Coordination + Marksman. Mickey wins and the player gets to decide how the Cyberman is persuaded, with moderation by the game master. Mechanically, this is exactly the same as your situation.

No "social damage" is involved here. One side gets to take its action; the other side only mitigates the level of the result.

[atomicpif]

Also a very good point, thanks again!