|
Post by tenthrose on Jan 23, 2011 16:48:54 GMT
Hello!
I've been playing this game with a group of my friends for several months now, and we all adore it, but recently there have been some problems regarding the whole non-violence aspect of the game.
One member of our party (the only non who fan among us) has two different characters he plays. Both have the major version of Quick Reflexes, and high physical attributes. One has most of his skill points in fighting and athletics, while the other is a very good Marksman. This player is a very good writer, and one of my closest friends. However, his characters always tend to solve their problems by fighting them, and due to his chosen traits, always have a chance to.
This wasn't really a problem until he started rubbing off on the rest of our group. Now, the stealth-based giant lizard companion won't leave the TARDIS without his laser sword, and everyone gets annoyed at the Doctor (whom I control) for trying to ask the mooks politely to please not shoot them, and the Doctor and the mild mannered ex Torchwood hacker often find themselves standing around and twiddling their thumbs as they watch a battle which they are powerless to stop.
I suppose that the real problem is that our party is polarised enough that one character always seems to be irrelevant. Action Man gets annoyed when there's nothing for him to attack (he's pretty much usesless at the thinking based puzzlers), and I have nothing to do during a melee.
We do a round-robin style of GMing, so there's no mediator. I'm the de facto group leader of the moment (as the Doctor's player, the one who got everyone else into this, and the person whose friends with the whole group), and I'm clueless.
tl;dr: Unbalanced group leads to annoyances over brains v. brawns
|
|
|
Post by Siskoid on Jan 23, 2011 19:08:56 GMT
First, communication is key. Perhaps all it takes is a conversation about the tone of the game.
You could also give incentives with Story Points, making violent players lose them and non-violent players score them. If in the Whonoverse, violence is not the way, then the GM can represent this karmically with the reward system (and if not with Story Points, then with chances for skill pt advancement or even "luck" as represented by who gets in what kind of trouble).
Which leads me to my final solution: The in-game lesson. In the Whoniverse, it would not be untoward for characters to learn a terrible lesson. Violent characters should definitely be the ones violently (and eventually, LETHALLY) attacked by foes who look the other way at talkers, runners and doers. The GM should totally make use of metagame knowledge and plan for the exact behavior they know will occur. A monster that punishes whoever hits it, for example, or that grows in power the more aggression it is exposed to. Trap doors that will only be set off by a character who lunges at the villain. Etc. Just look at Torchwood and how many sacrifices they have to make compared to Sarah Jane's kids.
If you have fighters in the group, that's fine, but you should prepare accordingly and give them the chance to shine during the session. It's about catering to all of your group's interests and abilities. If you strike the right balance in any given scenario (between situations where fighting is indicated and those it is not), your players shouldn't be frustrated.
|
|
|
Post by Craig Oxbrow on Jan 23, 2011 23:24:40 GMT
Hello! Hopefully we can help.
I always advise out-of-game solutions first and foremost. In-game solutions can result in (a) dead characters and (b) players who then make bigger stronger characters rather than reconsidering or (c) angry players.
And you shouldn't be powerless to stop combat. Not only do talkers, runners and doers go before most fighters, in case of emergency a Story Point can be used to create a distraction or open a not-previously-mentioned avenue of escape. Drop a forcefield between the opposing sides, sonic open an access hatch, have more troops arrive forcing a retreat...
As a sidenote, I'm curious as to how a game with no GM works. (Although my players might be able to tell me, ha-ha.) Is one of you de factor GM deciding what the enemies do and where the TARDIS lands and the like, or are you working from a randomiser system like the Mythic GM Emulator?
|
|
|
Post by apseudo on Jan 24, 2011 0:58:54 GMT
So, first I'd agree about trying to talk to everyone first, maybe try watching a particularly anti-violence episode before a game to set tone. It sounds like your game is even more based in group storytelling than most, so making sure everyone is on the same page should be rule one.
Second, it seems as though you've made a major version of Quick Reflexes that allows the character to ignore the initiative order and, though I would never tell anyone what house rules they should or shouldn't have, that seems ridiculously unbalanced. The order is very important in this system because of the exact issue you're having.
Third, you could try a different type of game next time you GM. I would suggest something where either one of the PCs gets possessed by a villain or where there is no villain except for paranoia and in-fighting. That way, if they resort to violence, they would be hurting another PC. The wonderful thing about Doctor Who is that it can support any SciFi story type and you should be able to make that work for you. You could also try more physical puzzles, or splitting the group if you really don't want to push in game chastisement. Have your group not run into enemies with Lethal consequences? It seems strange that you shouldn't have met at least one overwhelming force yet.
I have two combat characters and they haven't proven unbalancing. One, a Knight Hospitaller, has been convinced that one of the other PCs is a messenger of God, thus giving him an in game reason to protect a weaker character rather than run off half cocked. I made quite clear when they were writing up these characters that they were likely to die if they did charge blindly into combat and that's been more than enough thus far. Just don't get disheartened, there are plenty of options.
|
|
jonsp
1st Incarnation
Posts: 9
|
Post by jonsp on Jan 25, 2011 0:15:30 GMT
I've had problems like this in my own games, and I discovered a while back that it usually stems from the players simply not understanding what you're trying to do with the game. Players tend to respond the way they think the GM expects them to respond. They try to second-guess you, and they figure you've designed an encounter/scene to be resolved in a certain way. If you guys played a lot of combat-oriented games previously, and you throw a situation at them that looks just like a combat situation from your previous games, they're going to follow the cues you've given them and try to solve the situation the same way.
So just making your expectations clear and telling them what kind of game you're trying to create might solve the problem.
I'd say definitely--definitely--just talk it over with the players. In my experience, both as player and GM, in-game reward/punishment almost always backfires for exactly the reasons Craig listed.
Just approach your players from the perspective that you're all there to create a good story and have fun, that it's a cooperative venture, and you should get a good response.
With that in mind, keep open the possibility of changing the way _you_ approach the game. If your players do actually _want_ a more action and combat-oriented game, then maybe go ahead and take it in that direction. It's your universe, and you can do with it whatever you please, and an action-oriented, combat-ready Doctor is certainly not unprecedented.
Of course the game needs to be fun for you too, and if you have your heart set on non-combat while they have theirs set on combat ... well, then you've got some talking and compromising to do.
|
|
|
Post by ugavine on Jan 25, 2011 16:09:45 GMT
There are plenty of Monsters in Doctor Who that cannot be fought head-on with a blaster or Las-Sword. Gas creatures, Etheral creatures, and the near invunerable (Sutekh, The Destroyer, and army of Daleks). Remember order of play. When everyone else has run off leaving them on their own let the numbers do the talking. "Yes, you can shoot ONE of the FOUR Daleks."
|
|
korith
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 131
|
Post by korith on Jan 25, 2011 20:11:41 GMT
There's also the question of where are they fighting, and what are they fighting for? Pulling out a laser sword in 11th century Europe might not be a terribly desirable course of action if there's a chance of hacking apart one's distant ancestor. A good villain ought to have some failsafes in place, as well (even if doing so involves spending one of their precious few story points). Charging Davros with the intent to snap his head off is likely to bring you into direct contact with a static force field, with a swarm of daleks bolting into the room.
Discuss some of this out of game for certain - they might not want to abandon their present characters, but leaving room for character growth is certainly a possibility. Brainstorm some situations where there are obvious incentives to deal with the situation by means other than bisecting the opposition - perhaps a hostage situation where the demands of the villain are surprisingly reasonable (and don't just make it a gun to the head - a stealth lizard could probably beat that. Perhaps a weapon set to disintegrate the hostage and all other life forms if the hostage moves more than 10 meters away from the hostage taker? Of course, that could be a bluff...). Acting peacefully and demonstrating character growth should also be clear opportunities for bonus story points - which in turn could be spent on the occasional "brute force is useful here" moment so that they can really play to their strengths as well.
|
|
skagra
2nd Incarnation
Posts: 59
|
Post by skagra on Jan 26, 2011 21:01:02 GMT
As a player and GM with a traditional (D&D) background, personally I find non violence more of a challenge when creating adventures than when playing in them. Mind you even in D&D I would punish players using too much brawn and not enough brain. They would sometimes accidentally kill a good guy held captive and disguised as a foe via phantasmal force. Tis would teach them to sometimes ask questions first and fireball after.
Other groups would never run from a fight, no matter how outclassed and outnumbered. It sucks killing a party to teach the players a lesson, but it also sucks to constantly bail them out of lethal situations they constantly through themselves into. If you want to try an in-game solution, focus on negative consequences to fighting which are not lethal. Work them into the story.
Try a series of adventures based on the bad things that happen to them when they are captured, and they're plights to rectify things. Perhaps an enemy scientist steals their strength - they are all strength 1 until they can locate and break into the lab which hosts their bottled might. Have them captured and looted, forced to escape with no weapons. Abducted to an environment in which they can't see but their enemies can. Perhaps keep these adventures as distraction from the "real mission", which they can resolve when they learn to run.
As for out of game communication, you need to know if your group are the types to appreciate nonviolent role playing. If they aren't you might have try a violent campaign, or even switch systems. However, they might enjoy non violent gaming once they get into it, if you can get them started.
It doesn't help that your attempted non violent adventures have all been solvable through violence. This reestablished that violence is indeed the answer. If you think they might enjoy non violent role playing, tell them you are also new to it as a GM and are still getting the hang of it. Warn them that as your settle into it, brute force is going to become a lot harder than it has been, but that there will be other avenues. If they like Star Wars, assure them "you can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting".
|
|
alix367
2nd Incarnation
Don't you hate it when that happens?
Posts: 14
|
Post by alix367 on Feb 9, 2011 23:26:10 GMT
Communication is key, but might I suggest something else. Create scenarios and or creatures where attacking is pointless. You can shoot at a Weaping Angel all you want but it's still going to kill you. That way they can shoot at it all they want, and they still have to figure out a way of beating them without force. Make it so that they still feel like their being violent, but the violence is pointless. After being forced to actually think about how to defeat an enemy, they might descover that they like that, better than being violent.
|
|
NurseRani
2nd Incarnation
Days like crazy paving
Posts: 132
Favourite Doctors: 4th, 10th, 11th
|
Post by NurseRani on Apr 24, 2011 4:57:34 GMT
I've seen several suggestions I'd go with, already posted here. The one I like the most is the monster that gets more powerful when greeted with aggression.
I can so see #10 / David Tennant facing that one, and being the one to catch on to how to actually defeat the enemy. Be non-aggressive. The monster is just looking for attention and when the aggression stops te monster gives up and goes off somewhere.
You say you have a Round Robin play style ? What about a situation where the players trade characters ? The more aggressive players must play the less aggressive characters, etc...
Maybe something that switches the characters' personalities a la that Farscape episode where everyone on Moya switched personalities ?
I'm all for in-game solutions since this seems to be an issue of the characters being more aggressive and warlike than the game calls for.
|
|
stahlman
3rd Incarnation
Doctor, stop wasting my time, will you?
Posts: 222
Favourite Doctors: second,third,fourth
|
Post by stahlman on May 6, 2011 7:04:09 GMT
I have started to run a campaign on Friday nights online using fantasy grounds software. My players like storytelling games which suits the rules well but I would like to recreate the style of those wonderful set pieces that the Hazard stunt company were famous for in the UNIT years. I think an abstract skirmish system would work for this and I was hoping we may see something suitable in the Defending the Earth supplement
|
|