Trouble Aspects that might screw people over?

[darkfire14]

Often times I see that "Trouble" aspects tend to grind towards some big baddie like "Hounded by Black Court Vampires".

But then again, what could happen if you have "Antagonistic" trouble aspects that could prevent players from working together. For instance a Champion of God who is on a crusade to kill White Court vampires and has "Enemy of the White Court" as his trouble aspect. Might be pretty hard for him to even consider working with a White Court vampire considering they're his enemy. Other trouble concepts is trying to play magic using characters who might be antagonistic toward the white council.

I once had a concept for a Focused Practitioner psychologist who used mind magic to help people, mainly as an aid to help him treat mental disorders and help his patients recover. He is opposed to the use of Mind Magic for evil ends, instead working behind the scenes to free people from mental domination (As to cure a person of being Compelled or mind-screwed by magic you need to actually use mind magic). But the game discourages playing lawbreaker characters thus having the trouble of an enemy of the white council pretty much means that the other PC's will need to kill you (if they're wizards).

So how does one play what they want without their trouble aspect screwing any chance of them getting along with their fellow players?

[Tedronai]

Collaborative character building.

[toturi]

Remember that Compels can only force certain type of behaviors but not their specifics. So while the Champion may be "Enemy of the White Court" and forced to act as an "enemy of the White Court", he could still play nice with one White Court faction in order to weaken the White Court as a whole. Also the WC Vampire could also be playing that Champion as his stalking horse to weaken his foes, which is a distinct possibility taking into account the "approved" style of the White Court.

Another player may be playing a WC Vampire, but that player could put "Toe-moss is my friend" as one of the Champion's Aspects. Together "Enemy of the White Court" and "Toe-moss is my friend" may well cancel each other out, at least where the PC WCVampire is concerned (see the "contradictory aspects" in Our World).

For the Focused Practitioner, he could well have an Aspect "Dabbler in the grey areas", so the other characters need not approach him the way they would a "black" magic user.

[noclue]

For instance a Champion of God who is on a crusade to kill White Court vampires and has "Enemy of the White Court" as his trouble aspect. Might be pretty hard for him to even consider working with a White Court vampire considering they're his enemy.

Well, you make the WCV his brother...who has been secretly watching over him from and has saved his life many times...and you put them in a situation where they have to work together to save an innocent. Actually, that sounds pretty awesome. I'm sold.

Other trouble concepts is trying to play magic using characters who might be antagonistic toward the white council.

Impossible. You couldn't make a cool story about a wizard who is on the outs with the White Council.

I once had a concept for a Focused Practitioner psychologist who used mind magic to help people, mainly as an aid to help him treat mental disorders and help his patients recover. He is opposed to the use of Mind Magic for evil ends, instead working behind the scenes to free people from mental domination (As to cure a person of being Compelled or mind-screwed by magic you need to actually use mind magic). But the game discourages playing lawbreaker characters thus having the trouble of an enemy of the white council pretty much means that the other PC's will need to kill you (if they're wizards).

The game does not discourage playing law breaking characters. It just means you have to be prepared for the consequences.

So how does one play what they want without their trouble aspect screwing any chance of them getting along with their fellow players?

Give them equally compelling reasons for getting along and have fun with the tension you've created?

[Viatos]

Collaborative character building.

This. Make sure the party knows they're the party, and don't let them set up for PVP in the first place. Introduce them to each other at the table or wherever you play. Have everyone make their characters together, encourage communication. There is a lot of creative freedom players can explore without twisting that right into a shiv they can ruin each other's good time with.

[noclue]

The folks in the Actual People, Actual Playhttp://spookyouthouse.com/forum/index.php?board=81.0 podcast have a vamp and a White Council wizard in their group.

[WillH]

The folks in the Actual People, Actual Playhttp://spookyouthouse.com/forum/index.php?board=81.0 podcast have a vamp and a White Council wizard in their group.

Actually the vampire is an important NPC, but your point is still valid. He could work as a PC.

[Hal]

From a broader perspective, bear in mind that the Trouble Aspect is there to help drive conflict (necessary for an interesting story).  If things are slowing down at the table or you're struggling to find a direction for the story, grab one of the troubles and apply some pressure. 

As a caveat, though, I'm going to emphasize what others have said about collaborative character building.  If you have a Knight of the Cross and a Denarian in the same party, then something went wrong during character creation.

But also remember that the trouble aspect can also be an easy source of fate points for the player.  For example, in my game I have a pair of twin changelings in my campaign who took the trouble, "Two sides of the same coin."  In practice, I've used this to basically make them share consequences.  "Oh, your brother has a broken ankle?  Well, you're feeling his pain.  How does a fate point sound for no mobility this round?"

[noclue]

As a caveat, though, I'm going to emphasize what others have said about collaborative character building.  If you have a Knight of the Cross and a Denarian in the same party, then something went wrong during character creation.

Or something went totally right.

[Silverseraph]

And who is to say a healthy dose of animosity in the party isn't interesting, character's don't need to be friends if the people who play them are mature enough to handle inter-party conflict.

Yes the Vampire slayer and the White Court Vampire don't have to be the best of buds, and their clashing can lead to very interesting play.... or the death of your campaign... some might call one party member stone cold murdering another a GLORIOUS end to the game though... Also the murder of one party member doesn't necessarily mean the death of a campaign... it just usually does.

[devonapple]

And who is to say a healthy dose of animosity in the party isn't interesting...some might call one party member stone cold murdering another a GLORIOUS end to the game though...

Well, sure - and anyone in a group like that isn't going to be coming here for guidance on whether or not that sort of choice is alright. They know they can handle it. Or they think they can handle it, and only by playing it through do they find out they couldn't.

[MorkaisChosen]

Or something went totally right.

The Knights would certainly think so- "This one, we may be able to save..."

In general? Careful interpretation. Trouble needs to cause trouble, but not shatter the game- so if you've got a White Council Wizard and a guy who walks on the deepest edges of the grey, you can Compel the White Council aspect to make him mistrustful, not want to leave him alone, that sort of thing (and then drop in some unfortunate consequences from that, happening where the wizard would be if he wasn't watching the other guy- it needs to be trouble, after all...)- but not "OMG decapitate now."

Awkward with a Warden, which is why I'd say collaborative chargen is a good idea.

[Lanir]

I wouldn't be okay with a game that might end at any moment because two other players setup a time bomb set to an unknown length of time on us. Sure they might get something out of it and both might be okay with it but if it nukes the game, what has that really done for me? Normally I'm not a very selfish person but in this kind of situation, I'm totally going to say it's justified, because the alternative is letting other people be selfish and ruin the game for you. Which is kind of silly.

Basically my rule of thumb is anything that's going to negatively affect the group ought to get the okay from the group to be used in the game. And it honestly shouldn't even be considered unless it also does something to add to the game as well. Building a ticking time bomb that can blow up and take the game with it is just inconsiderate. Building a ticking time bomb the other players are willing to buy into because it adds to the story, now that is good roleplaying.