ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Mr. Death on April 26, 2012, 05:47:33 PM
-
So, in my game, I'm starting a scenario where I'm planning to have a badguy NPC working as a mole within the party. Now, mechanically, this is easy enough: He's got Deceit at the top of his skillset, stunts to boost that in a few ways, and several fate points to spend.
The thing is, I'm big on preserving drama and keeping the game as narratively interesting as it is mechanically interesting. I.e., when it's revealed he's a badguy, I want the players to be as surprised as the characters, or at least near enough to it.
So, any advice on letting the characters potentially figure it out via Empathy rolls, while keeping the players from figuring out, "Okay, I'm rolling Empathy to see if this guy's on the level. I guess that means he's not."?
-
Have them roll Empathy for people who aren't doing anything nefarious, just to get an impression of their personalities.
Even that's somewhat flawed, though. FATE in general doesn't do this stuff very well. The FP spending rules tend to assume a certain level of transparency.
-
Sanc beat me to the post button, but what I wrote below is somewhat similar... Let them know they're rolling to discover deception, but don't tell them what the deception is. Likewise, you could simply compel them whenever they would have a chance to uncover his lies. If they want to try and buy it off, escalate. It is the big bad of the game we're talking here.
Here's what I wrote before:
Put another NPC in the party that doesn't seem "on the level" that actually is; he's just really not a likeable guy. Make sure he's involved in whatever discussions the mole is, and players will immediately think they're rolling empathy on the "smelly" NPC companion. When they finally find out he's a decent guy, it'll be egg on their faces for using the OOC info that they were rolling Empathy.
If/when they ask what they're rolling for (to determine if they want to boost with FPs) simply reply "you are rolling Empathy to attempt to uncover someone's hidden motives in this conversation," or something equally descriptive while not giving something away.
-
Even that's somewhat flawed, though. FATE in general doesn't do this stuff very well. The FP spending rules tend to assume a certain level of transparency.
Yeah, it's one of the things I will hand-wave occasionally if it's important enough to the "fun" or "wow" in the game. It should be done in moderation.
The thing is, I'm big on preserving drama and keeping the game as narratively interesting as it is mechanically interesting. I.e., when it's revealed he's a badguy, I want the players to be as surprised as the characters, or at least near enough to it.
When you, as the story teller, break the rules, it should be in the interest of increasing fun for everyone involved.
-
One of the other things you could do is simply compare their empathy scores to his deceit score (as if both parties had rolled zero). If they are close then you can give them some hints ("He seems like he's holding something back" or "You aren't sure he's quite on the level").
Just to be clear do you want them to uncover the mole, or do you just want to give them the chance before things go to hell?
Either way some foreshadowing (related to the player's actions, not specifically to the NPC) might make the players paranoid enough to begin questioning everyone.
-
One thing to focus on is how little he would be lying or otherwise trying to deceive the players.
Take Peabody as the stereotypical mole. Over 99% of the time Peabody just did his job. He ordered the files, he oversaw what he was supposed to oversee, he acted as the administrative assistant he was.
If he wasn't so good at that job, he wouldn't have been so useful.
He didn't go around trying to win people's trust. He never told them that something they reported to him would be confidential - in fact most people would know that he would add that information to the right files and issue a report on that if asked to. He wasn't anyone's buddy and he didn't try to be. Even the few people above him saw him as a self important bureaucrat, but as long as he got the job done that was all they cared about.
In short, he was the perfect mole because he didn't have to go around lying all of the time. All he had to do was his job plus a few other things on the side. Being Good or better at Deceit and having an Aspect or two relating to being undercover - that's really all a mole needs. Especially if he is in a support role - because who would suspect Dave the Mechanic or the guy who works the lunch counter of being a mole? The boss' secretary is another good role - practically the same as Peabody's was. As is Jack from the archive - the guy who scans in all the after action reports.
Richard
-
One thing to focus on is how little he would be lying or otherwise trying to deceive the players.
Take Peabody as the stereotypical mole. Over 99% of the time Peabody just did his job. He ordered the files, he oversaw what he was supposed to oversee, he acted as the administrative assistant he was.
If he wasn't so good at that job, he wouldn't have been so useful.
He didn't go around trying to win people's trust. He never told them that something they reported to him would be confidential - in fact most people would know that he would add that information to the right files and issue a report on that if asked to. He wasn't anyone's buddy and he didn't try to be. Even the few people above him saw him as a self important bureaucrat, but as long as he got the job done that was all they cared about.
In short, he was the perfect mole because he didn't have to go around lying all of the time. All he had to do was his job plus a few other things on the side. Being Good or better at Deceit and having an Aspect or two relating to being undercover - that's really all a mole needs. Especially if he is in a support role - because who would suspect Dave the Mechanic or the guy who works the lunch counter of being a mole? The boss' secretary is another good role - practically the same as Peabody's was. As is Jack from the archive - the guy who scans in all the after action reports.
Richard
Yeah; this is the best way to do it, if you can set it up; if he's not required to lie, they're not given a role. It's just like with the fae.
"Grimalkin, what is your task?" "To guide you safely to the chamber of the Cold Lady." <some time later...> "Harry, he didn't say he had to lead us back out again." <distant laughter>
-
Have them roll Empathy for people who aren't doing anything nefarious, just to get an impression of their personalities.
Even that's somewhat flawed, though. FATE in general doesn't do this stuff very well. The FP spending rules tend to assume a certain level of transparency.
That's a good idea, but it's probably undermined by the fact I haven't really had them do that up to now. And yeah, the fate point spending makes it tough to sneak things by.
Put another NPC in the party that doesn't seem "on the level" that actually is; he's just really not a likeable guy. Make sure he's involved in whatever discussions the mole is, and players will immediately think they're rolling empathy on the "smelly" NPC companion. When they finally find out he's a decent guy, it'll be egg on their faces for using the OOC info that they were rolling Empathy.
If/when they ask what they're rolling for (to determine if they want to boost with FPs) simply reply "you are rolling Empathy to attempt to uncover someone's hidden motives in this conversation," or something equally descriptive while not giving something away.
I wish I had asked this sooner, cuz that's a good one too. Unfortunately, it's too late to change the parameters of the start of the scenario.
One of the other things you could do is simply compare their empathy scores to his deceit score (as if both parties had rolled zero). If they are close then you can give them some hints ("He seems like he's holding something back" or "You aren't sure he's quite on the level").
That might be the simplest way--looking at their sheets, the Mole's deceit is 5 (up to 7 with the Honest Lies stunt), and the highest Empathy a PC has is 3.
Just to be clear do you want them to uncover the mole, or do you just want to give them the chance before things go to hell?
The way the Scenario's laid out in my mind, I'd rather they didn't, but I want them to have the chance to.
Either way some foreshadowing (related to the player's actions, not specifically to the NPC) might make the players paranoid enough to begin questioning everyone.
Hm, I could push that angle. Part of the scenario is a case of mistaken identity meant to make a newly-introduced PC seem like the badguy for a bit to one of the other PCs.
@Richard: Yeah, I was planning to have him tell mostly the truth (partly because when I initially planned the scenario, the party included a dog who could discern lies--hence the Honest Lies stunt, he was meant to lean on that a lot). Though he's newly introduced to the main group of PCs, so he hasn't had time to develop that kind of "always in the background" alibi, for them at least.
One thing that popped into my head was just rolling for the PCs without their knowledge--but that feels a little wrong, not least because they wouldn't get the chance to spend fate points to make the rolls without me telling them what was going on.
-
The way the Scenario's laid out in my mind, I'd rather they didn't, but I want them to have the chance to.
Then I wouldn't worry about it. Compare scores, note that they're fairly outclassed, hand them all a Fate point (compelling their lack of empathy), and say "this is going to be fun".
One thing that popped into my head was just rolling for the PCs without their knowledge--but that feels a little wrong, not least because they wouldn't get the chance to spend fate points to make the rolls without me telling them what was going on.
Yeah, comparing scores is the same idea, but simpler. Still has the same issue though.
-
One thing that I would STRONGLY recommend is, if one of the characters at your table prides himself on reading people DO NOT DO THIS. If you just arbitrarily set this NPCs ability to lie at a little higher than the PCs ability to detect it (again, if this is where the PC thinks he's awesome) you are effectively invalidating that character.
That being said, the best way to do this (although very difficult to pull off) in bring in another player to the game. If you have a friend who can make a couple of Guest Star spots but isn't interested in joining the game long term ask him if he's willing to play the mole. If you insert an NPC into the group they will be suspicious and likely not terrilby surprised if he turns no matter how on the level he seems to be. It has nothing to do with how you run it, it's just how players have been trained to react. It's like when you see Willem Defoe in a movie, you're always a little surprised if he turns out not to be evil.
-
Then I wouldn't worry about it. Compare scores, note that they're fairly outclassed, hand them all a Fate point (compelling their lack of empathy), and say "this is going to be fun".
A extra FATE chip a session would be a great way to handle it. That way you can point out that while they were fooled they received a benefit for being taking in.
Richard
-
@Tallyrand: Yeah, I wouldn't even consider it if that was the case. I don't have any characters like that, aside from the aforementioned lie-sniffing dog who's no longer in the game anyway.
@Richard: It would be, if I didn't already compel the buggers so much they end up with almost more fate points than they can use.
-
I'm not sure this is possible, but if one of the PCs has an Aspect about trusting people, or seeing the good in people, or something like that, maybe Compel that player to back up the NPC if push comes to shove.
-
I think your problem is, that you are thinking in the Framework of a scenario and not in scenes/situations. FATE isn't really a game that you play with an adventure in mind. One or two declarations can totally kill it and then burrow it deep in the ground to kill it again and then throw it into a vulcano.
Make the guy put Aspects on the group like "Trustworthy guy" and give them FP when you compel them. Don't try to fool the players, make it a fun experience for them.
-
@devonapple: Yeah, unfortunately I don't have anyone with aspects like that, or that'd be a great way to do it.
@CottbusFiles: I've actually found that games run a lot better, at least with the groups I've been part of, if there is some kind of framework in mind. Granted, things can and do go off the rails, but having a plan going in helps me a lot when it comes to creating a cohesive experience.
Besides, I'm the GM, I don't have to let every declaration stick. :P
Getting fooled, at least for a little while, isn't going to stop them from having fun. And I think it'll be more satisfying for them if they manage to figure it out over the course of the narrative and gameplay rather than through the metagame.
-
You might want to consider a small houserule. Normally you can only compel characters, you could make it so that you can compel players too.
I wouldn't do that myself, but it might work.
-
Dunno if this fits your idea for the NPC, but I have a sure fire way to fool them.
Fool the spy too.
Have his/her mind mucked with. Everything he/she says he honestly believes. It was a tactic used in Vampire the Masquerade games. Sleeper Agents.
Then one post hypnotic suggestion away will be a trigger word making the mole spill it's guts. One more word puts the sleeper agent under.
Then empathy rolls would reveal...honesty. Just need to have a plot point revealing the NPc as a sleeper agent. This lets the players understand what happened and may create a sympathetic NPC spy afterward.
-
The problem is, you are railroading your players into the reveal. When we look at the fiction than moles get find out mostly before it's to late (Turn Coat). Your players need to have a (mechanical) chance to find this out everything else is railroading.
I still favour the compel idea because players can play hard in this direction and farm fatepoints and choose to not take the compell when they are happy with the situation.
-
The problem is, you are railroading your players into the reveal. When we look at the fiction than moles get find out mostly before it's to late (Turn Coat). Your players need to have a (mechanical) chance to find this out everything else is railroading.
And I plan to give it to them. The whole purpose of this thread, as I said in the first post, is to maintain the surprise while also giving the players the chance to find out, mechanically.
-
is there a chance your players can read this?
If you give us some story details we can think of better ways to gets around/bend/ or out right break "The Rules" so you can mess with them
He's some ideas I have
Tell PC the secret (kinda) ,that your guy is a Mole. BUT mislead this person so that he thinks the mole is a triple agent (Works for the Cia, pretends to double cross for KBG, but is actually working for CIA) . Or have it so the Mole has something so damning on him the player wouldnt dare tell or risk getting killed/beheaded/whatever
Or make it that everytime they get close to figuring it out, Ninjas attack.
If the Mole is a Wizard, make it so that he gives your groups Magical items (but the catch they dont know is, they also let him Track/listen to the group)
Show that your Mole is being "attacked" by the Bad Guy too. Take away any doubt.
Example.
Your Mole is the DunkinDoughnut Man, your bad guy is a Wizard. You see the Wizard Blowing up the Dunkin Doughnut mans Donut Shop. Tragic right? No turns out, the Doughnut man wanted to get out of the doughnut biz, teamed up with the wizard and split the insurance money. Your group could find this out by doing arcane and normal investigation on the scene (The Wizard used fire magic, but there were also a strange amount of gas cans in the shop)
You could also use academics skill to do research on the insurance policy of the doughnut man.
Will a group do that? I doubt it. That sounds boring. But its an option
-
I just don't have the PC roll empathy so if they choose too and beat his deceit they work out something is wrong otherwise the traitor remains unknown and then I will leave prompts that something is not right every now and then.
-
I just don't have the PC roll empathy so if they choose too and beat his deceit they work out something is wrong otherwise the traitor remains unknown and then I will leave prompts that something is not right every now and then.
yeah. this.
if Tom the Warden walks in says, Hi, and you go, roll empathy. It'll raise eyebrows
I read this book on RPGs called Play Dirty. It was awesome and dealt with stuff like this
-
I'm not a big fan of hiding information from the players - anything hidden is something they're not interacting with.
That said, the surprise rolls (whether alertness or an empathy roll) are something I often deal with by asking for a roll or two at the beginning of the session. I write the results down and, when we get to the part where it applies, I'll pass a note to anyone who saw something. Any warnings from there need to be in character. :)
-
I'm not a big fan of hiding information from the players - anything hidden is something they're not interacting with.
That said, the surprise rolls (whether alertness or an empathy roll) are something I often deal with by asking for a roll or two at the beginning of the session. I write the results down and, when we get to the part where it applies, I'll pass a note to anyone who saw something. Any warnings from there need to be in character. :)
That's a pretty great idea: Roll it ahead of time. They still got the roll, they can even decide if spending FP to prevent someone from misleading them is worthwhile, but the players aren't tipped off as to who! You can tell them honestly someone is going to try and mislead them this session and still maintain the mystery.
I like it! It just takes enough planning and foresight to do it at the beginning of the session.
[Edit] On second thought, though, it makes it impossible for the players to meaningfully spend FPs. They can't determine how their aspects apply to a given situation.
The inability to keep twists surprising for the players is actually looking like my one big beef with FATE.
-
Maybe I’m an odd GM, but I’ve never told my players to roll Empathy, they always ask to do so.
If there’s still time between now and the time you want to introduce the mole you could always increase the incidence of social conflict in your game so it wouldn’t be odd to run one against a newcomer who isn’t necessarily distrusted. One of the hallmarks of the DF books is that most of the people Harry interacts with have their own motivations for helping him, which run roughly parallel to Harry’s but are also somewhat divergent. They try to help Harry while also maneuvering him to their benefit. Introduce other NPCs who deal with the players on this level and your mole won’t stick out so much.
-
That's a pretty great idea: Roll it ahead of time. They still got the roll, they can even decide if spending FP to prevent someone from misleading them is worthwhile, but the players aren't tipped off as to who! You can tell them honestly someone is going to try and mislead them this session and still maintain the mystery.
I like it! It just takes enough planning and foresight to do it at the beginning of the session.
I agree. Brilliant workaround.
[Edit] On second thought, though, it makes it impossible for the players to meaningfully spend FPs. They can't determine how their aspects apply to a given situation.
But you can, can't you? As the GM? Just tell them "Up to three of your aspects could be used for this throw in my opinion", and let them decide if they think if it's important enough by the small clues given them. The fact that you can tell them how many (and possibly which) aspects they could use would also give them some clues, but won't neccessary give the game away.
Maybe I’m an odd GM, but I’ve never told my players to roll Empathy, they always ask to do so.
I don't think that depends as much on the GM as it does on the players. The general paranoia level is something you have a hand in of course, but it's the players who act on it.
-
That said, the surprise rolls (whether alertness or an empathy roll) are something I often deal with by asking for a roll or two at the beginning of the session. I write the results down and, when we get to the part where it applies, I'll pass a note to anyone who saw something. Any warnings from there need to be in character. :)
The main issue with that is, as I learned once again last night, I never really know when or if such rolls are going to be needed. I've had sessions where something I expected to get to was delayed or never happened at all.
@DFJunkie: Yeah, blame lack of foresight on my part, but the mole's already around. I keep trying to work in more social conflicts like that (since one player has a character built to be a socialite), but I'm not quite used to it yet.
Thanks for the advice all around, guys. I'm a little sorry to say, though, that the scenario pretty quickly hopped the rails from what I expected, making it so the one thing the mole would have to outright lie about is a moot point. I'll be sure to keep this thread in mind for future occasions, though.
-
Bear in mind that just because it says "traitor" in your notes doesn't mean he has to be. It's not cheating if the GM is doing it.
-
example of what to do
PC I want to roll for Empathy
GM find a Scene or Character Aspect to tag that you can persuade them not to)
-
Maybe I’m an odd GM, but I’ve never told my players to roll Empathy, they always ask to do so...
That's what I find in my games, as well, and my preferred way to run the game. I tend to give new players a warning I'm doing it this way, though, because...
example of what to do
PC I want to roll for Empathy
GM find a Scene or Character Aspect to tag that you can persuade them not to)
There's actually quite a bit of evidence in FATE to support that players shouldn't have to *ask* to roll empathy. The system is very much based on having nothing "behind the screen;" unlike other games, including D&D.
If there are hidden rolls it precludes the proper (narrative) use of Fate Points to boost them. If players are required to be wily for their characters, what happens when a trusting person wants to play a wily character?
Again; just some existential quandaries with FATE.
-
Well, if that character has a wily aspect you could always compel it to make them be less trusting. So long as you compel them to distrust the trustworthy as well as the truly crooked it’s complicating their life. Alternately you could establish the campaign aspect Everyone’s Got an Angle and compel all the PCs to be more guarded with NPCs and even each other. The angle might not be nefarious; Michael wants Harry to go to church, Charity wants to score points in conversation, etc., but it does muddy communication and enhance drama.
-
when in doubt: Cheat
-
[Edit] On second thought, though, it makes it impossible for the players to meaningfully spend FPs. They can't determine how their aspects apply to a given situation.
To some degree perhaps. Some aspects will always apply to reading someone's emotions or to being alert. I haven't had any issues with it yet.
The inability to keep twists surprising for the players is actually looking like my one big beef with FATE.
Is it really different from most other games? They'll still get some perception test and you'll still have to decide when to roll it. Perhaps it's worth noting I began using the 'saved roll' method of avoiding giving away surprise scenes via meta-game long before I started playing FATE. ;)
-
The main issue with that is, as I learned once again last night, I never really know when or if such rolls are going to be needed. I've had sessions where something I expected to get to was delayed or never happened at all.
Then you've got a roll saved up for the next session...or just discarded (with any fate points returned) if you prefer.
when in doubt: Cheat
Meh. You may or may not be joking but I've seen some version of this as the answer to almost every question at one point or another. Personally, I have ethical issues with cheating. I'll save any detailed discussion for some other thread. ;)
-
As a player, I'd greatly prefer of the GM would just put things on the table and forget the big reveal. But maybe that's just me.
-
Even if the betrayal is discovered, that isn't necessarily the end of the story. Why is that mole risking everything in this way? What compels him? What does the big bad have over him?
Running a good mystery isn't so much about making the clues a challenge to find as it is about making the players think about the clues and work out what they mean and where to go next.
-
Meh. You may or may not be joking but I've seen some version of this as the answer to almost every question at one point or another. Personally, I have ethical issues with cheating. I'll save any detailed discussion for some other thread. ;)
I'm not joking. thematically it fits. The story of the Dresden Files is that of a Mortal who takes on GODS and WINS. He does this by cheating.
also he's an unreliable narrator.
but your job as a GM is about this (to me) Make it fun. If you have to cheat alittle to make it fun, then do it. If that means you make NPCs that are designed to beat a Wizard, or a Gun Hand, or a whatever, but you think it would lead to a fun time, than do it.
I've seen people spend HOURS STATing things and planning planning planning. Sometimes just DO more by doing less. Trust your Players too.
-
Cheating in-story is very different from cheating out of story.
-
There is a difference between improvising based on the shifting narrative, and providing false choices (the "quantum Ogre" technique).
-
There is a difference between improvising based on the shifting narrative, and providing false choices (the "quantum Ogre" technique).
What is the Quantum Ogre you speak of? Seriously, I've never heard of it.
What is it's HD???? (joking)
-
An ogre that's both alive and dead until you manage to find the D20 that accidentally fell under the fridge when you rolled to attack?
-
The "Quantum Ogre" is a highlight from - and a codeword for - discussions about player agency and encounter design in RPGs.
Relevant links:
http://www.korpg.com/blog/the-fallacy-of-the-quantum-ogre-argument/
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2011/09/on-how-illusion-can-rob-your-game-of.html
http://www.emacswiki.org/alex/2011-09-08_Player_Agency
Essentially:
The DM has an Ogre encounter prepared.
The DM gives players a choice: Forest A or Forest B, alike in everything but name and location.
The DM intends to drop the Ogre encounter into the game no matter which forest they pick.
For some, this is akin to GM railroading, obscured by a meaningless choice for the players. It is seen by others as an oversimplification, or an accusation of "ur doin it rong".
My moderate take on it is that this would probably be less of an issue if the encounter wasn't a blind one. Which is to say: the GM can drop clues or rumors to establish that *something* is up in Forest A (without screaming out "an Ogre is here"), and then giving the players a motive to trigger the encounter (and an opportunity to either plan for or avoid it) rather than simply removing the reward/penalty for choice and simply making an encounter assured.
It seems like an attack on GMs with limited time and resources, but in actuality, it is more of an indictment of giving prominence to non-story encounters (whether random or prepared, I feel, makes little difference).
Now if that "quantum ogre" is (or holds) a clue for the overall story, a stepping stone in the mystery, then yeah, it is important to the story, and the GM needs to get that clue out there. But the GM should also prepare 2 or more *other* vectors by which to deliver that or a similar clue.
-
Never heard of that term before. Thanks.
-
Ultimately, the "quantum Ogre" thing is irrelevant if it is successfully hidden from the players (as the first article I linked maintains), as is pretty much any GM cheat or dodge, as long as it is done for the players' fun, and isn't obviously counter to how the established and mutually decided game setting/rules/etc. work.
-
Essentially:
The DM has an Ogre encounter prepared.
The DM gives players a choice: Forest A or Forest B, alike in everything but name and location.
The DM intends to drop the Ogre encounter into the game no matter which forest they pick.
For some, this is akin to GM railroading, obscured by a meaningless choice for the players.
It is "scripting the encounter"* but that's not something I define as "cheating." While I dislike overuse of scripted plots and encounters, I don't have an ethical issue with it. Just an occasional preference issue. ;)
*Trying to use a neutral term. "Railroad" seems to send objectivity out the window all too often.
-
I like train they get you in the vicinity of where you want to go 8/10.
-
The best example I can think of, in my limited gaming experince is this
We were just starting our Dresden Game and we were all new to the system. Our GM was still getting used to Statting characters. One of our players was just freaking great at Social Conflict and discovered all these neat "tricks" you could do with it.
Our GM had made his Mooks and Villains tough physically, but had no mental or social armour/stresses.
So our "Talker" character was able to clear a room of Thugs by taunting them basically. While neat, it didnt fit thematically.
So during the next encounter, he basically said (Told us after the fact) I just gave them all an extra stress box for mental and made their defense a 3 (up from 0). Some would call this "Cheating"
So for example, this guy is saying I want to create a twist in my game where a character turns out to be a Mole.
So if you have a bunch of Wizards and stuff, running around this can be hard to keep things from them. So you cheat.
By cheat I mean. Cheat. Your PC wants to Roll Empathy of your Mole. You pay him a fate chip to not do it. Your PC wants to Rolls Empathy, but wait before he can Ninjas attack. Your PC wants to Roll Empathy, but finds nothing, turns out Part of the Moles Memory is missing due to fairy magic, or a Spell. Or Damn, your PC wants to Role empathy on your Mole, your Mole suddenly has a taggable aspect "Secret Secret are no fun..." and a Stunt that gives him +1 to deceit. Or you roll the dice and say "What did you get?" and then add 1 to whatever they said.
As long as the players dont KNOW you are doing it, who cares? The only time I've seen this go badly is when I had a GM want my character to get beat up in prison. My total was an 7 (+3 and a 4 is fists) he came up with an 8. I knew it was bullshit and he knew it was bullshit and I had my table ask me about it afterwards.
I mean are you guys stating out every little skill and power for NPCs? Even in the books they say something around the lines of Kincaid is +5 guns +4 Athletics, and everything else is a 3
I guess what I'm saying is what fun would it be if you show up 1st session an hour into gameplay you roll empathy, you beat by 1 and you find out the guy is a traitor you kill him THE END.
-
Any scenario that would be completely undone by a good roll right at the start of the game is a bad one to start with.
That said, just uncovering that he is a mole wouldn't be the end of things anyway--whatever he's the mole for "kill him" won't stop whoever he's working for, and you'd want to get information out of him first. And he'll try and turn tail and run. Uncovering the mole right off the bat can be the basis of the scenario, not the end of one.
As far as my game goes, I figured they'd root him out or he'd show his hand eventually. He's not the big bad of the scenario anyway.
-
Any scenario that would be completely undone by a good roll right at the start of the game is a bad one to start with....
I think this is where we disagree . What I've see a lot of is Meta-Gaming from players (wizards soul gaze or use the sight on EVERYTHING) . You meet someone you should trust, why would automatically start thinking they are being dishonest aka rolling empathy.
I've seen some creative dice rolls make a campaign better.
-
So you cheat.
By cheat I mean. Cheat.
As mentioned previously, I have ethical issues with this.
But we've derailed this thread enough. There are plenty of methods to foster surprise without cheating.
-
I think this is where we disagree . What I've see a lot of is Meta-Gaming from players (wizards soul gaze or use the sight on EVERYTHING) . You meet someone you should trust, why would automatically start thinking they are being dishonest aka rolling empathy.
I've seen some creative dice rolls make a campaign better.
I seem to remember soul gazing and the Sight packs a big punch. There's a reason Harry does it sparingly.
-
Soulgazing and the Sight are supposed to be tough stuff. Recall that when Harry tries to use the Sight to assess what's after him in Turn Coat, he blows a gasket in his brain. They're not supposed to be a quick answer to anything like that.
-
What I've see a lot of is Meta-Gaming from players (wizards soul gaze or use the sight on EVERYTHING) .
That's not metagaming. That's just suicidal.
You meet someone you should trust, why would automatically start thinking they are being dishonest aka rolling empathy.
You should roll Empathy whenever you want to work out what makes someone tick. I do it all the time, and I don't really fear trickery.
-
A note on meta-gaming - it's not always bad.
Amber Diceless Role Playing has a section on how to play Elder Amberites. With perhaps one exception they are all hundreds (if not thousands) of years old. One has spent millennia improving his mastery of combat, strategy, and personal combat to the point where he can explain to godlike beings "you only thought you were immortal". A few have done reality nothing with their long life spans but most of them have spent centuries scheming against each other.
Since most GMs aren't centuries old (or have spent most of that time scheming how to get the throne if their immortal father happens to leave it) there is no way that they can accurately portray someone who has. But the game gives advice on how to deal with this situation: When the players do something that the GM hasn't anticipated he should determine if the NPCs would have anticipated it and then move the game on accordingly.
The same method also works for elder vampires and other master minds.
You (the GM) might not have anticipated that the players would zag that way - but Marcone would. Harry would have sized them up and beat money that they would zag that way - and laid a trap for them. Countless other NPCs would have done a better job of predicting the PCs' actions than you did. So is changing your plans meta-gaming or is it just giving the players freedom?
Richard