Also that you're playing in a world where there are all these heroes like Harry, Karrin, Bob, Michael, Mab, Titania etc. And that creates the expectation that you will interact with these characters at some point because the world is very small.As an 'expectation', no - I don't think this is the default. We explicitly chose not to have iconic heroes involved in our games.
He thinks, this will inevitably lead to dissapointment among the players. <snip>Just set expectations up front. (For more than just what novel characters may appear.) It avoids all kinds of problems.
Okay perhaps killing Mab was a bad example. But there are other characters and other things that can happen that would mean that the books would take a very diffrent turn.
You've never encountered players that had trouble with things happening that would make the events in the books impossible?
Okay perhaps killing Mab was a bad example. But there are other characters and other things that can happen that would mean that the books would take a very diffrent turn.The second you start a game, you're already changing things from the canon. You don't read fan fiction expecting it to be exactly like the original, right? Neither should your players put too much expectation for the games to align perfectly with the books.
You've never encountered players that had trouble with things happening that would make the events in the books impossible?
So far I'm quit happy with the awnsers. While we where debating last night I had a hard time understanding that what he was worried for.
It's also worth noting that due to concessions, characters don't die unless the GM wants them to. So if you're hell bent on using characters from the books on a regular basis concessions are going to be your best friend. It guarantees the players can beat down canon characters, but they will always live to fight another day.
Our group handles it like this: we pick a timeline and a place. Anything that happened up till then is considered canon unless all involved agree on an alternative outcome. From that point on, the PCs actions may affect the storyline any way possible.
In my experience, those concessions need to offer substantial benefits or blackmail for the players to actually agree. Personally, I (as a player) prefer to kill off anyone who might be a potential recurring enemy later on.
That just seems like bad sportsmanship. Do your enemies do the same? If so your table sounds really intense.
That just seems like bad sportsmanship. Do your enemies do the same? If so your table sounds really intense.
Our group handles it like this: we pick a timeline and a place. Anything that happened up till then is considered canon unless all involved agree on an alternative outcome. From that point on, the PCs actions may affect the storyline any way possible.That is exactly why concessions are so important. Remember that all parties involved have to agree on the outcome of a concession. If the GM flat out says killing the character is off the table due to future plot development, then that's pretty much it. The group has to come up with some other outcome. At that point the GM is basically bribing the players to let the npc live. A smart group will jump at that, as killing off an npc in such a way typically just means the GM creates a new npc to take it's place.
In my experience, those concessions need to offer substantial benefits or blackmail for the players to actually agree. Personally, I (as a player) prefer to kill off anyone who might be a potential recurring enemy later on.
It's something of a genre-savyness that makes players choose the 'kill' option. In almost every story a bad guy that doesn't get double-tapped comes back to wreak havoc again.I've seen this start an escalation at table play. You get a rep for taking out everyone you fight then eventually the bad guys learn to do the same. They come at you hard and for blood. In one superhero game it got 4/6 of the party killed. I think in general letting people concede and coming up with something that's good for everyone is the way to go.
They most often aren't Batman who lock the Joker back in Arkham Asylum knowing very well it's a revolving door prison.
It might have come of stronger than I intended it to sound. Basically, ask yourself this: Is the concession appealing enough from an IC perspective? Do the PCs involved benefit more from letting the NPC live? If I can say yes to both, then I am likely to accept the concession.Part of the problem is concession takes place OOC often. It's a matter of the players at the table coming to a reasonable consensus so that everyone continues to have fun. Otherwise why should bad guys in a fight ever let members of the Party concede? Like you said:
[snip]
Or, as the books did it:(click to show/hide)
I will talk with the players involved to find a solution that is fun for all involved....Emphasis mine obviously.
I think a lot of players forget that the GM counts as a player too (crazy talk I know), and they are playing to have fun just like the PCs. So when a plot-centric npc get curb-stomped because the players happened to roll like gods in a conflict, concession! The mechanic is there for the GM just as much as it is for the players.How can people forget this? When I was reading YS for the first time and found concessions I was like "Oh! Hey! Now they won't be able to kill every NPC with a name!"
How can people forget this? When I was reading YS for the first time and found concessions I was like "Oh! Hey! Now they won't be able to kill every NPC with a name!"
How can people forget this? When I was reading YS for the first time and found concessions I was like "Oh! Hey! Now they won't be able to kill every NPC with a name!"Haha you would be surprised. I've seen at least a couple threads about people asking "how to I make a recurring villain who doesn't get killed the second he is in a scene?" or "my players killed my long-term villain earlier than they were supposed to. What do I do!?". xD
It's something of a genre-savyness that makes players choose the 'kill' option. In almost every story a bad guy that doesn't get double-tapped comes back to wreak havoc again.Please. I just got done running our monthly session a few hours ago and since all but one Adversary was mortal (and that one a House Malvora WCV), the party has a lonnng list of mortal foes with good reason not to love the party: Wealthy businessman, crazy militia "colonel", gun dealer, a husband/wife wizard/shooter team, a less wealthy businesswoman that dabbles in sex magic, and to top it off: Claire B., a warlock that they inflicted an Extreme consequence upon but survived...whose also the lover of Anna Raith, owner of Club Zero in South Bend-Mishawaka. Said WCV retaliated (for starters) by relocating her establishment across the street from the party's favorite hangout a sports bar which is 1) located next to a river (as in sitting almost practically atop if with nearby bridge) and 2) the Michiana equivalent of McAnally's.
They most often aren't Batman who lock the Joker back in Arkham Asylum knowing very well it's a revolving door prison.
These visits cement to them that, yes, it's the same world with its own internal consistency. The book characters also don't stick around after serving this purpose, which allowes them to get out of the players' way and let their characters be the awesome ones.
this a thousand times this. Nothing sucks worse than having to take back seat to Pet Npcs, Characters from the book or anything thats not a PC being awesome
can you play Amber without having read the books? theres a debate in my group about this
can you play Amber without having read the books? theres a debate in my group about this