Forums of the Megaverse®

Alrik Vas wrote:I think you guys are confusing the "Cryptic GM" with the "Mystery GM"

Cryptics are often overthinking everything and expecting you to do so as well, but you rarely ever do it in the same direction. Read all the detective novels, practice all the Sudoku you want...get into remote viewing...whatever, it doesn't matter. You're just not going to figure ANYTHING out until he springs it on you.

Case in point, we're the new guys in town and beat up the local thugs, chasing them off. That night we get killed a Vampire Intelligence. Apparently the thugs were special vampires that would be hurt by normal weapons, and they could walk in the day for a short amount of time, but no not half vampires or whatever, they were servants of the Intelligence who was waiting for us to show up so it could turn one of us because he foresaw that person destroying him (we were level 1).

the problem is the cryptic and mystery GM are often the same guy.
The confusion develops when you have a CSI/Sherlock style GM and the Players are The A-team/Die-Hard style.

You can have a mystery. I love figuring things out. I hate GM's who change everything so the clues make no damn sense. Someone railroading me? i can deal with that, even use it to my advantage (railroading GM's are often predictable). the bastard? Whatever, he wants to make life difficult, i can spare some creativity to win out regardless. The total wierdo/creep? Never had a problem with him except when someone else gets upset and they still don't stop. Really, i have a problem with the cryptic guys because they're worse than the god complex, if you guess their surprise ending they'll change everything just to throw it in your face.

scottypotty wrote:When a GM knows the players very well, it's fun. Everything they're probably going to do is prepared for, or things are set in motion that 9 times out of 10 they are going to pursue. That's why I said it might be railroading.

You don't find it boring to wait out for what you know is going to happen, to just eventually happen?

Rappanui wrote:Yet our characters had the Power of lvl 15 characters but our level was kept low by Poorly placed XP awards. Every time we had a success he Dashed it all to hell a session or two later.

I have to ask, how much XP did you expect per session, on average? And how much did he give on average?

And when did you expect the campaign to end? If everything keeps going fine for you - well, you can't exactly keep playing if you keep succeeding - eventually everythings solved. That might just be about five levels in - if you're fine with that, cool. But if you expect to keep playing, how can you not expect sucesses to be dashed to hell - that's how you keep playing!

Noon wrote:

Rappanui wrote:Yet our characters had the Power of lvl 15 characters but our level was kept low by Poorly placed XP awards. Every time we had a success he Dashed it all to hell a session or two later.

I have to ask, how much XP did you expect per session, on average? And how much did he give on average?

And when did you expect the campaign to end? If everything keeps going fine for you - well, you can't exactly keep playing if you keep succeeding - eventually everythings solved. That might just be about five levels in - if you're fine with that, cool. But if you expect to keep playing, how can you not expect sucesses to be dashed to hell - that's how you keep playing!

You can keep a game going without dashing previous successes to hell. Just find a new storyline somewhere else. Leave the previous rewards alone and find new ones to dangle. Assign homework. By that point, people should have a good enough feel to give a driving force for their characters and weave that into plot assignments/plot rewards.

Noon wrote:

Rappanui wrote:Yet our characters had the Power of lvl 15 characters but our level was kept low by Poorly placed XP awards. Every time we had a success he Dashed it all to hell a session or two later.

I have to ask, how much XP did you expect per session, on average? And how much did he give on average?

And when did you expect the campaign to end? If everything keeps going fine for you - well, you can't exactly keep playing if you keep succeeding - eventually everythings solved. That might just be about five levels in - if you're fine with that, cool. But if you expect to keep playing, how can you not expect sucesses to be dashed to hell - that's how you keep playing!

I'm as much a fan of your statement as i am an opponent. I think that a game can be very fun when you succeed. After all, you dont' need to have your accomplishments dashed just to create more goals. Your success can be threatened, though, and that's just as fun. You spend a whole campaign arc building a kingdom, so in the second arc, everything you built is in jeopardy. That's good GMing.

If it just gets pulled out from under you and it's then dead and gone with no chance of gaining it back and the bad guys are gods who you can't even hurt...well...your GM's a dick. It's pretty clear he just doesn't want you to have anything that you worked for and you can only have what he gives you.

arouetta wrote:

Noon wrote:

Rappanui wrote:Yet our characters had the Power of lvl 15 characters but our level was kept low by Poorly placed XP awards. Every time we had a success he Dashed it all to hell a session or two later.

I have to ask, how much XP did you expect per session, on average? And how much did he give on average?

And when did you expect the campaign to end? If everything keeps going fine for you - well, you can't exactly keep playing if you keep succeeding - eventually everythings solved. That might just be about five levels in - if you're fine with that, cool. But if you expect to keep playing, how can you not expect sucesses to be dashed to hell - that's how you keep playing!

You can keep a game going without dashing previous successes to hell. Just find a new storyline somewhere else. Leave the previous rewards alone and find new ones to dangle. Assign homework. By that point, people should have a good enough feel to give a driving force for their characters and weave that into plot assignments/plot rewards.

As GM, you can't just assign the players their own goals. The GM does not solve this by himself.

I could agree with asking the players to figure new goals for their PC's and if they could, use those for continued play, but if they can't think of any new goals but still want to continue playing, sorry, yes, you have to wreck their previous success in order to continue!

In this case I'm guessing neither GM nor players thought about players generating new goals for their characters to continue on with. I wouldn't blame just the GM for something nobody thought of.

Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

Alrik Vas wrote:Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

I have to agree. A creative GM can find a hundred ways to keep the story moving without taking away what's already been given. Sometimes what has been given can be the source of new adventures (without disrupting the essence, ask my players about the annoying sphinx with an axe to grind that has taken up residence in the local temple), sometimes sending them over yonder (with dozens of single game adventures along the path), sometimes "rinse and repeat" can work if the details change (my PCs hate that their alignment compels them to find out why a female voice would be screaming in the middle of the night because it's always a different reason).

One time I made the mistake of taking "victory" away. The enemies didn't get a magical book they wanted, so they instead kidnapped the mages that had viewed the book, and my players let me know exactly how much not fun the evening was. That was my bad, and I'll never make that mistake again.

It's kind of like fishing. You learn what the fish (PCs) like, and you bait a few lines (plot hooks) and wait for a nibble. Players are smart, they'll show or tell or both how to best evoke an emotional response from their characters. And the pursuit of that emotional response, not the destruction of what they have just to build them up again and destroy again, over and over endlessly, is what good GMing is about.

arouetta wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

I have to agree. A creative GM can find a hundred ways to keep the story moving without taking away what's already been given. Sometimes what has been given can be the source of new adventures (without disrupting the essence, ask my players about the annoying sphinx with an axe to grind that has taken up residence in the local temple), sometimes sending them over yonder (with dozens of single game adventures along the path), sometimes "rinse and repeat" can work if the details change (my PCs hate that their alignment compels them to find out why a female voice would be screaming in the middle of the night because it's always a different reason).

One time I made the mistake of taking "victory" away. The enemies didn't get a magical book they wanted, so they instead kidnapped the mages that had viewed the book, and my players let me know exactly how much not fun the evening was. That was my bad, and I'll never make that mistake again.

It's kind of like fishing. You learn what the fish (PCs) like, and you bait a few lines (plot hooks) and wait for a nibble. Players are smart, they'll show or tell or both how to best evoke an emotional response from their characters. And the pursuit of that emotional response, not the destruction of what they have just to build them up again and destroy again, over and over endlessly, is what good GMing is about.

see now I would have enjoyed the rescue the mages plot.
It would have been an angle I the "hero" overlooked (TV shows and novel series are full of these so called "losing victories").

I don't really disagree, DM. If the badguys didn't die, it would follow that they would continue on the path to gain their prize. Being bad guys, kidnapping seems to be what they would do.

Being in a tight spot isn't necessarily getting hosed. It's all about how you rise to the challenge there.

Alrik Vas wrote:Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

Why is it just up to him to ask you? It's not like you're a child and he's an adult and it's entirely up to him to be responsible - it is possible for a player to know more than the GM and thus be more responsible than the GM on a matter.

arouetta wrote:One time I made the mistake of taking "victory" away. The enemies didn't get a magical book they wanted, so they instead kidnapped the mages that had viewed the book, and my players let me know exactly how much not fun the evening was. That was my bad, and I'll never make that mistake again.

Did you treat the kidnapped mages as being as good as having gotten the book itself? Also possibly not giving any chance to the PC's to stop the kidnapping?

I thought the topic was more on long term goals being wrecked, rather than short term goals being wrecked 'You know that book you stopped the enemy getting last game - well, it completely didn't matter because he kidnapped some mages who saw it while you weren't looking'.

What I'm talking about is having completed the PC's long term goals atleast once. Having done so, to continue playing, either you need new goals, or the results of those goals must go up in flames.

Noon wrote:

arouetta wrote:One time I made the mistake of taking "victory" away. The enemies didn't get a magical book they wanted, so they instead kidnapped the mages that had viewed the book, and my players let me know exactly how much not fun the evening was. That was my bad, and I'll never make that mistake again.

Did you treat the kidnapped mages as being as good as having gotten the book itself? Also possibly not giving any chance to the PC's to stop the kidnapping?

I thought the topic was more on long term goals being wrecked, rather than short term goals being wrecked 'You know that book you stopped the enemy getting last game - well, it completely didn't matter because he kidnapped some mages who saw it while you weren't looking'.

What I'm talking about is having completed the PC's long term goals atleast once. Having done so, to continue playing, either you need new goals, or the results of those goals must go up in flames.

What I referenced was my one mistake. My players have obtained long-term goals that have not gone up in flames. They have requested reward items and they have gotten those items. I see no reason to take said items away. It's my job to come up with new scenarios that are interesting without touching what they already have. They have completed most goals without their win being shot to hell. Those wins still stand and its up to me to find new plots to win.

There are always new goals, new things to reach for. And the players can help if you assign homework, because the more they play their characters, the more they know what motivates their characters. Once you learn those motivations, you can weave them into the plot.

Noon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

Why is it just up to him to ask you? It's not like you're a child and he's an adult and it's entirely up to him to be responsible - it is possible for a player to know more than the GM and thus be more responsible than the GM on a matter.

The responsibility can lie with both parties, absolutley. However I did preface my statement with "If i was happy with where my character was", which suggests that I wasn't looking for a change. Maybe i saved a kingdom, got named their new ruler and was interested in working on the management of my new realm but the GM just thought it would be "neat" for me to go through all that and didn't expect me to accept rulership...so instead he decides to nuke it while i'm out picking up some eggs.

If he didn't want to run a kingdom building game, all he would have to do is say so.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Noon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

Why is it just up to him to ask you? It's not like you're a child and he's an adult and it's entirely up to him to be responsible - it is possible for a player to know more than the GM and thus be more responsible than the GM on a matter.

The responsibility can lie with both parties, absolutley. However I did preface my statement with "If i was happy with where my character was", which suggests that I wasn't looking for a change. Maybe i saved a kingdom, got named their new ruler and was interested in working on the management of my new realm but the GM just thought it would be "neat" for me to go through all that and didn't expect me to accept rulership...so instead he decides to nuke it while i'm out picking up some eggs.

If he didn't want to run a kingdom building game, all he would have to do is say so.

Exactly. In the above scenario, the responsibility of the GM is to plan fun adventures in the kingdom, not take the kingdom away. There's hundreds of adventures that can happen inside the capital city without ever leaving the walls. And dozens of management plots. Slave rebellion. Sphinx bankrupting the main temple. Religious conflict. Guild conflict. Sewer workers strike. Thieves war. Doppleganger. Worms of Taut in the sewers. Someone stealing the newly dead for zombies. Tax problems. Neighboring kingdoms. Etc., etc.

arouetta wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:

Noon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

Why is it just up to him to ask you? It's not like you're a child and he's an adult and it's entirely up to him to be responsible - it is possible for a player to know more than the GM and thus be more responsible than the GM on a matter.

The responsibility can lie with both parties, absolutley. However I did preface my statement with "If i was happy with where my character was", which suggests that I wasn't looking for a change. Maybe i saved a kingdom, got named their new ruler and was interested in working on the management of my new realm but the GM just thought it would be "neat" for me to go through all that and didn't expect me to accept rulership...so instead he decides to nuke it while i'm out picking up some eggs.

If he didn't want to run a kingdom building game, all he would have to do is say so.

Exactly. In the above scenario, the responsibility of the GM is to plan fun adventures in the kingdom, not take the kingdom away. There's hundreds of adventures that can happen inside the capital city without ever leaving the walls. And dozens of management plots. Slave rebellion. Sphinx bankrupting the main temple. Religious conflict. Guild conflict. Sewer workers strike. Thieves war. Doppleganger. Worms of Taut in the sewers. Someone stealing the newly dead for zombies. Tax problems. Neighboring kingdoms. Etc., etc.

Unfortunately not all GM have the ability to be that flexible, some have certain areas that they're strongest at and weakest in others. So sometimes they may have things end up where they've left the player going 'oh wow this is a great opportunity for my PC!' and they're eager to play it out but it's something he's poor at (or just has a personal animosity towards), but rather than actually explain that first or at least try he just destroys it all so as to put things back into his comfort zone.

Also, it's not really his responsibility to run a game for the kingdom. However, it could be seen as his responsibility to talk to the player about changing the game if he doesn't want to run that kind of game.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Noon wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Still seems like a jerk move to me.

If i was happy with where my character was and my GM decided to **** in my cheerios because he felt i needed a new adventure...i'd probably just quit the game. Now, if instead he asked me what i wanted and when we discussed it we came to the concesnsus that it would be better if i made a new character who was motivated to keep going on crazy adventures, that could definately work out.

Why is it just up to him to ask you? It's not like you're a child and he's an adult and it's entirely up to him to be responsible - it is possible for a player to know more than the GM and thus be more responsible than the GM on a matter.

The responsibility can lie with both parties, absolutley. However I did preface my statement with "If i was happy with where my character was", which suggests that I wasn't looking for a change.

It doesn't suggest anything - it's your internal monologue, which isn't somehow mindread by anyone else. If you had written 'I'd said to the GM I'm happy with where I was' I would agree.

You don't call people jerks for not being able to mindread.

Not everyone has difficulty reading human emotions and moods either. Communication is best but there are more ways to bring it about than vocally. I don't know why you are making this argument. I've already said responsibility rests with both parties, there isn't really much else to it.

But surely you can read my emotions on the matter?

Alrik Vas wrote:Not everyone has difficulty reading human emotions and moods either. Communication is best but there are more ways to bring it about than vocally. I don't know why you are making this argument. I've already said responsibility rests with both parties, there isn't really much else to it.

You're right. It doesn't have to start out as a sit down "let's work out a future" conversation. If the player starts looking for storylines involving his reward, he wants to keep it. If a GM starts pulling the storyline away from the reward and the player shows discomfort, it's an indication he's worried about losing it.

Communication is best and does work both ways, but as the storyteller and plot-maker, the GM has the greater responsibility to not do irreversible destruction before ensuring the player is on board. If you're playing Monopoly, having the game owner take away your hotel simply because you landed on Boardwalk and Park Place is not fun. Go slow, steer just a little, and judge the reaction to that. Ask for feedback. If a GM ends up out of their comfort zone, approach the players outside the game about potential storylines that will bring the game back into the comfort zone.

In addition, both parties can make compromises, giving a little without giving up something cool. I had a game where Thoth gave a player a one shot use of Create Zombie. When the spell was forgotten, the player was really bummed. He didn't have to say it out loud, I could read it in what he was saying, what he wasn't saying and his body language. I told him to grab his character sheet and come to the side room with me. We compromised on his character retaining that spell but losing knowledge of a different spell in return. One high level spell is not going to destroy the game. The player was happy, which made me happy, because my happiness is largely based on my players having a good time and enjoying my plots.

And that is the one thing that should be remembered about all - everyone should be happy. Different people have different notions of happiness, but one person (the GM) shouldn't have happiness at the expense of the rest of the people (the players). Happiness should be attainable by everyone at the table.

Noon wrote:But surely you can read my emotions on the matter?

Totes, bro.

Alrik Vas wrote:You can have a mystery. I love figuring things out. I hate GM's who change everything so the clues make no damn sense. Someone railroading me? i can deal with that, even use it to my advantage (railroading GM's are often predictable). the bastard? Whatever, he wants to make life difficult, i can spare some creativity to win out regardless. The total wierdo/creep? Never had a problem with him except when someone else gets upset and they still don't stop. Really, i have a problem with the cryptic guys because they're worse than the god complex, if you guess their surprise ending they'll change everything just to throw it in your face.

It's sad when it takes a new guy 3 minutes to put the clues together. Yes the clues are going to change. Like with the alphabetic cypher hidden in poetry and the stamp of the coloured flowers which was on the paper was the cypher. (red rose, black lotus, blue iris, etc) One of the bad guys had 2 rings with the alphabet ingraved on the front in his pocket. They were dealing with the every capital letter, not the whole thing. They had the all the clues in handout from.

No offense, Alrik Vas, but the bad guys were working from a rakshasa. And I made this adventure extra difficult because of it.

No offense taken, Crow, none at all. I just think that there are simpler ways of keeping the challenge and tension high without retconning.

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:What type of GM is the worst?
Discuss.

This bait is old and powerful. Well trolled.

Rappanui wrote:the worse GM is the one that takes offense at the question being asked, Of course. (eyes popscythe).

I tend to agree...

Rappanui wrote:the worse GM is the one that takes offense at the question being asked, Of course. (eyes popscythe).

Ha!

Rappanui wrote:the worse GM is the one that takes offense at the question being asked, Of course. (eyes popscythe).

Yes...good point.

Rappanui wrote:the worse GM is the one that takes offense at the question being asked, Of course. (eyes popscythe).

Hard to do anything but agree with that, along with any GM in general who takes offense at just asking a question (and not going to give any examples given such actual questions in the past have gotten warnings handed out from people getting offended and flaming as a result) so they can know what they can and can't do in character.

Yeah, it's rough when your GM shuts you down if the answer to a simple question that your character would be expected to know is denied you so the "plot" can continue the way he wants it.

Alrik Vas wrote:Yeah, it's rough when your GM shuts you down if the answer to a simple question that your character would be expected to know is denied you so the "plot" can continue the way he wants it.

That really depends on what you define as what your character would know...
It might not mesh with what the GM thinks he should already know.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Yeah, it's rough when your GM shuts you down if the answer to a simple question that your character would be expected to know is denied you so the "plot" can continue the way he wants it.

That really depends on what you define as what your character would know...
It might not mesh with what the GM thinks he should already know.

Of course it depends. Though when your GM is being a jerk it's just poor GMing. Once my GM dropped a hint and i figured out the guy standing in front of me was the mysterious badguy we were after. I was a special forces mercenary of many experience levels and i had the sharpshooter skill. I quick drew my pistol and went to shoot him, but my GM is like, "You squeeze the trigger but nothing happens, it seems as though your e-clip is missing." I often say i check and re-check my weapons in game but i never noticed it, and from a meta standpoint, he never rolled any dice for the guy to pick my pocket. he didn't even offer me a Perception roll to see if i noticed so i could...i don't know, draw a loaded gun?

This was just bad GMing. the information would be, arguably, innate to my character, and if not it would certainly be easily obtainable by a simple roll with an insanely high success rate.

What would bug me as a GM is if the player realises, whips out his gun and shoots the villain...then complains the ending was anti climactic or that we don't have much else to do during the rest of the evening (except made up on the spot stuff). Or if the player is pleased, but other players complain about these things.

If all the players are happy with it and they enjoy doing some made up on the spot stuff for the rest of the evening, cool! Good evening with an unexpected twist!

But there are some players who both want to shoot the villain, but also want an intricately built up climax WITHOUT any fudging (like the dissapearing e-clip is just plain old fudging). These players are both dumb and a pain in the butt.

haha, yes. true, very true. Some people really are impossible.

Alrik Vas wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:Yeah, it's rough when your GM shuts you down if the answer to a simple question that your character would be expected to know is denied you so the "plot" can continue the way he wants it.

That really depends on what you define as what your character would know...
It might not mesh with what the GM thinks he should already know.

Of course it depends. Though when your GM is being a jerk it's just poor GMing. Once my GM dropped a hint and i figured out the guy standing in front of me was the mysterious badguy we were after. I was a special forces mercenary of many experience levels and i had the sharpshooter skill. I quick drew my pistol and went to shoot him, but my GM is like, "You squeeze the trigger but nothing happens, it seems as though your e-clip is missing." I often say i check and re-check my weapons in game but i never noticed it, and from a meta standpoint, he never rolled any dice for the guy to pick my pocket. he didn't even offer me a Perception roll to see if i noticed so i could...i don't know, draw a loaded gun?

This was just bad GMing. the information would be, arguably, innate to my character, and if not it would certainly be easily obtainable by a simple roll with an insanely high success rate.

It can go in reverse as well though... ever had a GM whose NPCs knew stuff about player characters that they'd have no way of knowing?
I hate omniscient NPCs...

Yeah, omiscient NPC's are one of my favorite meals. usually breakfast.

Alrik Vas wrote:Yeah, omiscient NPC's are one of my favorite meals. usually breakfast.

"Why did you kill my NPC?!"
"He knew everything else about me, he should have foreseen that psychotic episode."
"..."
" "

Pretty much!

Pfft, arm's reach? I like to do my killing with well-hidden booby traps and long range rifles.

I always hated when a player wanted to just kill NPCs for no reason then just to kill them. But lucky for me I always plan for those idiots, funny they never liked the pay back they got from the NPCs family, sometimes it was just brutal,sick and completely sadistic, because rifts is a dangerous place.

Oh absolutely! Revenge is a dirty business, sir. Just have to stay ahead if you want to keep it. Though I only used my powers for good...or profit...or whatever.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I always hated when a player wanted to just kill NPCs for no reason then just to kill them. But lucky for me I always plan for those idiots, funny they never liked the pay back they got from the NPCs family, sometimes it was just brutal,sick and completely sadistic, because rifts is a dangerous place.

This is why we have alignments. And if a person has such a fleeting concept of morality, that they engage in wanton killing, even in an imaginary setting, I would not care to associate with them.

Care to and need to are different things. Not everyone in Rifts can teleport and mind control people. If the person of questionable morality is also highly charismatic they might very well convince you that you need them to survive.

I'm not saying "Stay in a game you hate" or anything like that, but there's a point where playing a role outside of your comfort zone is pretty fun and challenging.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I always hated when a player wanted to just kill NPCs for no reason then just to kill them. But lucky for me I always plan for those idiots, funny they never liked the pay back they got from the NPCs family, sometimes it was just brutal,sick and completely sadistic, because rifts is a dangerous place.

That's fine, as long as said family actually has the means to the knowledge of who killed the NPC in the first place outside of GM omniscience.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I always hated when a player wanted to just kill NPCs for no reason then just to kill them. But lucky for me I always plan for those idiots, funny they never liked the pay back they got from the NPCs family, sometimes it was just brutal,sick and completely sadistic, because rifts is a dangerous place.

That's fine, as long as said family actually has the means to the knowledge of who killed the NPC in the first place outside of GM omniscience.

Well when you're dealing with a PC that makes it a thing to go around killing indiscriminately like that the odds of them killing someone who'd have friends or family that would seek vengeance tends to reach a good level of certainty. Plus they should develop a reputation that runs ahead of the group that they like to kill at random (since odds are rumors spreading around aren't likely to distinguish between the group and a single PC, guilt by association) causing them an increasing amount of grief as people don't want to interact with them or start trying to kill them whenever they show up since even good-aligned people have a good chance of preemptive attacks on known killers as an aggressive form of self-defense.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I always hated when a player wanted to just kill NPCs for no reason then just to kill them. But lucky for me I always plan for those idiots, funny they never liked the pay back they got from the NPCs family, sometimes it was just brutal,sick and completely sadistic, because rifts is a dangerous place.

That's fine, as long as said family actually has the means to the knowledge of who killed the NPC in the first place outside of GM omniscience.

Funny thing you never know who's family member you just killed and what resources they have. Because other players will turn on you if the price is right, if not just because you put them in danger too by your foolish actions.

Rappanui wrote:Such as consulting a Diviner (PCC or NPC) and/or Conjure the deceased's Ghost...

See?
This makes sense.
What I'm talking about are the GMs whose NPCs have knowledge there is no logical/ in-game reason for them to have about the PCs.

It's not a question of whether the PC is killing indiscrimantly - it's a question of whether the player is doing anything against the rules (written or verbal) of how you all decided to play the game.

If they are following the agreement, you don't have to figure ways of hunting them down for their crimes - just play the NPC's in the world. Figure how they would respond with just the information the NPC has.

This is how i tend to do it, Noon.

Though I'm curious where all this is coming from. When I kill NPC's that are causing a problem, it's because they are causing a problem. Not JUST because I'm a jerk.