I expect there to be some differences of opinion between 4 PCs with a total of 12 Beliefs and that’s fine. But, is there a line somewhere that shouldn’t be crossed?
For example, in an upcoming BE game, my PC is a Forged Lord in control of the planet’s military. Another PC is the head of the planet’s black market. A third PC is a senator and has a Belief about removing funding from the military to give to law enforcement to crack down on the black market.
On the one hand, that’s pretty hot, it’s in direct conflict with two other PCs. But my gut says it’s not quite right because it feels like accomplishing that Belief is going to aid the Vaylen more than it will us humans. In fact it sounds like a perfect belief for one of the GM FoN’s who is a senator.
Mostly I’m worried it may take too much focus away from stickin’ it to the Vaylen.
I got the impression that the first phase is all about establishing the world, it’s issues, and how the Vaylen are able to exploit those divisive issue to further their plans. Second phase is the “holy shit, Vaylen!” phase, and the last is the desperate struggle to throw them off.
In other words, I think what you’ve got is hot. Run with it.
WOW! That just hurt my head - not what I expected. I’m the GM for said game, and I like the belief it’s hot - were it BW I’d say keep it. My thinking for BE is the PCs should be working together…but then there are mechanics so PCs/NPCs can help the other side…so now I’m confused! I just wanna HULL somebody! Doesn’t intraparty conflicts harm the PCs efforts?
In fact, let me add: as a GM I really feel like my hands were tied at the start of the game. If I’ve got three hulled humans as FON than they’re three traitors waiting to be found out. It made me sweat! If the PCs unite, I’m dead.
So I made sure to have two FON who were human, very high up important government types whose positions were secure, who were just absolute self-interested dicks who just wanted to oppose the players at every turn. Not because they were in conclusion with the Vaylen (yet), but because they were assholes.
In fact, I tried to think up issues that would occupy a group without a Vaylen invasion hanging over their heads, issues of power, justice, responsibility, etc. Then it was like: OK…you gotta solve this, BEFORE the Vaylen invade, because if you don’t there’s not going to be an army to oppose them…
So setting up a good old civil war or something dastardly for your PCs is hot.
Oh I fully expect the GM to try and set us at odds with one another. It just felt weird for one of the PC’s to be setting himself against 2 other PC’s like that. I really don’t have a problem with it, it should be a blast to play through I just wasn’t sure how that sort of thing would pan out in BE.
Oh, absolutely. I’m just glad my Forged Lord has bargaining and decent social skills. Well, that and my Hammer and Anvil forces (3D affiliations with each). Who’s gonna say no to me and try to stop me?!
Different game - though I read Odie’s thread AND it looks like he’s in Kansas City too!! Eerie!!
Odie’s thread was also awesome - and apropos for me. I have no Vaylen FoN in the 1st Phase…and six candidates!!
You’re right about the infection roll - I get it logically but I haven’t embraced fully it’s place, I need to see it in play.
honestly, a BE game without interpary conflict is no fun. if the PCs just unite directly against the Vaylen, and don’t try to twist each other as well, it becomes a pretty boring straight shooting game. the interparty conflict makes the question of ‘do i get what i want or stick it to the Vaylen?’ really hard to answer. stick with those conflicting believes. it gives the GM some great material to work with, and it should earn you guys tons of Artha for those maneuver rolls.
Our last BE sprint featured exactly this tension: The three PCFONs were at each others’ throats while the GMFONs were a well-oiled machine. The PCs’ hot Beliefs generated mad Artha but they never lined up their scenes to provide one another assistance, so they got their asses handed to them during Infection. The GMFONs, meanwhile, puttered along putting the wood to the PCs every single maneuver – it was easy for me to narrate scenes for all of them, and they didn’t have to spend any time, really, harrassing the PCs. In fact the GMFONs worked hard at befriending the PCs, even facilitating their efforts to stab one another.
Now, that did create some table tension. More than once, after getting their ass handed to them on an Infection roll, the players would be all “what the fuck, man? How is it you’re getting so many more dice than us?” And I would reiterate the whole “Infection addresses how you played at the table, not what happened in the fiction” thing. And that’d piss them off again because it’d grind up against their ooold mutual-party-support habits.
In the end it produced some great, tragic fiction at the table. Whether great, tragic fiction is what they actually wanted is another discussion.
One of these days I gotta have a meet-up with MadJay and his crew, maybe down at Tabletop Game & Hobby. We can partner up and fight crime, and show those fools how gaming is done! Run The Gift or something.
In my game, the players are roughly split into three factions: the Royalist leader and his bannerman, the Civilian Commune activist and his ex-spy friend, and Martin Luther Kerrn. They all want to overthrow the Imperial Steward and establish a new government, but the Royalist wants it to be a fiefdom with him as Forged Lord, the activist wants a democratic government, and the Kerrn just wants equal rights for his people.
I know they’re gonna stomp me flat unless I split them up and pit them against each other, so I’m going to do my best to do just that, while hopefully presenting a mostly unified front. BE is a big change from my usual GMing style for BW: I almost never force Duels of Wits or Fight!s on the players (except sometimes as fallout from a failed test). Now, the only non-optional scene I get is a conflict scene! I’m gonna have my social monster spymaster FoN start DoWing PCFoNs to get them to turn on each other. (That is kosher, right?) 5 vs. 3? Bad odds. I think I like 1 vs. 2 vs. 2 vs. 3 better…
LOL. Paul B.'s table= we’re going to produce some great, wonderful, awesome things at this table. Whether or not you WANT great, awesome, wonderful this is another matter. LOL.
Seriously, though, it’s interesting to see the disconnect that shows up sometimes between what makes for good gaming and what makes for good fiction. Some players have a very, very low tolerance for unresolved dramatic tension. Some players derive pleasure from aspects of play other than the drama.
(I don’t get it either, but I nod along. As long as they’re not interfering with the guys looking for great drama we can all live together.)
@Odie: It will be a hilarious event to find out you & I already know each other!! we’ve started out playing BW at Tabletop, and I hungout with Phil long before he had a gamestore and lived in Independence with an Iguana!!
Looking forward to it! We should do it soon!!
This thread and Odie’s scene econ thread have been Bad Ass for me! From Luke’s ‘How to hull a sucker in 2 dice rolls’ onward - excellent, USEABLE stuff.
Our 1st maneuver is MLK’s day! (Love the ML Kerrn!!) we’ll do an AP for it - see if we passed!!
I’ve no words for how jazzed I am - thanks guys!
