Is that how you remember it?
Because what I remember is that I said very specifically that I did not think that the characters should be reunited at this stage, and you said “But they have to be! It’ll be so cool! And if I win the maneuver then they’re reunited because Sebastian is dragged home in chains!”
Roland doesn’t want to reconcile with Sebastian. He has a Belief about how much he doesn’t want to reconcile with Sebastian.
Details, details. So you guys said they should reunite “in due course,” and I interpreted that as “NOW!” I’m the GM, pressure is my job.
Fair enough. I guess I’m wondering what my role should be if my character whole-heartedly supports your evil and nefarious GM goals for the maneuver. I guess my life just gets easy, huh?
Fight for what you believe in, Tony. Don’t let Sydney get the better of you.
But what if he’s not trying to?
Sydney wants Sebastian brought home in chains? My character Roland is all for that. That, right there, would mean that I succeed in one of my Beliefs (and go a long way toward success in the other two).
Does the GM get to declare that my character Beliefs are aiding the Vaylen? I thought my character was supposed to be on the human side.
Aaah, Tony, but what happens after Sebastian is brought home in chains? I have plans within plans within, well, not so much plans as a reasonably well-founded confidence in my ability to improvise.
We’re in a similar situation in the game I am GMing (Burning Nautilus). The GMFoN’s goal coincides with a PC Belief. In the next scene we play, I expect to see the PC actively working to achieve his Belief and, by doing so, furthering the Vaylen cause. This first PC may be opposed by another PC, but he might not be…We’re early in the Infiltration phase, so I like the way the game is heading because it would be kind of cool if the PC’s actions early in the game are partly to blame for the Vaylen threat. I do recognize, though, that this situation seems to be at odds with the idea that the PCs are supposed to be on the human side in our game. I think the way we’ll handle it is that if the event comes to pass, the actions of the PCs to shape the event will determine the second and third order repercussions. Successful PC shaping actions will lead to positive repercussions; unsuccessful PC actions will have negative repercussions.
Mel
Hey, Tony. As a player you’re on the human side, but there’s nothing stopping you from helping the Vaylen to fulfill your own beliefs.
In a recent game:
Each of us earned artha for following those actions. Furthermore, these actions were awesome for the story. I loved it when Thor framed my character.
We were simultaneously helping each other towards the “big picture” while screwing each other in petty ways and being rewarded for it.
Mind you, this drove Bob up the wall, because he was playing a focused Vaylen killing machine out to destroy all of Luke’s FONs.
This is a struggle that is inherent in the game - do you persue what you want personally, even if it means compromising on the future of your world, or do you focus on the big picture.
I don’t have a problem with me choosing to screw humanity for my own Beliefs. That sounds awesome. I guess my question is why the GM gets to decide unilaterally that pursuing my personal beliefs is compromising the future of the world, just by setting my goals as Vaylen stakes.
Like, if he declared a Vaylen goal of “The PCs get together and boot the Vaylen right the hell off the planet,” then that would be … odd. It would be strange if, having succeeded at that, the human side was therefore in worse shape than when it started. Yes?
I think Mel’s point about “repercussions” just clicked for me, in response to your question, Tony.
If you drag your brother home in chains your way, then the human cause is stronger: maybe because those who would support your brother as a rival heir lose confidence, maybe because the other Lords-Pirate are cowed into not breaking the quarantine, maybe because the Vaylen decide you’re too bad-ass to mess with and shift resources towards infiltrating other planets. Your choice, really. You not only accomplish that task, but you do so in a way that serves your larger strategic intent.
If you drag your brother home in chains my way, then the human cause is weakened: maybe restive nobles start coming to your brother’s prison cell offering to break him out and make him Forged Lord in return for a few small concessions, maybe because your brother was the only check on less scrupulous pirates who break the quarantine ruthlessly now that he’s gone, maybe because the Vaylen decide you’re too busy fighting your brother to fight them and shift more resources towards infiltrating the planet to take advantage.
The “task > intent” layering really works all the way up in this game, rather as if you were being accosted by a toddler:
“I go get in my Hammer patrol ship.”
“Why?”
“To find my brother.”
“Why?”
“To capture him.”
“Why?”
“To bring him home in chains.”
“Why?”
“To restore the honor of my family.”
“Why?”
“To solidify our divine right to rule this world.”
“Why?”
“To protect the people as Lords-Pilot are sworn to do.”
You see how this can go terribly wrong at any number of levels?
I’m still confused.
Are you saying that Sebastian being dragged back to Tyr-hold in chains is a foregone conclusion, and your stakes for the maneuver are that this predestined event turns against humanity, whereas our stakes must (by opposition) include the outcome that this event turns in favor of humanity?
No, no, no. Not a foregone conclusion at all. You are free to fight both how it happens and whether it happens at all. I’m also free to change my mind after I hear you and the other players talk about it!
What’s more fundamental is that any outcome – Sebastian in chains, Sebastian at liberty, Sebastian released on his word of honor as a gentleman, Sebastian fleeing madly to the outskirts of the system, Sebastian turned into a magical pixie princess, whatever – can have repercussions either good or evil for the cause of humanity depending on that final Infection roll and how we, as a group, choose to interpret it.
I feel I must interject something very small but maybe important here:
If the GM isn’t opposing what the players want, he’s really not doing his job. Aligning Vaylen goals with Human goals undermines the whole point of having conflict in the first place. It might even be cheating.
I’m sensing Syd the GM has a vision for a plot and a desire to be a player, with independent goals and beliefs and plans for his characters. However, the GM may be better off not trying to plan beyond his next session. Too much weird stuff can come along to disrupt your envisioned storyline. I tripped over this myself in my first game; traditional GMing doesn’t work when everyone has more story authority.
I’m of the opinion that the GM’s characters don’t really get to be as self-actualized as the PCs. Job one is to provide opposition. If there’s still room in your characters’ Beliefs for their own stuff, cool. But opposition first, your own plans second.
p.
I absolutely agree with Paul. The last game I ran – the first game I’d GM’d in ten years – worked absolutely by those principles: make no plans, just have a world to work with and an idea for the next situation with which to confront your players based on the way they resolved the last situation; build your characters as foils to the player-characters, not as protagonists in their own right, and use them as instruments of pressure on the PCs in their story, not to tell your own story independent of the PCs.