Thread: Gods and Immortals in games

Unless the setting is based upon a rather unusually chaotic situation where
a society broke down almost completely (e.g. a post-apocalyptic setting),
the setting's internal logic and consistency will enforce consequences of
the player characters' actions whenever these actions collide with the ru-
les and laws of the setting's society. Many published settings are rather
generous concerning these rules and laws and how they are enforced by
their societies, they tolerate player character actions which every remo-
tely plausible society would punish very harshly, allowing player charac-
ters to get away with acting like antisocial criminal outlaws. Some other
settings, including those of Bushido and Pendragon, aim for more verisimi-
litude and attempt to simulate the rules, laws and reactions of a plausible
society, often using a specific historical culture as their model. While such
a setting may feel more restrictive for the players, because it limits their
characters' options, it has the advantage that it "feels" a lot more real
and supports the long term identification with their characters as mem-
bers of the setting's society.

Point taken, but I never stated that you should be able to act without consequence. If anything, the consequences in FRPGs can make it worth oing for in a way. But with Bushido, the consequence is always death. You get executed. Yes, I have a better grasp on FRPGs and yes, there are restrictions on all settings, but there is enough room to move in most games that it's more than workable.

Take Cthulhu, for example. The restrictions are the laws we have today, right? So, when my character decided to knock out two policemen and lock them in a police box, my GM told me I'd have to come up with a new character as that one (who fled the country) wouldn't be able to get much else done. I accepted that without any problem because I agreed, but it was still worth it, because I got to do something I wanted to do, not what would have been expected of me by a rule book.

The main point, really, is that mad, bad or big decisions make the best memories in gaming, as do mistakes. They're funny, disastrous, epic or insanely lucky and so, stick in your mind. I have only played Bushido once, but it made enough of a bad impression on me that, given a choice, I'd choose to skip it, despite the fact that feudal Japan IS an interesting time period.

Originally Posted by Rob

Take Cthulhu, for example. The restrictions are the laws we have today, right? So, when my character decided to knock out two policemen and lock them in a police box, my GM told me I'd have to come up with a new character as that one (who fled the country) wouldn't be able to get much else done. I accepted that without any problem because I agreed, but it was still worth it, because I got to do something I wanted to do, not what would have been expected of me by a rule book.

"Fled the country." Heh, heh. That's what everyone assumed, based on the statements of the bruised policemen, who groggily woke up on the sidewalk with no police box in sight. In reality, your character actually didn't even leave the city, well, not exactly. Upon throwing open the police box door, he was confronted by a strange little man in a looong scarf who whisked him 2,000-something years into the past (into a parallel Cthulhu Invictus campaign) to confront the evil that created the situation your former companions (and your new character) were dealing with in the present day. Did your original character survive? Only the strange little man -- and an ornery squad of Silurians -- knows for sure ...

Originally Posted by Rob

Point taken, but I never stated that you should be able to act without consequence. If anything, the consequences in FRPGs can make it worth oing for in a way. But with Bushido, the consequence is always death. You get executed. Yes, I have a better grasp on FRPGs and yes, there are restrictions on all settings, but there is enough room to move in most games that it's more than workable.

Well first off the consequence are't alwats death in Bushido. At least they shouldn't be. Although the nature of the transgression and the precise circumstances make a big difference here. That's why there is the honor and clan rankings. A loose of face, and stus are consequence and can be severe ones. Sometimes though, some players (and even some Gms) don't seem to realize that.

I once ran an L5R campaign where a guy decided to be haunted by an ancestor who had felt that said PC was letting the family down. According to the setting, that would be a big flaw to deal with and the PC should have been trying to appease his ancestors. But the player in question didn't even bother to try and just considered it "free character points." and pretty much ignored the ancestor.

Take Cthulhu, for example. The restrictions are the laws we have today, right? So, when my character decided to knock out two policemen and lock them in a police box, my GM told me I'd have to come up with a new character as that one (who fled the country) wouldn't be able to get much else done. I accepted that without any problem because I agreed, but it was still worth it, because I got to do something I wanted to do, not what would have been expected of me by a rule book.

The same thing applies to Bushido, and even to actual feudal Japan. One of the ways that peasant farmers used to deal with opression was to stand up and defy the rulers. Typically the leaders of such an uprising would get executed, but often the local ruler would take notice of the situation and change his actions accordingly. Now in game terms, it's still "write up a new character" .

The main point, really, is that mad, bad or big decisions make the best memories in gaming, as do mistakes. They're funny, disastrous, epic or insanely lucky and so, stick in your mind. I have only played Bushido once, but it made enough of a bad impression on me that, given a choice, I'd choose to skip it, despite the fact that feudal Japan IS an interesting time period.

They might make the best memories but they don't necessarily make the best adventures and campaigns. Often they are game enders. I've run a Busido campaign, but have since gone on to different RPGs which I think have better game mechanics.

But really, as far as the whole freedom of choice and consequences go, it really just a reflection of the setting. An ultra-conservative caste base culture isn't often very tolerant of those who thumb thier noses at the morals of society. In feudal Japan Samurai had the right of Kiritusgomen, which is usually translated as the right to kill a commoner for any reason and go away unimpeded by the law. In fact the Samurai could kill a commoner for no reason at all. That's the culture. It's very different from western culture.

True, but with that group, yeah... consequences were death. Honour is important, no question, but in Bushido, are you oing something to increase your standing? Or for fear of execution? Both are a huge part of the game, but the latter is so prominent that it removes the element of fun. What didn't help was that our party was led by the domain lord, which meant he'd have you killed for almost anything. There was also a lot of favouritism in that group, though it was never explicitly stated. It's possible that had its part to play, but I have to say that there is a MASSIVE difference on feeling restricted in-character and feeling restricted as a player. For me, Bushido is the latter.

I just can't see myself giving the game another chance as there was nothing enjoyable about it. I did things as they should have been done, but that night would have been better spent picking hot needles out of my arse. At least I'd have gotten something out of it (relief ).

Seneschal, who knows if he survived. He likely sapped everything in sight until he either won or died horribly. Since it's Cthulhu, I think we know the answer to that one, heheh!

While diverting from the Bushido part of the thread, I always liked the way the gods were introduced in DragonLance...it's been decades since I read it, but the LG god (and helper?) appeared to the party as an old man and woman in wagon, fleeing some calamity. The party had a choice to act to help them, or not, and they were set on a way of adventure AND demonstrated their compassion to the world. Sometimes less is more (not usually, but sometimes).

I'mma let you finish, but I wrote up system-agnostic notes on gods and immortals a few years ago:

http://www.frank-mitchell.com/games/rpg-gods.html
http://www.frank-mitchell.com/games/rpg-immortals.html

Hardly the last word, but maybe they'll spark some ideas.

Originally Posted by USAFguy

While diverting from the Bushido part of the thread, I always liked the way the gods were introduced in DragonLance...it's been decades since I read it, but the LG god (and helper?) appeared to the party as an old man and woman in wagon, fleeing some calamity. The party had a choice to act to help them, or not, and they were set on a way of adventure AND demonstrated their compassion to the world. Sometimes less is more (not usually, but sometimes).

That's a trope I've seen before in folklore. The god/angel/fairy godmother shows up in the guise of a human needing or requesting assistance of some kind. If the protagonists show kindness and compassion toward some nobody who apparently can't return the favor, they'll have demonstrated their character and receive supernatural assistance of some kind, often in the form of knowledge essential to completing whatever task or mission they're in the middle of. If they brush off the tattered old man or thin, dirty child by the side of the road because they're in a hurry and have things to do, they won't get the supernatural help and may have some additional obstacles thrown their way, too.

Originally Posted by Rob

True, but with that group, yeah... consequences were death. Honour is important, no question, but in Bushido, are you oing something to increase your standing? Or for fear of execution? Both are a huge part of the game,

No. They seem to have been a big part of your group's playing style-not of the game. I just don't think your group grasped the culture. You seem to want to stress the individual and fedula Japanese culture stresses the group.

but the latter is so prominent that it removes the element of fun. What didn't help was that our party was led by the domain lord, which meant he'd have you killed for almost anything. There was also a lot of favouritism in that group, though it was never explicitly stated. It's possible that had its part to play, but I have to say that there is a MASSIVE difference on feeling restricted in-character and feeling restricted as a player. For me, Bushido is the latter.

THat's not a game system problem, more likey a Game Master problem. If you look at any historical RPG setting, you will find it just as restricting. In some ways Feudal japangave people more freedom that fedual Europe. At least a common was allowed to carry a sword (until the great sword hunt).

I just can't see myself giving the game another chance as there was nothing enjoyable about it. I did things as they should have been done, but that night would have been better spent picking hot needles out of my arse. At least I'd have gotten something out of it (relief ).

Excuse me., but how do you know that you "did things as they should have been done?".

I've seen a LOT of D&D players crash & burn spectacularly in RPGS like Runequest because they bring along ideas of "how things should be done" that are ludicrous outside of D&D. Players were convinced that melee fighters should charge archers (it works in AD&D), and that fighters shouldn't cast magic spells, and such was "they way it should be done". Such players got slaughtered timne and time again in RuneQuest (and a host of ther RPGs) where the "way things were done (in AD&D)" didn't hold up. I saw a group die horrifically in Morrow Project, charging a .50 caliber machine gun based on the "logic" that "they can't get all of us". And those plays walked away from the table convinced that they "had done things as they should have been done."

But in my experience, if a PC gets killed somebody probably didn't "dio things as they should have been done". Usually it's the fault of the it's the player whose character got killed. sometimes it's the fault of another player, sometimes the fault of the GM, and occasionally the luck fo the dice. Very rarely is it the fault of the system. IMO CoC is one of the few RPGs where you can blame the system, but then I'm not fond of CoC.

Originally Posted by seneschal

That's a trope I've seen before in folklore. The god/angel/fairy godmother shows up in the guise of a human needing or requesting assistance of some kind. If the protagonists show kindness and compassion toward some nobody who apparently can't return the favor, they'll have demonstrated their character and receive supernatural assistance of some kind, often in the form of knowledge essential to completing whatever task or mission they're in the middle of. If they brush off the tattered old man or thin, dirty child by the side of the road because they're in a hurry and have things to do, they won't get the supernatural help and may have some additional obstacles thrown their way, too.

Yeah, and what sucks about it is that many GMs who do it, also tend to have thrown in a dozen similar situations in the campaign where the PCs got stabbed in the back when they did show kindness and compassion, so the group no longer does so.