Roleplaying the bad guy

[Mercurias]

The biggest issue about a villain pc is the endgame.

 

Sure the heroes want a grand chase, the villain esxaping from their clutches. That works well a few times  but ultimately, no one enjoys having a villain they can't eventually beat.

 

If the villain is a pc as opposed to an npc, then you have the issue that most people come Into. People dont want their characters to die. Which would be the ideal end to the heroes story.

 

There are ultimately only three real fates for villains:

-Capture

-Conversion to the good guy side

-Death

 

Personally, I've killed off a loooooot of my villains.

[Warren Castille]

Let's talk power dynamics.

 

As a person in a roleplaying community, my expectations are to tell my own interlocking story in the greater world. I'll have my character meet people. I might get to appear in their storylines. They might appear in mine. We'll collaborate to put together a story that pleases the parties involved.

 

Playing a villain looks exactly the same on paper, but it's sort of the not the same. When you establish yourself as a villain, you are intentionally looking to derail (or just complicate) the "we're a large community telling stories" stuff. If I'm writing a detective story and someone else is roleplaying a murderer and wants to get involved, the story would be unfun if I'm suddenly unable to catch my man. This can make for good stories - is the villain a criminal mastermind who is legitimately ahead of the hero? It can also make for bad, bad stories: The villain appear in broad daylight, murders someone in the Quicksand and then magically escapes because the plot states so. That's basically railroading and or godmoding a result because the villain is unable to out-play the hero, or is just unable to "properly" play a villain.

 

That sounds a bit heavy handed. When roleplay because competitive instead of cooperative - when we're no longer hunting down dragons together because it fulfills us both but you're a heretical mastermind summoning them and I'm trying to stop you - you run the risk of simply being outplayed. Dramatic scenes are fantastic, but undoing a player's hard-thought or just spur-of-the-moment traps is unfun. Yes, the plot requires the villain to escape after the bomb goes off. No, that's not satisfying when there's a strike team barring all of the exits and a crack archer watching the scene from a vantage point. It basically says "Your roleplay doesn't matter until the last session."

 

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're roleplaying a villain and you lose? Lose. Don't just handwave and go "nuh-uh!" because that will make you lose your heroes. Difficult-to-capture isn't the same as impossible-until-convenient-plot-lull.

[Hyrist]

Wow, my original post got chewed up quite a bit by formatting.

 

So, that was quite a bit of lost work,so let me summarize the important points and leave it alone.

 

A character you create, whatever title you decide to give it, is yours. This is what we call an Origonal Character. It deserves all the respects and protections that should be given to a character that is owned by a person. That is regardless of PC, Villainous Characters, NPCs, or Facilitator PCs.

 

A Villain is not, however, by function a "Player Character". A Player Character historically, especially in Final Fantasy history are protagonists. Even in cases of Player vs Player, each player is depicted as the protagonist of their own story.

 

A Villain, by contrast of say, a bad person, is a Character designed or utilized for the purpose of a story. Regardless of whether or not they are an Original Character. They function first and foremost as a Story Facilitator, rather than a Player or participator. A character claimed under the title Villain and are participating on a player level, is typically deceiving their role as part of their story, are participating in someone else's story - or simply playing an opposing faction (as per PvP style plots.) 

 

To accurately play an active Villain, or an Antagonist, one removes themselves from the 'Player' role, and into the role of a story writer or a story facilitator. Those people, are expected to be the same or in close communication with one another. This communication, as an expectation is only required of player characters in the absence of a Storyteller/GM or facilitator role present. 

 

Always remember:

A villain is a class of character specifically designed to give someone else's character a bad time, somewhere, at some point. This is inevitable. As such it needs be designed and presented in a manner that the affected player(s) will be amenable to have that bad time happen to their character, and enjoy the story it provides.

 

 

The separation of Story Facilitator roles (Storyteller/GMs, Facilitator PCs, Villains/Antagonists, and NPCs) from that of a Player Character is a function to further protect those people from the universal trappings of power and IC/OOC separation issues that these roles can become increasingly vulnerable to. In the case of Villains in particular, they're additionally more outwardly reacted against, hence their rarity outside of set contexts.

 

It's up to the "Villain" to prove that they are the 'rarer than gold' good type to the players (And Storytellers if they're simply being facilitator.) and not the other way around. Therefore, accepting the role is as accepting a greater responsibility than a typical roleplayer would. The prospective Villain player must respect the role they are taking, or they're most likely setting themselves up for a difficult and miserable time for themselves, and their prospective players.

[ArmachiA]

There's an entire guild right on this server of Bad guys, saying they don't have the same rights as normal PCs is kind of... not true.

[111]

This all sounds rather complicated.

 

I play a villain and he just kicks old ladies and takes lunch money from kids.

 

And he's a corrupt asshole. However I don't have to be a story facilitator or anything crazy. I also think Warren's view is a little strange, what's the point of doing plots without some resistance?

 

My blade is constantly arresting people for being drunk, starting fights, stealing in the quicksand. People tend to enjoy it, even if they didn't plan on me doing so. What's the point of doing something if no one notices.

 

I don't view villain as meaning like Dr Evil, I just view it as being non-heroic. Plenty of room for those types in lots of stories.

[Hyrist]

There's an entire guild right on this server of Bad guys, saying they don't have the same rights as normal PCs is kind of... not true.

 

There is a distinction between "Bad Guy" as in horrible individuals, and Villains, as in for a character created to fufill a function in a storyline.

 

People who just want to gather together and roleplay 'bad-guys' for the sake of being bad is, Well, their right. Though questions are raised as to the actual execution of such a concept.

 

But if you show up, cause a disturbance, and hide behind the 'bad guy' title when retaliation comes around. You're in for a terrible time, and a worse reputation. Communication and cooperation are paramount.

[Dravus]

There's plenty of room across the board for every shade of 'good' and 'evil' to be represented within the role-playing community. I've never understood the aversion to 'bad guys' that many role-players seem to have. To me, I suspect they simply don't want to admit that they're only really interested in having their character predictable save the day with only a few minor setbacks along the way.

 

I'm certain that many more individuals would happily role-play villains and antagonists if it weren't for the ridiculous expectation that they should essentially just be somebody else's punching bag.

 

I, for one, remain perfectly content to have my character encounter compelling villains and antagonists. Character development should be a mutual rather than a one-sided affair and so I'm happy to have Graeham influenced by villains and antagonists as much as he will be influenced by other 'good guys'.

[Verad]

There's an entire guild right on this server of Bad guys, saying they don't have the same rights as normal PCs is kind of... not true.

 

There is a distinction between "Bad Guy" as in horrible individuals, and Villains, as in for a character created to fufill a function in a storyline.

 

People who just want to gather together and roleplay 'bad-guys' for the sake of being bad is, Well, their right. Though questions are raised as to the actual execution of such a concept.

 

I do not see any questions. What questions are being raised?

[Kuro]

I have watched this thread with great interest for a while now and it is sad to see so many people look at the role and cringe with disgust... Having played villains for many years myself and will continue to do so in this game too no doubt.

 

In my experience the role is not that much different to a Player Character in reality even if it may feel like it is, when it is at least to me a Player Character with some additional rules and responsibilities because of the actions of said character. A 'good guy' player character might ruin a day or disrupt an RP scene just as well both IC or OOC depending on the said characters personalities. Wish people here could give villains a chance!

 

I also echo Graeham for being unoriginal. Yaaaay Graeham!

[Hyrist]

I do not see any questions. What questions are being raised?

 

 

*Deep breath*

 

Story premise, method for evading persecution on long term (That's local, GC, AND Alliance level persecution due to being an organized grouping. Size garners attention.) Interaction limits, rules and concepts when dealing with, well, anyone not an antagonist, or even another antagonist of opposing goals especially as a group or with another group. Methods of acting or RPing in public settings, especially considering the above, again, on the personal, and group level.

 

This is on top of your typical lore, play-ability, continual activity, and logistical problems any other group are concerned with that could put you at odds with players on an IC or OOC level (or both) even if you were a protagonist group. This is compounded by the fact that many organized villainous elements are fairly well known and established (Syndicate, Brass Blades, Corpse Brigade, One of the 8 Garlean Cohorts in Eorzea, Redbellies, Coeurl Claws, Harriers, Lunatics, Rogue Pirates and the newly christened 2.55 group which I'll not spoil, nor will I touch on Beast Tribe entities, Void entities, Ascians, or even Undead. ) leaving little conceptual room for a larger organization that does not answer to or conflict with these criminal elements on top of law abiding or law enforcement entities. 

 

That's a lot to hammer down before you even start making decisions of creative liberties as a group and establishing your own canon within it. I'll openly applaud the group that tackles that challenge fully knowing the difficulties involved, but there would be a quite a lengthy conversation to be had before any sort of collaboration could be done. There are so many potential clashing points in a pre-established villain base even in fully free form RPs in forums that adding in the often restrictive elements of MMO's level of canon and lore into it and factoring the many ways the interpretation of such deviates even among protagonists - is such a bramble patch of potential disasters and unwanted drama for all involved that I as a story-writer wouldn't even touch the project from a leadership standpoint.

 

I'd have to speculate that either the leadership there simply doesn't care for such things or they are some of the most cautiously meticulous people in the field of roleplaying. Either way they stand in the center of a conceptual minefield, and I don't envy their position.

 

If I were to boil all those concerns down to two questions - I'd ask how they avoid becoming a Scarlet Letter, or if they even care about it.

[111]

I do not see any questions. What questions are being raised?

 

 

*Deep breath*

 

Story premise, method for evading persecution on long term (That's local, GC, AND Alliance level persecution due to being an organized grouping. Size garners attention.) Interaction limits, rules and concepts when dealing with, well, anyone not an antagonist, or even another antagonist of opposing goals especially as a group or with another group. Methods of acting or RPing in public settings, especially considering the above, again, on the personal, and group level.

 

This is on top of your typical lore, play-ability, continual activity, and logistical problems any other group are concerned with that could put you at odds with players on an IC or OOC level (or both) even if you were a protagonist group. This is compounded by the fact that many organized villainous elements are fairly well known and established (Syndicate, Brass Blades, Corpse Brigade, One of the 8 Garlean Cohorts in Eorzea, Redbellies, Coeurl Claws, Harriers, Lunatics, Rogue Pirates and the newly christened 2.55 group which I'll not spoil, nor will I touch on Beast Tribe entities, Void entities, Ascians, or even Undead. ) leaving little conceptual room for a larger organization that does not answer to or conflict with these criminal elements on top of law abiding or law enforcement entities. 

 

That's a lot to hammer down before you even start making decisions of creative liberties as a group and establishing your own canon within it. I'll openly applaud the group that tackles that challenge fully knowing the difficulties involved, but there would be a quite a lengthy conversation to be had before any sort of collaboration could be done. There are so many potential clashing points in a pre-established villain base even in fully free form RPs in forums that adding in the often restrictive elements of MMO's level of canon and lore into it and factoring the many ways the interpretation of such deviates even among protagonists - is such a bramble patch of potential disasters and unwanted drama for all involved that I as a story-writer wouldn't even touch the project from a leadership standpoint.

 

I'd have to speculate that either the leadership there simply doesn't care for such things or they are some of the most cautiously meticulous people in the field of roleplaying. Either way they stand in the center of a conceptual minefield, and I don't envy their position.

 

If I were to boil all those concerns down to two questions - I'd ask how they avoid becoming a Scarlet Letter, or if they even care about it.

 

To be honest I have no idea what you're saying here.

[K'hatos]

A lot of these posts seem to hinge on the premise that the "good" guys always win.  As if that's a necessary element for a story to have.  Every character is the protagonist of their own story. 

 

Now obviously as enlightened people in the twenty-first century we accept that certain modes of thinking are deleterious to social cohesion.  Slavery, murder, and destruction of property are wrong.  Throughout much of history however, these concepts have been less than consistent.  The fact that a character might ascribe to an unpleasant philosophy may label them a villain, but it doesn't doom them to failure. 

 

Stories don't always end happily ever after.  Sometimes the aggressive jerk who starts a fight winds up beating the peaceful person who didn't want any trouble to begin with.  As story tellers, we shouldn't close ourselves off to possibilities by starting with the assumption that bad guys get theirs.

[ShoggMommy]

I've played bad guys for years, though often they are played with smaller groups. In my opinion the best evil doers are ones that do not see themselves as evil. A really good example of a current villain like this is Wilson Fisk from DareDevil. A really good character with many layers.

[Enteris]

A lot of these posts seem to hinge on the premise that the "good" guys always win.  As if that's a necessary element for a story to have.  Every character is the protagonist of their own story. 

 

Now obviously as enlightened people in the twenty-first century we accept that certain modes of thinking are deleterious to social cohesion.  Slavery, murder, and destruction of property are wrong.  Throughout much of history however, these concepts have been less than consistent.  The fact that a character might ascribe to an unpleasant philosophy may label them a villain, but it doesn't doom them to failure. 

 

Stories don't always end happily ever after.  Sometimes the aggressive jerk who starts a fight winds up beating the peaceful person who didn't want any trouble to begin with.  As story tellers, we shouldn't close ourselves off to possibilities by starting with the assumption that bad guys get theirs.

I'm glad someone else feels the same about these posts as I do. I've been hesitant to post simply because the general consensus seemed to be the non-hero character always loses. When this isn't true.

 

Two examples come to mind of the non-heroes winning.

 

 

The first is right here in this very game and, honestly, I'm surprised no one has mentioned it since many of the people in this thread claimed it to be "such good writing... I cried my eyes out..." etc. In Ul'dah, the non-heroes won. And if the HW trailer is anything to go by, it doesn't look like something that is going to be "fixed" any time soon.

 

The second is in Arrow (the TV series). Perhaps a controversial win, but the damage was still done. Malcolm still killed a ton of people with his earthquake machine and the effects of it are felt into the next season (granted I'm only now going through Season 2, so if they somehow reverse the earthquake's effects and bring all those people back to life, my apologies for bringing this up.) Now, of course he did die, but... he still did his villainous act.

 

 

 

I'm sure there are many other examples out there that just aren't coming to mind right away, but the heroes don't always have to win.

 

Secondly, I honestly think that disregarding my non-hero's rights as a character is absolutely absurd. My being part of the "realism" crowd, I imagine what you're trying to say here is that if the non-hero character ends up in a situation where they would realistically have to meet some sort of consequence, then it behooves the player of said character to roleplay it as such. And I imagine, and hope, that the majority of RPers here who play less-than-white knight characters would agree to that. Hell, I hope and pray that the maority of hero players also accept said consequences when they come along...

 

Of course, the dead horse... blah blah blah communication blah blah blah. It's improtant, don't get me wrong, just its been said so much that it shouldn't need repeating.

 

Just... don't expect me to suddenly waive my character's rights as a character because of some convoluted mindset that only good guys win/exist. Sorry, not going to happen.

[ArmachiA]

 

 

 

The first is right here in this very game and, honestly, I'm surprised no one has mentioned it since many of the people in this thread claimed it to be "such good writing... I cried my eyes out..." etc. In Ul'dah, the non-heroes won. And if the HW trailer is anything to go by, it doesn't look like something that is going to be "fixed" any time soon.

 

The second is in Arrow (the TV series). Perhaps a controversial win, but the damage was still done. Malcolm still killed a ton of people with his earthquake machine and the effects of it are felt into the next season (granted I'm only now going through Season 2, so if they somehow reverse the earthquake's effects and bring all those people back to life, my apologies for bringing this up.) Now, of course he did die, but... he still did his villainous act.

 

To be fair it's pretty clear in this storyline the bad guys are winning temporarily, which generally does happen in a GOOD story. They win for now, but eventually the status quo will be set right again by Raubahn getting his revenge, us seeing our friends again, and the WoL saving the day. I really like long storylines, and I don't believe villains should ALWAYS lose, but they do eventually lose in the end. I mean if you're playing a Garlean, you know eventually the Garlean Empire is going to lose, the devs are definitely going to do that at some point, so that's something a Garlean player will have to prepare for. Eventually, they will lose. Should villains always lose? Hell no. I mean, look at your Heavensward example, one of the reasons we're so excited about it is because it's happening right at the lowest point in the story. All the bad guys are winning! What will happen to our hero? That always makes for great drama to SEE the hero at their lowest point, and it's an amazing narrative point in RP.

It's hard to find people who want a really narrative experience (Sometimes the bad guys win and everything looks bleak) and don't just want to win against the bad guy as soon as they are introduced.

 

And the "Villian" FCs I know about are Tylwyth Narah and Regnum Garlemald (Who play Garleans). As far as I know, both FCs work very closely with storytellers of other FCs, using their characters as foils for the other Fcs "heros" but they still have completely 100% control of their character. Which is fair.

[Telluride]

The biggest issue about a villain pc is the endgame.

 

Sure the heroes want a grand chase, the villain esxaping from their clutches. That works well a few times  but ultimately, no one enjoys having a villain they can't eventually beat.

 

If the villain is a pc as opposed to an npc, then you have the issue that most people come Into. People dont want their characters to die. Which would be the ideal end to the heroes story.

 

There are ultimately only three real fates for villains:

-Capture

-Conversion to the good guy side

-Death

 

Personally, I've killed off a loooooot of my villains.

 

In other words - five words, to be precise:

 

"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

[Emberhair]

 

 

 

The first is right here in this very game and, honestly, I'm surprised no one has mentioned it since many of the people in this thread claimed it to be "such good writing... I cried my eyes out..." etc. In Ul'dah, the non-heroes won. And if the HW trailer is anything to go by, it doesn't look like something that is going to be "fixed" any time soon.

 

The second is in Arrow (the TV series). Perhaps a controversial win, but the damage was still done. Malcolm still killed a ton of people with his earthquake machine and the effects of it are felt into the next season (granted I'm only now going through Season 2, so if they somehow reverse the earthquake's effects and bring all those people back to life, my apologies for bringing this up.) Now, of course he did die, but... he still did his villainous act.

 

 

 

To be fair it's pretty clear in this storyline the bad guys are winning temporarily, which generally does happen in a GOOD story. They win for now, but eventually the status quo will be set right again by Raubahn getting his revenge, us seeing our friends again, and the WoL saving the day. I really like long storylines, and I don't believe villains should ALWAYS lose, but they do eventually lose in the end. I mean if you're playing a Garlean, you know eventually the Garlean Empire is going to lose, the devs are definitely going to do that at some point, so that's something a Garlean player will have to prepare for. Eventually, they will lose. Should villains always lose? Hell no. I mean, look at your Heavensward example, one of the reasons we're so excited about it is because it's happening right at the lowest point in the story. All the bad guys are winning! What will happen to our hero? That always makes for great drama to SEE the hero at their lowest point, and it's an amazing narrative point in RP.

It's hard to find people who want a really narrative experience (Sometimes the bad guys win and everything looks bleak) and don't just want to win against the bad guy as soon as they are introduced.

 

And the "Villian" FCs I know about are Tylwyth Narah and Regnum Garlemald (Who play Garleans). As far as I know, both FCs work very closely with storytellers of other FCs, using their characters as foils for the other Fcs "heros" but they still have completely 100% control of their character. Which is fair.

 

.......such an FC exists?! I would like to be put in touch with them ROFL. Really though, they sound like they're doing a real service to the RP community. "Has your RP lost its spice? An obstacle to overcome for character development? Say no more! Come on down today and throw your cash at RENT-A-VILLAIN! Sale ends Tuesday."

[Kage]

I may be wrong but TN-RP?

http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread.php?tid=7606

 

Edit: And as far as I know, the founding members are still quite not dead yet ;p

[Dravus]

The popularity and success of the likes of Game of Thrones and The Witcher is proof enough that there's a large market for gritty stories where morality is far from black and white, the characters aren't perfect and the 'good guys' don't necessarily win.

[Telluride]

 

(snip)

 

All the bad guys are winning! What will happen to our hero? That always makes for great drama to SEE the hero at their lowest point, and it's an amazing narrative point in RP.

 

 

There is something we are massively overdue in getting in this story:

 

The montage.

 

In particular, the montage that shows the hero finally getting tired of being beaten down, outwitted, outfought, demoralized pushed aside. It would be nice to have a little internal story recap, with the WoL remembering every... single... primal... and.... supposedly... unbeatable... boss being taken down, and then having an epiphany: "I'm taking crap from these people/monsters/primals WHY, again?"

 

It's overdue, way overdue, WAY overdue, BECAUSE - and this is why SE should be taken to task for it - they have made this frustration THE ACTUAL CONTINUING VILLAIN OF THE STORY: Not one entity or person or Ascian, but the idea that no matter how many times the WoL saves the world, the people who should be grateful refuse to stop their petty Bulls**t and treat the Scions with anything resembling real respect and support. Everything the WoL/Scions do is undermined by people who SHOULD be getting behind the program turning up their noses and acting in their own ignorant self-interests. Sure, some of them do occasionally help, but never until they're forced into doing so, and too too much of the story is basically everyone abusing the WoL and taking him/her for granted.

 

Again, this tendency is the real, actual, and unbroken "bad guy" of the entire story of FFXIV. Of course, it's the same story of a LOT of the history of Final Fantasy, and that's the exact point. Except, FFXIV, alone of all the released FF games, hasn't ended, so we don't have, and may never get, that moment where the protagonist can turn to the entire planet, and scream, " I #$^#$% TOLD YOU SO!"

 

We can argue that this is realistic - that the real world works like this for heroes. But in the real world, heroes eventually figure this out, and it becomes part of their story. This applies equally to other fictional stories. How many modern Superman stories, for example, involve him taking a moment to ask himself, "Has it NOT occurred to these people that I could kill each and every one of them without really breaking a sweat?" That he DOESN'T do it is part of the reason Superman still has validity as a character, but it is valid only because he HAS asked the question, thought about it, acknowledged it, and came to terms with it. Our WoL has yet to even be given this sort of real acknowledgment. No, our SuperWarrior simply obeys orders and suggestions like the most powerful sheep on the planet. In fact, the WoL is pretty much like Cloud at the beginning of FF7 - following orders and suggestions blindly, having no real inkling of his own truth or potential, and having to be dragged through his own painful truth.

 

But the beginning of FFXIV is over. We should be passing that now.

 

At risk of being a broken record (broken record... broken record... broken record), I'd truly love to see the WoL have a moment of pure determination, and actually put his/her foot down and remind somebody that his/her boot stomped every single punk who dared to step up, and remind that somebody that the boot is in very, very good shape still. I'm not even saying the WoL has to WIN, but it has come to the point where, for me at least, I not longer care much at all for this avatar I am supposed to wear.

 

EDIT: Hm. Looks like I might have strayed from the thread topic. Ah, well. Here: "Some of the best villains are not people, but situations, or the pecadilloes of writers." There.

[Hyrist]

A Sea-Wolf Ul'dahn crime syndicate and a Garlean organization. Of the two, lore wise, I'd cringe more over trying to organize the latter. I have Garlean character so I had to look pretty closely at the Garlean Military Structure.

The Garlean Lore is pretty volatile with their politics having been in a state of flux from back in the 1.xx days with Gaius playing against Nael. To now where there's a new Emperor in the works doing a political purge. Pair that with developing information about them and any organized Garlean group is going to be prone to having to retcon some pretty major stuff anytime a lore-bomb occurs.

 

So if Ramusus is staying on top of his game, he's got a whole lot of respect from me for it.

 

But I've got a lot of bad experiences with organized 'evil' groups to justify my hesitations with them. But it sounds like they're doing quiet well. I'm impressed. I wonder if they do internal intrigue plots among their own numbers.

 

"Evil" Groupings are not the standard party fair. The story premise for them exists in their internal lore sphere. They're not "The bad guys" so much as they are the protagonists of their own story.

 

Outside of their own sphere, however, they're playing the antagonist role, and they act and serve as NPCs for another plot. That's the function of a villain.

 

They're still Original Characters - and are given all rights and privileges therein. But a 'Player Character' exists as a function of a story, same as Villains. In an open role-play, that quality is transient. Put simply - it depends on what you are doing for a story. People too often mistake "Player Character" as a static state listing any character ever made by a person who plays a game - the opposite of a Non-Player-Character, someone imaginary or represented by place markers. These are the improper uses of the terms, in my experience.

 

I regret that my giant post got lost, it explained all this in detail.

 

Think of each Original Characters you make as potential actors in a play, and the titles "Player Character", "Villian" "NPC" as the costumes and roles you assume in that play, or Job stones you equip. You can't equip two 'Job Stones' at once, and each one comes with a different perspective and roles to fill.

[Emberhair]

I'd quickly like to thank everyone who has been posting here. I started this thread only a few days ago and the feedback has been incredible.

 

I thank you.

 

To expand the discussion further, another point I would like to discuss is..

 

Has anyone had success in using an existing duty (trial 4man, 8man dungeon etc.) effectively in their RP? To keep on topic, how do you think villains and story tellers could effectively utilise these? 

 

The setting advantage is obvious. You could make great use of dungeons environments in your RP. But what about fight mechanics?

 

While from a lore point of you there is no chance of this happening, i'd like to use a funny example from T9. What if the antagonist had somehow utilised the old power of Nael Deus Darnus or partnered with them or summoned a demon bat lady? etc.

 

The antagonist, borrowing this power, could summon meteors to crash down on where players are standing, on purpose. Or perhaps they "Give their flesh to the Old One!" and purposefully get hit my lunar dynamo to give the boss HP  

 

Obviously this idea is ridiculous but can anyone else think of any funny ideas of fight mechanics that could be used in a RP setting?

[Hyrist]

The time limit and existing mob structure tends to make it difficult for me to utilize it for anything further than casual events that mix character structure with gameplay mechanics.

 

So I've been drafting a method of using the maps, and screenshots to utilize the setting in a pseudo-tabletop rendition of each zone. Even found an online website to help me host organization of such things as well but it's all rough.

 

Not sure how one plays an antagonist in a dungeon where the only mechanical role a player can play in there is a protagonist. Maybe a 'traitor' scene at the end?

 

As dungeons areas being locked out for IC reasons... I'm just going to say that an inventive writer can weasel their way into making a story for pretty much every zone in this game. It's all in the presentation. Just remember to take the Simpsons approach. No matter what happens, everything returns to 'normal' at the end, aside from the lives of the story staff and player characters that it affects.

[Telluride]

 

Not sure how one plays an antagonist in a dungeon where the only mechanical role a player can play in there is a protagonist. Maybe a 'traitor' scene at the end?

 

Amdapoor Keep HM?

 

Attack the party while fighting the Boogyman, and pretend that he made you do it?

[Gegenji]

Has anyone had success in using an existing duty (trial 4man, 8man dungeon etc.) effectively in their RP? To keep on topic, how do you think villains and story tellers could effectively utilise these?

 

I've been in a few events where a duty was used pretty well. There was a whole arc about cultists kidnapping people to siphon their aether that involved a couple of these delves - gathering information and evidence, rescuing captives, destroying the aether-sucking machines, and so on. The party ran through it while the "DM" explained the what was happening over a LS.

 

It's mostly due to these things that my own event will try this angle. Mostly because not only does it help streamline things and a little bit of action for the participants to bite into, it also keeps things from being bogged down in what is effectively PvP when my villain and his cronies go up against the heroes.

 

Yes, there's the whole /random thing and other dice roll methods to do the combat, which allows for more freeform action... but you also get to avoid (on both sides) a dramatic or tense moment being ruined by a string of bad rolls (on either side). It removes a bit of the randomness and allows for all those involved to focus more on the action and the straight RP.

 

It helps that the goal is for my villain to be defeated in this bit, but you could also use such things to orchestrate small victories and such to have the "good guys" interfere with the bad guy's plans without just straight fighting him. Refluff a delve into Qarn as raiding a camp of mercenaries the big bad is using to assail a nearby village. Or Brayflox as traveling through a jungle to get a MacGuffin needed to overcome their defenses. So on and so forth.

 

It's all in how you want to work it, and the creativity of all those involved.

 

EDIT:

Not sure how one plays an antagonist in a dungeon where the only mechanical role a player can play in there is a protagonist. Maybe a 'traitor' scene at the end?

 

"Replace" the last boss with the villain or one of his cronies, or have the actual "scene" of the confrontation take place somewhere outside the dungeon afterward. They fight through a hidden passage lined with traps and dangers (the dungeon), to confront the villain in his lair (a FC room or someplace in the world that's aesthetically fitting).

 

In my event, the bosses of all the dungeons are effectively "not" the bosses that are actually there. Instead, they're the Commanders of the Big Bad. I'll introduce them as such before the boss pull, and then can RP the aftermath remotely through the LS. And the big bad is actually a character of mine, so I can always swap to him for more personal interaction outside the dungeon if needed.