Hello everybody, don't forget that Mike asked this on GURPSnet in a roleplaying/ wargaming context. By the way, no crossposting to other mailing lists, please. Apart from the violation of copyrights, it makes it impossible to follow the debate unless you're on all of them.
So what does that mean? * The characters should be able to contribute to a victory, or whatever passes for one in the setting -- sometimes it is an accomplishment just to stay alive and free, but most players expect a final confrontation where their side has a chance to win. The problem with the virus suggestion is that the victory is likely to come out of a lab, or not at all. "Make your NBC roll. OK, now the physician roll. Made by 10 or more? OK, next comes ..." Perhaps the adventurers were instrumental in getting the virus sample, or blood from apparently immune people, or whatever, but in the end it comes down to people who were probably not part of the PCs. * The confrontation doesn't have to be a physical fight, but it certainly helps. * The stakes should be significantly higher than what we face in real life. It can be fun to play the wandering hero who faces the occasional demon, or the space trader who finds out that the competition is part of a criminal conspiracy, but it is less interesting to have your character survive rush hour traffic or improve the profit margin of his employer by 0.00001% that day. * The enemy should be represented by a single person, or just a few persons, and they should be memorable. The jilted ex fits nicely in this regard, but it is less fun if the victory condition is "neutralize at least half of the bureaucrats in the Department of Dreary Red Tape." In a wargame, it is easier to talk about lots of similar enemies -- "stop the 1st Blitzkrieg Division short of the railway node." * Many roleplaying games are as much about exploring player characters and players as they are about problem solving and defeating enemies. Is it OK to kill a hundred people to save thousands? Well, you're the bridge crew of a starship and the reactor leak is spreading. Close the bulkheads now? You're the command team of the regiment. Detach a rearguard, even if they're almost certain to die? That means the player character should have hard choices on the way to victory. So that's my view on what the enemy shouldn't be. Let's get constructive :-) I disagree with Kurt that the thread was godwinized, because Hitler actually fits into the debate: * He was a significant threat to Europe. W:WW explains why he had little chance of ultimate victory, but he got within shouting distance of one before he ran out of steam. Compare Jean Kambanda -- and if you have to google him first, I just made my point ... * He managed to focus much attention on himself. Part of that was his propaganda, part was simplification by the Allied war propaganda, and part was post-war whitewashing by Germans who wanted to distance themselves from his crimes, and Allies who wanted to work with those Germans (google Hans Globke). * I don't know how many WWII roleplaying campaigns actually include a climactic battle, since the war in Europe ended with a whimper rather than a bang, but the players would be aware of the genocide that went on 24/7 just behind the front lines, so there was time pressure. Compare the recent revival of the sci-fi series V. Do you think it would have had the same impact if the Visitors were all indistinguishable lizard? No, the directors have hired Morena Baccarin for the lead role. Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
