Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As I sit at my desk reading playtesters' hastily scribbled notes... I asked my test subjects whether they would rather play an RPG where you are the good guys or the bad guys.

I got varying responses, but I'll ask you fellow forumers...

Which side if the coin do you prefer in games (RPGs, Wargames, etc.) ?

Always the bad guys. It started with the NOD in C&C1 and never changed. Mordor, Moria, Rhun, Death Guard, Orks, Cardassians, Jem'Hadar.
I think the only game where I play the more or less good guys is Star Wars Armada where I'm playing the Republic.
My good lotr armies never was more than a single Box of wood elves + Legolas.
Why? Bad guys are cool. And my opponents would usually take the good guys (aside from 40K where there are no good guys).

RPGs - generally the good guys.

Miniatures games - doesn't really matter. I'm attracted to miniatures, not lore.

In RPGs I generally prefer to be the good guys. Hell, even in Skyrim, I'll do all sorts of horrible things (up to and including blotting out the sun for funsies and ALWAYS murdering Heimskr), but still generally lean towards good and helping people out.

In wargames, I trend towards evil. ::laughs in Chaos::

Depends on the context.

In any sort of RPG like Fallout or Baldurs Gate, it's good all the way. Sometimes it's the illusion of choice like with Fallout 4 where your options are be a force for good or lose a 3rd of the game content but then I pretty much play Fallout 4 to rebuild the Commonwealth and give the simulated people lovely simulated farms.

For Warhammer? Villains, either tragic or classic. The noble "traitors" who threw off their shackles to bring down the tyrant Emperor only to be drawn into the dark embrace of Chaos to the likes of Eliphas the Inheritor who are evil for the love of the game.

In RPGs, I tend to find a more important question than Good vs Evil (not the same as goodies and baddies anyway) is Lawful vs Chaotic. Whilst that is a very D&D-centric perspective, it is important within games that don't even have alignment.

I play mostly Lawful characters, but across the Lawful-Neutral-Good spectrum. I actually find the restrictions put on you by being Lawful make a more interesting play experience than just going free-for-all anarchic. That is sometimes a Lawful Good character, though often someones who operates within their own moral code that doesn't align with that of the location in which he is operating, or maybe even his own party. Another time, it is a self-interested Lawful-Evil character who is utterly selfish, but operates according to set of rules. Sometimes it is someone for whom the rules themselves are the objective. It results in someone inflexible, but predictable. Most fun is often the cowardly character who won't fight until they are in a corner with no way out.

So I guess my answer is less about goodies or baddies and more about being into a somewhat antagonistic relationship between my character and the others, and with the world we are in, but not so extreme that we can't work together and function within the story.

I tend to be demoing games and so I am almost always playing the villians, but I prefer that anyway. I've always liked Orcs and Beastmen more than paladins and elves anyway!

RPGs are almost always good (frequently lawful)

Wargames it’s a coin toss, but my collections imply a strong bias for evil.

ccs wrote:


Miniatures games - doesn't really matter. I'm attracted to miniatures, not lore.

Same.

I lean pretty heavily on the villain side. Much preferably the kind of villain you could reason with though, not the mindless destructive one. My favourite trope is when the hero and villain team up against some greater evil.

Heroes, villains, what's the difference? I'll play just about anything as long as I find something interesting about it.

For historicals (outside of certain periods I don't really play) there are no real goodies or baddies most of the time. So there it's hard to say. For fantasy and science fiction wargames, I tend towards the more evil end of the scale, although, of course, in a setting like 40k there aren't any. But in my headcanon I at least don't make them knights in shiny armour to say the least.

In RPGs, I play all sorts of characters, ranging from true baddies all the way to the classic paladins in shining armour.

Yes..... I actually prefer to play in the Grey areas.

I'm a lawful-good paladin at heart. I like to help people, do good, etc. That's my default, go to, though there's not a lot of that in wargames as they tend to lean on everyone being someone's villain more and the hero factions tend to be a bit more rag tag and disorderly than I like.

For wargames, I tend to lean towards the lawful side. Inquisition style characters are a favorite of mine, which definitely leans evil. It's also a playstyle thing as I really like the mix of durable control and focused aggression.

I do occasionally need a pallet cleanser though and my preferred secondary playstyle is some variation of unga-bunga smash face. I'm generally not drawn to the overtly evil variations of this as much as the "just loves fighting" style characters.

So generally speaking, my two modes are generally White/Blue and Red/Green.

Mostly good, especially so in Video Game RPGs where I enjoy being the good guy.

In Wargaming I'll still lean just a bit towards good, but in recent years I've played quite alot with my fantasy Chaos army in various games (Kings of War, Dragon Rampant, Age of Fantasy, Mordheim, Song of Blades and Heroes, etc.).

I've played evil characters in RP situations. The key is to always remember the other PCs are your friends... even if your PC does not always see things the same way they do.

Also play good characters a lot, because many groups are uncomfortable having an evil PC in the group.

Which do I prefer? I don't think I prefer one or the other. In its own way, an evil PC is even more restricted than a good one, in that you're trying NOT to screw over your friends by your actions and their consequences. But navigating that dichotomy can be a lot of fun.

What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

I'm attempting to legitimize a group of murder hobos by giving them a government sanction.

It's like herding chickens so far. I was told it could be done. But it's a lot harder than I thought.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

I'm attempting to legitimize a group of murder hobos by giving them a government sanction.

It's like herding chickens so far. I was told it could be done. But it's a lot harder than I thought.

I find at a certain point with a murder hobo group, you’re effective just doing Suicide squad. Even villains need some push back for players I think, like going crazy has repercussions in some way.
At a certain point, the people in charge may just dump the players in the ocean as a way to clean up if they don’t at least have the ability to go in without an international incident.

 Apple fox wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

I'm attempting to legitimize a group of murder hobos by giving them a government sanction.

It's like herding chickens so far. I was told it could be done. But it's a lot harder than I thought.

I find at a certain point with a murder hobo group, you’re effective just doing Suicide squad. Even villains need some push back for players I think, like going crazy has repercussions in some way.
At a certain point, the people in charge may just dump the players in the ocean as a way to clean up if they don’t at least have the ability to go in without an international incident.

The name if my game is the lose condition for the campaign.

I specifically inserted a "if you cause WWIII, you lose the game" condition, but it's hard to balance.

I don't want the players to screw up, and the Handler (GM) goes, "That's it, game over!" Or where I am now, where the Soviet Army is missing a truckload of soldiers, and my operatives are still a viable option.

Argh.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

I'm attempting to legitimize a group of murder hobos by giving them a government sanction.

So a Letter of Marque.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Apple fox wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

I'm attempting to legitimize a group of murder hobos by giving them a government sanction.

It's like herding chickens so far. I was told it could be done. But it's a lot harder than I thought.

I find at a certain point with a murder hobo group, you’re effective just doing Suicide squad. Even villains need some push back for players I think, like going crazy has repercussions in some way.
At a certain point, the people in charge may just dump the players in the ocean as a way to clean up if they don’t at least have the ability to go in without an international incident.

The name if my game is the lose condition for the campaign.

I specifically inserted a "if you cause WWIII, you lose the game" condition, but it's hard to balance.

I don't want the players to screw up, and the Handler (GM) goes, "That's it, game over!" Or where I am now, where the Soviet Army is missing a truckload of soldiers, and my operatives are still a viable option.

Argh.

I would ask this question, why don’t you want the players if they screw up to face such consequences. If players truly put themselves in such a situation, why save them from such consequences.
When I run RPGs, I often tell players that stupidity is punishable by character death. It’s a joke, but I have had players who have gone, I’m going to go for it, and then perished and everyone laughed as it was really dumb. It was fun, because the players had the choice and the odds were bad but not impossible.

 Vulcan wrote:
I've played evil characters in RP situations. The key is to always remember the other PCs are your friends... even if your PC does not always see things the same way they do.

You are confusing Player & Player-Character.

I'm friends with my fellow players.

Wether I'm playing Good, Evil, etc, it is NOT a given that our Characters are friends.
Some sort of allies, yes. Friends.....

 Apple fox wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Apple fox wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

I'm attempting to legitimize a group of murder hobos by giving them a government sanction.

It's like herding chickens so far. I was told it could be done. But it's a lot harder than I thought.

I find at a certain point with a murder hobo group, you’re effective just doing Suicide squad. Even villains need some push back for players I think, like going crazy has repercussions in some way.
At a certain point, the people in charge may just dump the players in the ocean as a way to clean up if they don’t at least have the ability to go in without an international incident.

The name if my game is the lose condition for the campaign.

I specifically inserted a "if you cause WWIII, you lose the game" condition, but it's hard to balance.

I don't want the players to screw up, and the Handler (GM) goes, "That's it, game over!" Or where I am now, where the Soviet Army is missing a truckload of soldiers, and my operatives are still a viable option.

Argh.

I would ask this question, why don’t you want the players if they screw up to face such consequences. If players truly put themselves in such a situation, why save them from such consequences.
When I run RPGs, I often tell players that stupidity is punishable by character death. It’s a joke, but I have had players who have gone, I’m going to go for it, and then perished and everyone laughed as it was really dumb. It was fun, because the players had the choice and the odds were bad but not impossible.

To be honest, it's been difficult to find a group that is willing to field test a still-in-progress RPG.

So, I'm willing to overlook a lot in order to keep them happy and working out the bugs and breaking the systems I've created.

That's why punishment has been withheld. Once I get my product finished and can farm it out to other groups, I will have the Fallout System in place.

I can't even bring myself to slap an NPC in a solo computer game with nobody watching lol

But I'll play Dark Eldar no problem

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Apple fox wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Apple fox wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
What if the game offers a moral system that essentially says: "Don't Get Caught."

How will most players, in your opinion act, without the good/evil axis in the game?

Probably depends heavily on the group, more than anything else. Consider the 'murderhobo' stereotype in D&D, groups of nominally good PCs who go around invading the homes of sapient creatures with the express purpose of killing them and stealing their belongings.

I'm attempting to legitimize a group of murder hobos by giving them a government sanction.

It's like herding chickens so far. I was told it could be done. But it's a lot harder than I thought.

I find at a certain point with a murder hobo group, you’re effective just doing Suicide squad. Even villains need some push back for players I think, like going crazy has repercussions in some way.
At a certain point, the people in charge may just dump the players in the ocean as a way to clean up if they don’t at least have the ability to go in without an international incident.

The name if my game is the lose condition for the campaign.

I specifically inserted a "if you cause WWIII, you lose the game" condition, but it's hard to balance.

I don't want the players to screw up, and the Handler (GM) goes, "That's it, game over!" Or where I am now, where the Soviet Army is missing a truckload of soldiers, and my operatives are still a viable option.

Argh.

I would ask this question, why don’t you want the players if they screw up to face such consequences. If players truly put themselves in such a situation, why save them from such consequences.
When I run RPGs, I often tell players that stupidity is punishable by character death. It’s a joke, but I have had players who have gone, I’m going to go for it, and then perished and everyone laughed as it was really dumb. It was fun, because the players had the choice and the odds were bad but not impossible.

To be honest, it's been difficult to find a group that is willing to field test a still-in-progress RPG.

So, I'm willing to overlook a lot in order to keep them happy and working out the bugs and breaking the systems I've created.

That's why punishment has been withheld. Once I get my product finished and can farm it out to other groups, I will have the Fallout System in place.

You probably will need to move to stage with players who are willing to go through those steps. I would consider it very important for what you seem to trying to get to.
I’m actually really big on social games for RPGs, i play a lot that have combat as a last resort since it’s so dangerous and risky if you’re not planning and being careful. They often only work if players are willing to suffer consequences when mistakes are made.

Its fine if your just working on mechanics, but if your into setting, vibes and feel. You need players who are able to go in on what you’re trying to do.

The way your description comes across makes me think you'd benefit from expanding the GM side of things so you don't end up in a situation where the players feel they did everything right and it's still game over.

Your setup is "accomplish the main objective and don't get caught doing it, anything else is a secondary consideration" if I understand you correctly. That sounds clear cut but also doesn't leave a lot of room for nuanced resolution. It's a very binary approach that provides plenty of freedom but leaves no room for error whatsoever.

The way I see it a scenario like this benefits from degrees of success or failure. Your handler may have government backing, but governments and organizations aren't monolithic. As far as your players and their characters are concerned, the premise of "get it done and don't get caught" may be true, but that doesn't mean in the background there isn't something more complicated going on. For instance:

- The mission parameters are clear at the bottom of the chain of command, but the higher up you go the less people (want to) know about the unsavory parts. If your players' choices put pressure on the higher-ups, they expect their underlings to get the situation under control. You could make it a conflict for the handler who believes in the original approach but has to impose specific additional limitations on future missions at least until things blow over, thereby making life more difficult for the players (and their characters) and informing them that something is up without letting them fail immediately.

- Similarly, one such higher-up doesn't find the thing palatable but doesn't have the authority to curtail the handler, so instead he's sneaky about it and sabotages the player characters, which may start small but become more pronounced over several missions. Maybe he tips off local security or even just the press so your players again have their work made harder as a consequence of their actions.

- Or since we're on the topic of journalists, if things don't go clean and quietly, the players may have to contend with getting drawn into the spotlight, especially if the traces they leave follow a pattern and a clever journalist can make predictions that, once again, give the players an additional problem to work around.

- The more severe form of that is opposing government agencies that make your players' characters missions more difficult in a similar way.

All of which is to say I think you'd benefit from fleshing out the world in which your players' characters operate. Don't think of it as punishment for the actions of your players, but as consequences that occur in reaction to their decisions. Allow for gradual escalation to take the place of a simple succeed/fail system. Importantly, allow your players to deal with these problems. If they succeed, they rectify problems they caused themselves. If they fail, they make things worse (and ideally entertainingly dramatic) for themselves. But whichever it is, they should feel that it's entirely in their hands to avert failure and if it gets to game over, it's not something that arbitrarily happened without their involvement.

ccs wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
I've played evil characters in RP situations. The key is to always remember the other PCs are your friends... even if your PC does not always see things the same way they do.

You are confusing Player & Player-Character.

I'm friends with my fellow players.

Wether I'm playing Good, Evil, etc, it is NOT a given that our Characters are friends.
Some sort of allies, yes. Friends.....

Good PCs can be allies without being friends. Neutral and especially evil characters need a stronger tie to at least one PC to keep them on the same side.

Although... the last time I played an evil character, he wasn't friends with any of the PCs starting out. He was with the party because one had (pre-game) tried to save his brother's life. So while my character found the rest of the PCs to be hopelessly optimistic to the point of gullibility (and he did take advantage of it once or twice), he DID owe the cleric that debt... which I suppose proves your point in a back-handed manner.

I tend to play the characters who are the most interesting to me. I like to think things are on a spectrum and less binary. To that point rarely are these things ever so easy or clear cut. Generally, the so-called ‘villain’ sees themselves as the hero of the story, and it’s our perspective that decides who gets the laurel wreath and who gets the horns. From their view, they’re making the hard choices, doing what ‘must be done,’ or reclaiming what’s rightfully theirs. From ours, they’re the cackling bad guy twirling the mustache. Heroes and villains aren’t objective facts—they’re just the side of the story you happen to believe.