| From: | Kama <kama@*******.NET> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Group think (was Humiliation) |
| Date: | Tue, 8 Dec 1998 16:03:27 -0500 |
> <SNIP K's comments about group vs individual>
> I've found this to be very true. It's far easier as a GM to
> adapt then it is for a group. And the larger the group, the
> worse it can get. I finally explained to them as you did, and
> they finally decided that in combat situations, one character
> called the shots. (His PC and in real life himself, had the best
> understanding of tactics). If magic or rigging or such was involved
> someone else would comment, but he would direct. Once
> we got this straightened out, the combat sessions were alot
> shorter. Planning before hand, no unecessary discussion during
> the combat. Seems to be this makes sense today from a special
> forces etc viewpoint, but my background in that area is spotty.
I have to admit that while this sounds good in theory, having one party
member serving as a tactical co-ordinator during battle - I have found it
to work very poorly in actual practice. In fact, we had one gaming group
self-destruct after two years of playing together about 30 minutes after
electing such an individual.
(Note: If you don't want to read pointless stories about other people's
gaming experiences skip the rest)
It was back in the '80s when we were playing a little known game called
Runequest. The party had amassed too much wealth and was transporting it
via caravan from one city to another. The GM did the logical thing and had
an ambush deprive us of said wealth. It was the first time we actually
lost a fight. The guys (Chris and Robert) couldn't believe that this had
just happened. After spending a great deal of time arguing that the GM had
been unfair, they deciced that if we had a tactical leader who would give
everyone instructions during a battle we would never lose a fight again.
Diana and I pointed out that the odds were overwhelming (70 to 8 and they
had the advantage of ambush) but the guys were determined. Which led them
in a discussion of who would be the leader.
Robert's character was a pacifistic monk. Chris's was a bezerker, Diana
had a barbarian warrior and I had a fighter/healer. They couldn't figure
out who to appoint. Chris's character would never be coherent in battle,
Robert's character didn't fight and had no skill, Diana's character had
experience, but she had just joined the group and had only been gaming for
3 months . . . Chris asked the GM if one of the NPCs could be the battle
leader, but he said no. The GM and I looked at each other and he suggested
that there was another obvious choice. Chris said huh and he and Robert
went back to arguing. I started getting frustrated. Their voices were
esculating as they decided that Chris would have to be the battle leader
and started setting up contingency plans for when he went bezerk.
I was sitting across the room from the GM and started talking to him in a
normal tone of voice. The male players were to busy arguing to hear me. I
told the GM that I thought that this was pointless and that I had injured
people who were not going to do well left in the snow all night. I told
him that I remebered passing a half fallen house a few miles back and that
I was going to go back and check it out thinking that it would provide
shelter to the wounded. I told him what I did to make sure that the
wounded would be o.k. until my return. I told Diana's character what to do
to tend them while I went back to check out the shelter. I told the GM
specifically what supplies I was packing to take with me. I told the GM
that I left the camp and that obviously noone noticed since Robert and
Chris were still arguing over who would be the third tier leader. He
nodded and told them to roll perception tests.
They exploded. Books got thrown down as they yelled at the GM for having
people sneak up on them while we were so badly hurt. How could he expect
us to survive another attack after the last one? The GM finally rolled the
perception tests himself and told Chris that he sees me leaving the camp.
Chris becomes outraged. He had two NPCs jump me and hold me still while he
lectures me that he had not given me permission to do anything and that he
was the leader now and was to be obeyed. I told him that it wasn't a
battle sitution and that I would do what I felt I had to do for my
patients. He blamed me for being a disruptive element and said that if I
insisted that the shelter be checked out he would do it becuase he was
obviously better suited to the job. (yes, I did have higher stealth,
perception, and melee scores)
Suffice to say that my character left the party that night once she had
seen to the care of the wounded.
Errr . . . that was rant wasn't it . . . sorry
I guess my point is this. Someone who directs tactics in the middle of a
battle is one thing. Someone who expects to control all of the characters
actions is another. There is a big difference between "Guard the back
door" and "Stand two feet to the left of the back door, put your Ingram in
your right hand, loaded with Expolsive ammo, and do a called shot to the
back of the head of anyone walking through that door who doesn't know the
password." In that later case, there is no reason to have multiple
players.
- Kama
