Quote from: antema;876931Hey Ravenswing, I would very much like to get a copy of that pamphlet, if that's possible.

A very good resource for GM do's and don'ts is "The Game Master: A Guide to the Art and Theory of Roleplaying" But that's only for GMs. A simple guide to hand to players would surely come in handy.

I also would like a look at that pamplet.  It sounds very useful.

Quote from: AsenRG;876934I'm unlikely to even give the metagame information to the other players to begin with:). So they wouldn't need to metagame or not metagame, it's my decision.

He'd gotten stuck in the circle the previous session, which he did attend... so we (Players, not PCs) were all privvy to his predicament (partially brought on by reneging on payment to the cleric he'd hired to disrupt the circle... he really has only himself to blame).

I agree with loyalty building as in-game relationships/experiences build. But we didn't really have much of that with this PC... so... 'what guy? missing? what do I care?'

Quote from: Simlasa;876958I agree with loyalty building as in-game relationships/experiences build. But we didn't really have much of that with this PC... so... 'what guy? missing? what do I care?'

Beyond that, in thinking it through, what would the other PCs know?  Why would they expect trouble?  Yay, guys, we all got back from the grand adventure, we tied off loose ends, we sold off the loot, we divvied it all out, huzzah!  

For all any of you know, I've just gone off to do the things I always do after a long adventure: I've gone to the bathhouse to clean up and get a shave and a haircut, I stop by my flat to wake my servant up and have a good meal, and I spend the next day or three Doing My Thing: sending my gear out for repair, finding out the news, taking in a concert or a play, seeing if that lazy-ass wizard's frigging finished my new enchanted mail, dropping in on Honest Nath's to see what he's got by way of new horses, writing an answer to my sister's letter ...

In my experience, few parties have we-need-to-check-in-every-6-hours-every-time-of-the-day-and-night protocols running.

Quote from: SionEwig;876951I also would like a look at that pamplet.  It sounds very useful.

You and Antema are more than welcome, but: it's only two pages long, and is largely system commentary bolted onto the version of GURPS Lite I revised to match my game, which I also hand out.  I don't have much in there which is Generic Good Advice For Players.  The bits which are:

QuoteSave some points for utility skills.  Moreover, feel free to take skills that might not seem to have direct applications to adventuring.  It's an axiom that a clever player can make a Glassblowing, Musical Instrument or Architecture skill work in surprising ways.

QuoteStep 7 - Equipment: Capital equipment is expensive; day-to-day living is not.  The 500 silver sinvers allotted at startup would last a frugal character for about a year's worth of modest inns.  It will also buy a broadsword, a buckler and a quilted cloth jerkin, and a couple extra luxuries, about.  Characters, especially beginning ones, often make out a fair bit better foraging the swords of the fallen than rifling pockets in the hope of finding a pouch brimming with gold.  A common equipment list is attached; the complete list runs many pages.  Barring a wealth option, characters start with 500 sinvers and one suit of clothes appropriate to their social station.

QuoteWrapping Up:  I strongly recommend broad-based characters.  Someone wholly maximized for melee combat will be bored for long stretches in my runs.  Someone with no combat skills will be twiddling thumbs in any prolonged battle.  An outdoorswoman who can't stand being within town walls and a city slicker whose idea of "roughing it" is spending ten sinvers a night on the inn suite will have big problems.

[/COLOR]

Quote from: Ravenswing;876998In my experience, few parties have we-need-to-check-in-every-6-hours-every-time-of-the-day-and-night protocols running.

Exactly! This guy had already made a habit of going off by himself to work in his (secret location) alchemy lab.

What I've found works better for making players think about the moral consequences of their actions than moral choices is give the PCs fans, fans that try to put their words into action and emulate what the PCs do. Kids work well for low level PCs and if they're really powerful then the sky's the limit.

Quote from: Simlasa;876958He'd gotten stuck in the circle the previous session, which he did attend... so we (Players, not PCs) were all privvy to his predicament (partially brought on by reneging on payment to the cleric he'd hired to disrupt the circle... he really has only himself to blame).

I agree with loyalty building as in-game relationships/experiences build. But we didn't really have much of that with this PC... so... 'what guy? missing? what do I care?'

Then I'd have, personally, agreed with the "let him deal with it, and fuck whiners" (assuming I was at your table, of course:)).
Also, when someone starts to whine, I tell Gronan's story of the 13-years-old whose high-level character got murdered by another PC because he didn't want to sell an item to the Cleric. Then I stress the part about him being 13yo, and ask the whiners to show more maturity. Since most of my players are about twice that age, I make it clear I expect twice the emotional self-control;).

Quote from: Bren;876949That seems backwards to me.

First and foremost: feel free to switch them. Honest, I'm not going to dispute how you use them, don't intend to make it the Two-Fold Model, and am no longer likely to send Gaming Slang Police to your location!
(I suspect you've caught both references in the above sentence:p).

QuoteIf we are playing "the story of those characters" it makes sense to "require the PCs to kinda sorta be able to work together". (Unless the story is about the conflict between the characters. Sort of like the original Arneson campaign where two sides - Law and Chaos - were in conflict and players were affiliated with one side or the other. So "the story of those characters" is the story of the war between those characters.)

I think you know me well enough to know also that I have no idea whether they're going to be in conflict, Bren:).
But the point is, the PCs are central to this paradigm (or for the Pundit, I guess I should say they're Right, front and center;)). The GM's attention is focused on them, and if they oppose each other, than so be it - they're still the protagonists, even if no longer on the same side.

QuoteWhereas if we are playing "the story that includes these characters" dropping out, killing off, and rotating characters in and out seems like much less of a problem.

Actually not - since they're not central, they can be exchanged with much less hassle if they get on different sides (and since I'm not interested in contemplating the events from both sides, it's likely that them being on different sides IC would last about as long as they need to kill each other, and would be discouraged OOC).

Of course, I can change my attitude towards at least some of the PCs in the course of a campaign. It has happened.

QuoteOr am I misunderstanding what you meant?

I think you are, indeed.
It seems you're thinking of a different kind of story. That is something that is more, for the lack of better terms, player-facing.
I'm talking about different attitudes of the GM towards the PCs, remaining purely in the GM's mind.
This might result, theoretically, in the same story - we're just going to arrive at it by slightly different means (and in one of the cases, there would be more options).
As I said, I hadn't even realised the split existing until recently.

Quote from: Daztur;877016What I've found works better for making players think about the moral consequences of their actions than moral choices is give the PCs fans, fans that try to put their words into action and emulate what the PCs do. Kids work well for low level PCs and if they're really powerful then the sky's the limit.

Yeah, I tend to give them disciples or people who try to emulate them when they become adventurers. Sometimes, there might be a cult forming, with their actions becoming part of its Holy Scripture the faithfuls are expected to memorise and emulate:p!
But yes. "To know someone, look at his friends" is a long-standing adage for a reason. For PCs, sometimes the player might need this reminder:D!

Quote from: Daztur;877016What I've found works better for making players think about the moral consequences of their actions than moral choices is give the PCs fans, fans that try to put their words into action and emulate what the PCs do.

That's a good idea. Thanks!

Yes, fans and audience. I tend to have several NPCs who are in regular contact with the PCs, either additional adventurers, hired help, friends, employers, family, religious community, witnesses, prisoners, whatever, who will react to what they players say or do. NPCs can give immediate feedback when players start doing something meta-gamey, like torturing/murdering prisoners for convenience, etc.

A genuine moral dilemma must be fairly specific to the character involved. A choice is really a dilemma only if the opposing propositions are initially of equal priority in the hierarchy of values. I would venture further to say they must be so in a non-trivial way -- a 'dilemma' solved with a moment more than the most superficial consideration is not really worthy of the name. Something unequivocally worthy will not even be completely resolved, but will remain doubtful.

The best moral dilemmas depend on long-term set up.  In Albion I had players build up a long-term bond with the Earl of Warwick, for example, and then have to decide between joining Warwick's rebellion versus remaining loyal to Edward of York (their rightful king).
If the session had been just early-on, or set up as background ("so you're all good buddies with the Earl of Warwick and very loyal to the King too"), rather than actually role-played for years of real-time, it would have nowhere near the impact.

In response to the OPs problem, do charcters with differing moral compasses still have a reason to stay together?  I would think a series of moral delimas would be the worst solution.  Or put differently you would find the answer is no.

A thief, a blood Mage (not sure what that is but it sounds cool) a servant of death and balance, and an actual saint should have radically different moral views.  If you make those moral positions the centre of the campaign they will almost have to split.  They have enough shared history they should be able to put up with each other as long as their differences aren't highlighted.  

Magneto and Proffesor X are best friends until they get down to the question of how to protect mutants.  If you want your party to stay together don't force that question on them

That said forcing that question on them would made some really cool role playing.

The other thing is is its your players that are having disagreements instead of the charcters, that's a different problem.

In-party conflict can be one of the most interesting parts of moral dilemmas. It's another reason why I like to have some NPCs in parties, and as their friends, patrons, family, etc., to also be impacted and involved, and not let out-of-character PC crazy immoral impulses just fly mindlessly because the players are in denial, confused, being lazy, or whatever.

Yes it can mean a party won't want to stay together. But I like it when that's on the table. I'd much rather see players break up their party or argue or fight or betray each other, than to have them pretend to get along because they are supposed to be PCs in an RPG party for no good in-world reasons.

I think that moral dilemmas take on a different quality when you have an RPG where the whole group is one single party (ie. the standard D&D model) versus RPGs where there is not the same standard group cohesion (games where the PCs may already have rival agendas).