I personally feel like you're in a bit of a dilemma as a baddy in that, in that if you spot a lawful type you should just run like hell or you're dead, but if you do that you're a twink. Resolving that issue would be really nice for both sides IMHO.
I do think there are a few tools that mages have to help them be slippery, though the one downside is that most of them really only accomplish half your goal. What I mean by that is that disengaging in combat isnt helpful if you just get run down and attacked again 30 seconds later lol. And being invisible/hiding isn't all that useful if you're still stuck in combat.
I'm actually more an advocate of the opposite of what this thread is talking about though. I'd rather baddies have more ways to make muggles and lawfuls "sticky" - ie to capture them and then keep them under control, perhaps indefinitely without the help of an external party to free the poor muggle.
"Slippery" Bad Guys
There are problems with implementing that sort of thing in a game. Namely, you are interfering with player autonomy in a big way. There is a limit to the extent any given player is willing to go along with having their freedom to play the game stripped from them. It is important to remember that the characters themselves are not real people, while the players are. These characters are our avatars by which we interact in a virtual world. They are not extensions of someone else's will, and having that happen creates what is often referred to as negative play experience.
Lots of tabletop games on the market have warning sidebars in their rulebooks about the nature of social interaction, and the use of magic or mundane abilities to control or influence the actions of other characters. People don't like it when you play their characters for them. It can make a game turn sour real fast. When a player makes a character, they expect to make the decisions for that character. If that expectation is violated, players will leave.
If I'm a mage, I might be able to put you under a mind control spell. It's a classic fantasy trope. I might be able to control your thoughts, words, and actions. What I can't do is make you log in that character. You will only be able to put up with being my enslaved buttmonkey for so long before you decide it's not fun, and go do something else.
How long that takes is anybody's guess. You might get sick of it after a week, especially if you were minding your own business role-playing with your friends and I just showed up out of nowhere to hijack you. You might be able to put up with it for years if I picked a different character to put the mind-whammy on. We might get to talking about this cool idea I've got for a villain, who has a mind-controlled puppet in court. You might decide that's really cool, and you've got a baron or a viscount that had gotten boring, and that's just the plot you need to get interested that character again.
In order to run it longer than a few real-world weeks, everybody's gotta be on board with the idea. Especially the victim. If the victim gets tired of being under someone else's control, then it all stops. They just stop playing that character. There's nothing anyone can do about that.
The rub here is that it takes out of character cooperation for one character to have extended control over another. They have to log in. That's active participation. Given that, how much mechanics do you require? Consider that those same mechanics will necessarily allow one party to force negative play experiences on another.
Lots of tabletop games on the market have warning sidebars in their rulebooks about the nature of social interaction, and the use of magic or mundane abilities to control or influence the actions of other characters. People don't like it when you play their characters for them. It can make a game turn sour real fast. When a player makes a character, they expect to make the decisions for that character. If that expectation is violated, players will leave.
If I'm a mage, I might be able to put you under a mind control spell. It's a classic fantasy trope. I might be able to control your thoughts, words, and actions. What I can't do is make you log in that character. You will only be able to put up with being my enslaved buttmonkey for so long before you decide it's not fun, and go do something else.
How long that takes is anybody's guess. You might get sick of it after a week, especially if you were minding your own business role-playing with your friends and I just showed up out of nowhere to hijack you. You might be able to put up with it for years if I picked a different character to put the mind-whammy on. We might get to talking about this cool idea I've got for a villain, who has a mind-controlled puppet in court. You might decide that's really cool, and you've got a baron or a viscount that had gotten boring, and that's just the plot you need to get interested that character again.
In order to run it longer than a few real-world weeks, everybody's gotta be on board with the idea. Especially the victim. If the victim gets tired of being under someone else's control, then it all stops. They just stop playing that character. There's nothing anyone can do about that.
The rub here is that it takes out of character cooperation for one character to have extended control over another. They have to log in. That's active participation. Given that, how much mechanics do you require? Consider that those same mechanics will necessarily allow one party to force negative play experiences on another.
The word "muggle" put thoughts towards magic.
As far as handcuffs and cells, the bad guys have similar options to the good guys. Any advantages in that regard would work both ways, and the law really doesn't need any more of a leg up than they already have.
As far as handcuffs and cells, the bad guys have similar options to the good guys. Any advantages in that regard would work both ways, and the law really doesn't need any more of a leg up than they already have.
The good guys generally have more secure places to stash prisoners though, and the ability to transport those prisoners much more easily. Knights don't have to worry about their identity being revealed during an arrest or transporting a prisoner, nor are the time-pressures they face the same. I've played characters on both the lawful and the not lawful side, and I can tell you first had that you have MUCH more time to sort out RP issues with uncooperative partners than you do as a baddie. You also have a much easier time keeping them prisoner after that.
What I'm suggesting is better code means to resolve these RP issues in a timely manner, allowing you to bind and transport your prisoner in a much more timely fashion. Some of that could be with specific spells, some with other coded commands for all players.
What I'm suggesting is better code means to resolve these RP issues in a timely manner, allowing you to bind and transport your prisoner in a much more timely fashion. Some of that could be with specific spells, some with other coded commands for all players.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 127 guests