From: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.advocacy
Subject: Re: Do U customize games 4 players?
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:25:50 GMT
Reply-To: cassidy@cps.msu.edu (John J Cassidy)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Michigan State University
Originator: cassidy@indian.cps.msu.edu

In article <1992Aug13.134751.58135@cc.usu.edu> sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six) writes:
>I'm running a GURPS game right now, and I have a really good group of
>players. They all get into developing their characters and most of them
>really play up their characters' personalities (and not because I require
>it or prompt them to, they just seem to like it).
>
>Now, the campaign is set in TL6, where most of the characters are hired
>mercenaries. To avoid being carbon copies of each other, the players have
>tried to specialize in different skills, and some of the characters are 
>super specialized. The question is, when I write up scenarios, do I write
>different segments in which each character can exhibit his/her talents? Or
>do I just write up plausible scenarios and wait for opportunities (for the
>characters to use their specialties) to present themselves?

	Yes. To me that is exactly what you should do.  Players get more
involved in the game when the events directly relate to their
characters.  And having an area of expertise where no character can be
overshadowed by others of the same type, is a relief to players like me.
I don't have to put up with challenges that some other character can do
things much better than my character.  And my character won't always
take a back seat in every situation.  When you have a PC that
overshadows another in every instance you have a situation that leads to
boredom for at least one player.  Also the characters are the heroes of
their world, they are the protagonists of the story.  ( excuse me for
interjecting some story rationale here ) the best stories take their
direction from strongly motivated protagonists.   But the BEST thing I
find about custon scenarios is that they provide better motivations for
the player characters.  You're not limited to the purely mercenarial
campaign.  Too many scenarios that I have seen written for the market
have the main motivation for the character be that "so-and-so gives you
money if you will do it".  I have to build the motivations myself,
before I run these.

>
>Here are the arguments I've thought of for both sides. If I write ``custom''
>scenarios, where each character has his moment in the limelight, each 
>player will get to satifactoraly play out the character on a regular basis.
>On the other hand, my players are pretty sharp, and they would know that 
>I was customizing the scenarios. I dunno how they would react to this. They
>like realistic scenarios, and at the end of each game we sometimes note the
>plot weaknesses in the scenario. Customizing the adventures could be seen
>as a definite plot-hole (it's really hard to realistically have something
>to blow up in every scenario for the demolitions specialist).

	You can try to moderate between the two, in that case.  Have a
mojority of the action be "unplotted", and sneak in little
"optimization" in some key parts.  That's what I do.  I like to give the
players little moments to shine, not whole segments of plot to shine in.
And you might consider not putting everone's moments into the same
scenario.  Give a handful of players their shot, and then another
handful, and so on.  Besides the demolitions specialist can defuse
bombs, identify bomb plans, identify just what exactly someone would buy
if they were trying to make a sophiticated homemade bomb.  And he's GOT
to have more skills than just demolition!  And even if he doesn't use
what he has as his background, that made him a demolitions expert, to
give him an edge.  Was he a miner?  They he knows something about mines,
and rocks and cave formations. etc.

>
>So, if I write reasonable, realistic scenarios, the characters will not 
>have as many opportunities to play out their specialties, but the plots 
>will be more solid. What would you do? 
>
>Alright, I have done my part to start a new thread. Now someone else have
>a try.
>
>Okay,
>+  Chadd  L.  VanZanten   SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU  +
>+  ``You know,  I thought this was a good   +
>+  idea but this is one weird mama-jama.''  +
>+                    -- TV's Frank, MST3K   +
>

	John J Cassidy		cassidy@indian.cps.msu.edu
	~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~