Re: [HoE] Templars and Anti-Templars

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

>In a message dated 8/2/99 11:26:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>scott_henry@hotmail.com writes:
>
> > I feel making a player make a
> >  "temptation" roll is a lame cheapass way out for a gm too lazy to think 
>up
>a
> >  way for the player to be tempted to use his powers. I know its rude 
>what I
> >  said but I hate gms who have to resort to some die roll like this is 
>D&D
> >  which relies  more on dice than REAL roleplaying.
>
>So you don't make scart checks, rolls to resist flaws or things of that 
>sort?
>

Can't speak for Scott.  However the Scart thing is somewhat of a red 
herring.  My players don't know all the factors involved and can't make an 
informed choice.  They certainly will go to...well, excessive lengths to 
role-play the fear once I've provided the appropriate option to them, yes.  
Hey, that's one of the ways they get chips.

No, I don't have them make rolls to resist flaws.  Again, the Deadlands/HoE 
system _rewards_ people by failing to resist their flaws.  In borderline 
cases, I leave it up to them.  If they don't do it, they don't get the chip.

In excessive cases, I've never yet had someone in my group fail to role-play 
"appropriately" (although as the person who created the character, wouldn't 
they have the final say anyway?) without a die roll, no.

> >  A true gm would devise a way to get the AT to use his powers and also a
>GOOD gm
> > would NEVER let the damn AT know the truth about his powers! DUH! Your 
>not
>stoping the problem
> >  from happening if the players character knows! You letting the problem
> >  happen in the first place AND then only do you deal with it! Just dont 
>let
> >  the AT know IC where his/her powers come from.
>
>Hehehe. Well, since my munchkin types are the first ones to buy the
>sourcebooks
>for the players they want to play, that's a bit hard. I think PEG would be 
>a
>tad
>upset if I told my players to stop buying their products :)
>
>And of course, no self-respecting player EVER reads the Marshal's section.
>Uh-huh.
>

*nods* Scott was kinda off base here, yes.  Or maybe he has more trusting 
players.

> > If I did any die rolling for this it would be cooler to do it in secret 
>to
>see if the AT "subconciously"
> >  uses his powers to save his ass. Then you could tell the player to give
>you
> >  the appropiate chip but dont say why.
>
>I see. So rather than force the character to make a roll and then act on 
>it,
>I as GM not
>only roll for him but decide what he does and don't tell him. Yeah, I can 
>see
>how
>that would go over much better with the players.
>

Yeah, Scott's suggestion here struck me as a bit unworkable.  But he did 
say, "If I _did_ any die-rolling..."  Again, I don't think you need to.  And 
neither did he.

>Sarcasm mode off, my original point was the temptation roll was a way to 
>keep
>a handle on an AT run by a serious munchkin. Sure, some players would
>role-play
>the part properly and not need such a "rule crutch" but such players are, 
>sad
>to
>say in my experience, rare creatures indeed.
>

As Pinnacle themselves admit, the whole buying of Hindrances is to a great 
degree a crutch.  You can already ignore any mental-type Hindrance you buy, 
and those extra 10 points you get from them are built-in to the system.  
Role-playing is not only its own reward, it's how your characters get chips, 
which in turn lead to extended survival and greater skill improvement.

*shrug* A munchkin is going to be a problem no matter what.  In this case, 
the solution would seem to be, don't let "munchkins" play ATs.  I don't see 
why that requires a universal rule banning or penalizing _anyone_ that wants 
to do so.

>Of course, the golden rule of gaming is keep what you like and toss the 
>rest.
>If you as GM think Templars are "too restrictive" and ATs work much better
>with your group (scary, but okay), then more power to you. As long as 
>everyone

Why is it "scary"?  In your opinion, why is it easier to have a Templar in a 
more "typical" group of adventurers (Law Dogs, Doomsayers, Sykers, whatever) 
than it is an Anti-Templar?

>has fun that's what counts. OTOH, if you want to kind of stick to PEG's 
>notion
>of HOE, then ATs are the BAD GUYS, good intentions or not. Whether they
>admit it or not, they are tools of the Reckoners who laugh themselves silly
>every time a Templar gives up his tabard to become an AT.
>

That misses the flip-side:  every time an Anti-Templar screws them over by 
resisting their temptations of "easy power" (although it's not much "easier" 
than getting the favor of certain Martyrs), they can't be too happy, and 
their plans are further foiled...

Just as Harrowed characters turn the power of the Reckoners against them, so 
too do "good" Anti-Templars.  Seems like a lot of your arguments against ATs 
could be equally applied to Harrowed, but (unless there was a discussion 
here or on the Deadlands list that I missed by coming in recently) nobody is 
arguing they shouldn't be allowed as PCs.

*shrug* Turning the powers of the Reckoners against themselves has been an 
accepted concept for a PC since Deadlands and Harrowed characters were 
introduced.  Now all of a sudden, it's a bad thing if ATs do it.  Not sure 
I'm tracking on that one...

>Andrew Ross (draxus@aol.com)


---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com