Most people like to feel like they belong to part of a group. These groups take on all sorts of sizes and compositions. Some of them offer very little as a part of membership, and do very little in the way of influencing the world around them. Some aim to be movers and shakers, pursuing world-shattering goals. In tabletop roleplaying games, we often refer to groups as “Factions,” and setting up Factions is an important step you can take in making your world feel more alive and realistic as a GM.
At their core, Factions can be described along the same lines as characters. The first three things that you need to decide when creating a Faction are: 1) Who are they? 2) What do they want? 3) Why can’t they have it? These three basic questions will form the core of the Faction, and are things that you should constantly revisit and reassess as the campaign continues and your world evolves. I’ll explore these three questions in more depth, and answer them by creating a Faction from scratch as an example as a part of this post.
1) Who are they? This is your basic description of the Faction. When sitting down to create your Faction, it is important to think about who joins this Faction and who runs it. This is where you create the character and feel of your Faction. You should think about the Faction’s origins, when and where it began, since this will have a significant impact on who the members are. Define who is likely to join this Faction and why, as well as why other types of people may decide not to join, or don’t have the opportunity to join. As with all of these questions, the answer to “Who are they?” is tightly interwoven with the other two, and you will likely find yourself bouncing back and forth between the questions to flesh things out. However, try to keep the answers segregated into three different sets, since as the campaign continues, things are likely to change. The group’s goal may change, but they will still have the same membership, for example. This section should also describe the capabilities of the group: are they able to affect significant portions of the world around them with their power, or are they small-timers, unable to cause much of a stir outside their neighborhood?
For our example Faction, I’m going to say that the Faction is a small revolutionary band in the Kingdom of Weissland called The Voice. They are led by students of the universities of the kingdom, and the majority of their members are well-educated members of the gentry; in fact, most of the members are students or former students who studied together. Their membership spreads across races but is primarily made up of Humans, Elves, and Half-Elves, since Dwarves do not often travel to the city universities for studies. The members of the Voice are rather naïve in their assessment of their own importance and their own ability to rally members of the general population to support them once they make their revolutionary move. They spend little of their time actually strategizing for a significant act, and much of it drinking and philosophizing. They have stockpiled a small amount of weapons, bought over time by members from local blacksmithies and stored in an unused cellar room below the library at the University of Ordail.
2) What do they want? This speaks to the central reason that the Faction exists. The larger a Faction is, the more goals they are likely to have, but you should initially identify one primary goal that unites the members of the Faction, the reason that they have all come together. What the Faction wants will be the thing that helps unite members who may be from disparate or even opposing backgrounds, and they will work best when pursuing this central goal. When the Faction or its members begin to pursue other goals, it has the possibility lead to discord and even fragmentation, depending on how radical the divergence. This is probably the most important question to answer and keep in mind over the course of developing the Faction and planning their actions in your campaign and world; what the Faction wants should be the primary driver of their activities. This can and should affect actions all the way down to the choices they make during combat. A cult devoted to trying to bring back an ancient god should not focus on killing the players if they discover the players have an artifact which will help them in their ritual. In a combat encounter, they should instead focus on securing the artifact from the players, and then fleeing and covering their tracks; after all, if they stay and fight they may all die, and then how can they summon their god? You should also examine why the group wants to pursue this specific goal. What event or status in the world has driven different people to want to band together and pool their resources to try to achieve a united goal?
The Voice wants to overthrow the King of Weissland and replace him and the system of nobility with a representative-style government, with themselves as the first elected leaders, of course. They believe that over the last thousand years, the nobility and the kings have not done the best that they can for the people of Weissland. Sure, the country has remained relatively safe and the economy has grown, but much of the wealth is still concentrated in a small number of people at the top. The students are actually from well-to-do, though not noble, families, but they believe that their positions of privilege should be used for the betterment of the common people. Some of them are particularly appalled at the callous actions and attitudes of certain nobles they have come into contact with. The group is divided on what should be done with the nobility and the king once their revolution is inevitably successful; should they be killed? Exiled? Be made simple, poor citizens? No one has been able to decide.
3) Why can’t they have it? This is the last question for you to answer, and where you set up the primary conflict that the Faction is involved in. Every Faction in your world has not achieved its goal, otherwise there would be no reason for the faction to exist. Even if a Faction achieves its goal over the course of the game, or has done so in the past, the Faction must evolve and change, redirecting its efforts towards a new goal. Without that focus, the Faction will lose cohesion. If a group wants to rule the world as its goal, and it takes over the world, its goal must change to something like “keep control of the world,” as it redirects its efforts to stamping out any revolutions or resistance groups that pop up. So, since the Faction’s current goal has not been achieved, what is the reason that it has not been achieved? What factors have thus far prevented their successful accomplishment of their goal? This could be a single, massive obstacle to overcome, or many different ones which together frustrate overall progress. These frustrations are important, because they will become the primary ways through which the players come into contact, and possibly conflict, with the Faction. The players may serve as agents of the Faction, helping them deal with their issues, or as participants in events which will further frustrate their plans.
The reasons that the Voice have not achieved their goal of overthrowing the King and the nobility are many. For starters, they feel that they do not yet have enough manpower to fight the Weissland Royal Army, as well as the various personal guards of the nobles scattered across the country. They think that some of the Army and the guards will turn on their rulers and join the revolution, but they need to first infiltrate those organizations and find out what kind of help they can expect. They have not yet gone about infiltrating those groups, since they don’t actually have anyone skilled in infiltration or spywork. They place a large amount of stock in their ability to turn the common folk into a “people’s army,” but they do not yet have anywhere near enough weapons to arm as many people as they think they need to fight the King’s forces. As you can see, the Voice has quite a long way to go to achieving their goal, and the issues they have above can easily be spun into quests for the players.
I hope this post has been helpful in creating the initial groundwork for Factions in your roleplaying world. I plan on delving further into factions in future posts, so if there is something specific you want to see my discuss, don’t hesitate to let me know.
Combat is an essential, probably integral, part of most roleplaying games. It accounts for anywhere from about 1/3 to 3/4 of all encounters in any given session of the most popular games such as Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder, and other games such as the Star Wars Roleplaying Game. With combat being such a large part of most games, there is surprisingly little official writing on how to run enemies realistically, or plausibly, in combat. Some adventures do a very good job of detailing specific “if-then” scenarios for groups of enemies, but those are generally for certain instances and not applicable on a large scale. In the absence of a good idea on how enemies will act and react in combat, enemy actions in combat generally tend towards two extremes: chaos, with the enemies making no coordinated efforts and each enemy acting on his own, or confrontational GMing, with the enemies focus-firing the healer, then the damage dealers, etc, regardless of enemy type. While those two extremes certainly exist amongst enemies on a realistic scale, I think it is important to make different enemies act differently, differently enough that your players can tell and appreciate the plausibility of those differences. A major goal of any of my games is to make things plausible, and this helps. Remember, this post details only with tactics used by enemies, regardless of their stats. I should also make a note here that for today’s post, I will only be dealing with generic humanoid adversaries, specifically humans.
The first thing I want to do before explaining how to run realistic combat is to break enemies into broad categories. Most of these are applicable to a lot of humanoid races, but I will delve into racial-specific things you can bring in in a future post.
So, back to categories. I’m a wargamer by upbringing, and an Army officer by trade, so when I think of categories of enemies, I primarily break them down based on “professionalism,” or “level of training.” While we could apply any number of different names to these levels, I’m going to go with names pulled from one of my favorite wargames, Horse and Musket: Untrained, Green, Regular, Veteran, and Elite.
Untrained enemies are those enemies who have received no formal training in combat. They may have picked up a spear or pitchfork in defense of their home, or gotten handed a pistol by a senior member of their new gang, and they may have even figured some things out about fighting by watching others, experimenting with their weapon, or even being in some fights themselves. They are not, however, a trained, cohesive fighting force, and it shows on the battlefield. Untrained enemies are essentially the chaotic, uncoordinated combat encounters that I described above as one extreme. They may very well be deadly individual combatants, but they do not fight as a group. They will usually attack the nearest visible enemy, or the nearest unengaged enemy, depending on their motivations, but they will rarely, if ever, coordinate their efforts above that. Any leaders amongst this group will be the deadliest fighters, and will not spend much of their time giving orders. If a fight goes badly for them quickly, self-preservation may start to take over and individuals may begin to run.
Green enemies are those who have received rudimentary training as part of an organized force and have a basic understanding that they are better when they coordinate their efforts. These can be local law enforcement officers, a village militia, or a unit of fresh conscripts out of their initial training. Some horde-type enemies can also fall into this category if they have some semblance of organization. They will fight with the most basic tactics, never executing more than one or two simple “maneuvers” against the players. Fantasy or medieval enemies in this category will be able to form up into a simple rectangular formation and walk at the enemy, or hold them off. Firearm-armed enemies can concentrate their fire on a single target if it’s the closest thing, or if given an order to. These enemies are normally accompanied by a more experienced leader whose main job it is to corral the Green enemies and keep them going in the right direction. Expect a leader in this group to be giving a lot of orders, not all of which are obeyed immediately or correctly. The death of the leader of that group can be a panic-inducing event, and can cause a significant portion of those Green troops to flee the battle.
Regular enemies are trained members of a (normally) permanent, professional fighting organization. These are your regular army squads and most mercenaries. I would hesitate to ever classify anything below professional armies as Regular (so town guards would fall into the Green category). These enemies have the deadly combination of being formally trained, being competently-led, and having had previous fighting experience. Grouping enemies under this category has the potential to turn even average enemies, stat-wise, into a danger to the party. Regulars know the components of their unit as well as their strengths and weaknesses; they will attempt to cover their weaknesses and maximize their strengths. If they are ranged combatants dealing with melee enemies, they will focus on those melee enemies to try to wear them down or kill them before they are reached, and they will fall back while firing to maintain distance. If they have an armored component, such as an armored vehicle, supporting them, they will treat any anti-armor or high damage-dealing enemy as priority threat #1, and will immediately focus fire that target to eliminate its threat. They understand and have been trained in tactical maneuvers. Ranged enemies will utilize cover to hide behind and fire from, and they will actively utilize suppressive fire or melee attacks to pin players down while other enemies move into a single flanking position to deny the players’ use of cover or put them in a disadvantageous position. However, they will generally still each individually fire at the closest threat to them. These enemies are led by some sort of professional officers or sergeants whose main job is to make tactical assessments and give orders. These leaders should be support classes who can buff their subordinates and possibly give them free movements or actions. Killing these leaders may have a morale impact, but it will not be as significant as with Green troops; Regulars have a chain of command, and leadership will devolve to the next highest-ranking enemy. Regulars may not fight to the death if they don’t need to, and they still have the potential to be broken by poor morale if the fight turns quickly against them.
Veteran enemies are essentially upgraded Regulars. They are Regulars who have been hardened and honed through months or years of combat into a crack unit. They have not necessarily received any specialized training, but instead have become more lethal and proficient through experiencing many battles and surviving, learning on the job. They may have unique equipment or quirks that they have picked up along the way, like being particularly good at killing magic-using enemies or at fighting certain races. Veterans will use more advanced tactics to deal with player characters. For example, Veterans will not conduct simple fire-and-flank tactics from a single angle. They may establish a base of fire to pin the players down and then begin moving two separate flanking units to try to hit the players from two different sides. Veterans will fall back and regroup to try to draw the players closer and into a more advantageous position. Veterans should be experts at reading the terrain of the battlefield and using it to their advantage. Veterans have also served together for a long time, and so will coordinate well with other nearby enemies; Veterans should be able to make assessments about greatest threats and occasionally choose those targets to “focus fire” on in small groups, though not the entire unit. Veteran leaders are generally a mix of half support-half combat, as they buff their nearby allies like a Regular leader, but have deadly combat skills to match; they will stick to their strengths, however, and will not put themselves unnecessarily at risk since their main job is to lead. The death of the leader, however, will have only a minimal impact, if any, on Veterans. They are well-trained and battle-hardened enough to accept their leader’s death and simply move on to the next person in the chain of command and continue fighting.
Elite enemies are the top tier of groups, and should be used sparingly. They are Veterans who have been selected and given specialized training to be the best of the best in their organization. These are your royal guards and your special forces. This is where you pull out all the stops in the enemies’ tactics and throw everything you have at the players. Elite enemies will understand the terrain instinctively and use it to their utmost advantage while trying to turn it against the players. Elite enemies will prioritize the players in order of threat and will pick out a target that they need to focus on. They will either all focus fire that individual target, or will each have a target that is their primary focus, regardless of almost all other circumstances. Elite enemies have a mission and they understand it, and they will not stray from it except in the most extreme situations. Elite leaders are deadly combatants with buffing as a secondary trait, and their deaths will have no impact on the morale of the Elite troops. Elites will make constant assessments about whether or not they are winning or losing the fight, and will attempt to withdraw and regroup for another day if they think they have reached the point where victory is impossible.
Those are my five categories for enemies: Untrained, Green, Regular, Veteran, and Elite. I hope some of the things I’ve included here are helpful in running enemies in combat. In a future post I’ll probably expand on this, addressing racial-specific abilities and more extensive groupings of types of enemies into the five categories.
In Part 1, we discussed throwing Reversals at your players, knocking them off their “high horse” as it were and regressing their power level or resources in order to provide a new challenge or to change things up. Reversals are not an endgame, however.
So, congratulations, you’ve beat up your players. You stole their gear, blew up their stronghold, got them arrested, or some other relatively major setback which threw them into an uncomfortable situation where they no longer have an advantage in power level over most things they encounter. Now what? You can’t just leave them there to fend for themselves (well, you shouldn’t in my opinion); you need to provide them an avenue by which they can turn the tables back on their enemies.
(Side note: here is where I know some of you may differ with me; “the players should have to figure it out on their own!” you’ll say, “it’s their own fault for getting into that situation in the first place!” Yes, while a lot of times, as we discussed in Part 1, the players are responsible for their own fate by their action or inaction in the face of warning signs or direct knowledge of an upcoming reversal, I firmly believe that our job as GMs is to facilitate the fun of the players at the table. No one comes to an RPG looking to get punished repeatedly for bad decision-making; there’s enough of that going on in the real world. Players are there to have fun, and if people aren’t having fun because of things you as the GM are doing, then you’re just being a bad GM.)
How do we go about setting the players on the road to their own Reversal against their enemies? I think it’s important to work backwards, as you would do in a lot of story plotting. By this point in the campaign, you should have a pretty good idea of what your players and their characters want, as well as a good idea of how they are likely going to respond to their latest reversal. Brainstorm what you think their desired end state is in regards to this reversal: in the example of my wife’s Age of Rebellion character (example 1), I knew she would ultimately want to break her brainwashing, and in Edge of the Empire (example 2), I knew the players would want to steal back the item and hopefully take down the pirate group at the same time.
Once you have the players’ likely desired end state in mind, work back to how the players would be able to accomplish said goal, if there were no restrictions at all. In example 1, I knew that my wife would need to get access to the same or a similar chemical formula used to help condition her, and essentially “reprogram” her brain to “overwrite” the brainwashing. In example 2, I knew the players would need to have a large fight, both on the pirate ship on which they were currently being held, and in space amongst the various ships of the pirate fleet. In both instances, the ability to carry out either one of those plans was far outside the capability of the players. That is normal, after all, the players just suffered some pretty serious setbacks. So now you have identified the gap that the players need to be able to cross to go from their current situation, to be able to achieve the desired end state.
The next step in the backwards plan is to try to figure out what you can credit the players with in order to try to bridge the gap you just identified. Some players come up with elaborate plans and put in a fair amount of legwork to try to enable their success, only to have the dice rolls work against them. This was the case with the Edge group I run for. They acquired a Letter of Marque from the Empire to go after the pirate group, they acquired allies from two different pirate groups that also had an interest in seeing these pirates go down, and they conducted a fair amount of research and prep work, including double checking information to ensure it was accurate. When rolls went against them, they were never able to get to the stage of the plan where they called in all of their allies. They were captured, but they had also put some work in that would help, though I don’t think any of them realized it.
Near the beginning of the campaign, they had liberated a Wookiee slave named Gracuck. Gracuck was an agricultural engineer by trade before he had been enslaved, an intellectual, not a fighter. The players could have simply left him as such, but over the year or so that I’ve been running for them, they have made a deliberate effort to make Gracuck a useful member of the crew, including teaching him how to pilot their ship, and how to fight with vibrosword, blaster, and bowcaster (fairly well, actually, they rolled well on these checks). They never asked Gracuck to come along on any missions, but they had, over time, turned him into a fairly formidable Wookiee who was not going to sit by and watch as his friends, to whom he owed a life debt, were spirited away by pirates. Gracuck had dropped the players off prior to their assault, and was waiting for certain signs that things had gone according to plan. When it became obvious that things had not gone according to plan, and the players were captured and taken away by the pirates, I had Gracuck do several things behind the scenes, and made several rolls. He activated a tracking beacon and followed the pirates. He then contacted the Empire and the two pirate groups with him the party had made arrangements and told them of the situation. One pirate group backed out, but the other group and the Empire both agreed to stand by their agreement with the party and join the fight. They followed Gracuck’s tracking beacon to the pirates’ location. Finally, Gracuck allowed himself to be captured, placing the tracking beacon aboard the pirates’ flagship as well as giving the players an escape route by the ship being onboard the pirates’ ship in the hanger bay.
It may seem like I “gave” the players a lot by having all of this occur, but in reality, I simply gave them credit for all the hard work they had put in prior to the reversal. I believe Gracuck acted entirely within his character based on the time they had invested in him as a member of their crew, and the rolls fell the way they were going to fall in terms of which groups would come to the players’ aid. When you put the players in a helpless situation, they will often focus on what they can do currently to alleviate it, but it’s important to not let their previous work go to waste just because an encounter went sideways on them. Make your gaming world a living, breathing place where events keep on going without them, where their allies will make moves to try to rescue them or help them out of their bad situation. When Gracuck arrived aboard the ship and they were all brought before the pirate leader, they were still bound and without weapons. When the Empire and other pirates jumped in and started firing, it caused chaos on the ship, but the players still had to fight to break out of their restraints, grab weapons, and overpower the pirate crew in a close-quarters battle that was by no means certain. Giving the players credit for their preparation and hard work does not mean they get a free pass out of a bad situation.
Sometimes, though, players won’t have preparations or hard work that is directly applicable to the situation they find themselves in. Does that mean these players are SOL? Absolutely not. Remember, our job as GMs is to facilitate the players’ fun. Sometimes, players will be able to figure their way out of the situation on their own; they will be able to ask the right questions, attempt the right rolls, and deduce information they need to without the GM having to intervene. My wife was able to cleverly subvert her character’s conditioning and work around the system to start figuring out the information she needed to eventually break free of it. That may not always be the case. You put the players in this situation, so you owe them a way out. If the players can’t get to the solution on their own, be prepared to guide them down the path. Have an idea in your mind of how they can get out of the situation, and then reward them with scraps of information that lead them down that path when they make rolls. Don’t be tied to giving certain information only for certain types of rolls; instead, try to give out information regardless of what type of questions they ask or what types of rolls they make. For example, if the players are lost in the woods and trying to find their way out, and you intend them to have to make a Survival check to notice some tracks, don’t be tied to that check as being the solution. If one player makes a Survival check and fails, but another wants to roll Perception to notice something else and they roll well, I encourage you to give them the information from the Survival roll as well. Tell them they not only notice what they were looking for, but they notice the tracks as well. Don’t punish them for asking the wrong questions or making the wrong skill check. Remember, we as GMs have all the information, and it’s too easy to forget that the players often have little or none.
Once the players are on the right path, they should be heading for success. Your ultimate goal is for them to have fun, and hopefully for their attempt at recovering from the reversal to succeed. This is a time to probably pump the brakes on some of the more difficult encounters. Don’t make it easy, but don’t absolutely crush them; it’s no fun for players to go from one gut punch to the next. In the end, everyone comes to the table to have fun, and it’s our job to ensure that no matter the ups or downs of the games, that they do so.
A common problem in roleplaying games, and in storytelling in general, is how to keep raising the stakes. As characters advance through their stories and the plot of the game, they pick up new abilities and new weapons, and also usually get “better” at playing. The GM must find new ways to challenge the players in order to keep things interesting. This is usually less of a problem in the Star Wars roleplaying game than in Dungeons and Dragons or Pathfinder, since increases to Wound Threshold (hit points) are rare and weapon damage is high, making a squad of Stormtroopers just as dangerous to a high-XP (high-level) party as a low-XP party. However, the abilities accumulated by the players does make them more powerful over time, necessitating ever-increasing stakes.
While throwing larger, more powerful, or more numerous enemies at the party is always an option and standard RPG progression, I would also recommend a major reversal at some point, or several minor ones. What I call “reversals” are events which change the power situation or power relationship that the players find themselves in and force them to react, while depriving them of some resources that had previously made them powerful or able to do certain things. Flipping things on their heads and cutting the power level of the players, even if temporarily, is a great way to return to those tense moments of low-level play and encourage the players to think outside the box and pursue options they would not have previously considered. Reversals need to be carefully done, however, to avoid alienating your players and sucking the fun out of the game.
1. First, and most importantly, the reversal has to be plausible. The most effective way to do this is to give the players a chance to see it coming in advance, and have the nature of the reversal be a direct consequence of their action or inaction. In our Edge of the Empire game, the players were hired to steal an item, as well as a large sum of money, by one of their regular job-givers. His representative on the planet betrayed them once the item had been stolen, ambushing them and taking the item for herself, as well as their ship.
I would have considered this a cheap trick had I just sprung this event on them, so I gave them an opportunity to spot the betrayal coming: halfway through the job, the representative came to the players and told them their employer had changed the bank account to which he wanted the money transferred. A successful Discipline (Insight) check by one of the players discovered that the woman was lying, and that their employer had made no such request; the woman was trying to take the money, implying her future betrayal. While the players transferred the money to the original account, they did not alter their plan to steal the item, a plan which the woman knew, enabling her to ambush them later and steal the item. Had the players adjusted their plan, or informed their employer of his representative’s betrayal with the money, things could have gone differently, but they did not, and recognized their mistake when it was all said and done.
2. Second, the losses need to be damaging, possibly even severe, but not derailing. In our Age of Rebellion game, we made a “deal with the devil,” as it were, throwing in with a seemingly-disgruntled Imperial Intelligence officer who had been a long-running antagonist in the campaign. In the end, she (of course) betrayed us, and my wife’s character was imprisoned, tortured, and ultimately brainwashed. All of the allies, networks, and equipment she had built up were lost or scattered, and she found herself bound to carry out her orders from the officer without question. Again, this could have gone very badly, but I made sure that several things were clear: most of her allies were probably still out there somewhere, the battle in the Sector was going badly but not lost, and the only things she could not do were to directly violate her orders. My wife quickly latched onto the last part in particular, and began her subversive campaign to undermine her orders without disobeying them, while secretly researching a way to break herself free of the “conditioning.” It changed the dynamic of the game drastically, putting her in the situation of a double agent without the benefits of the allies and network she had built up previously.
Sometimes, the dice can take things out of your hands as a GM and the players are handed a reversal you did not necessarily plan for. Players can be critically wounded or even killed, or the players can end up in a hopeless situation that you had no intent of them being in. You can (and should, in my opinion) handle these the same way as a planned Reversal. Two sessions ago in our EOTE game, the players, still pursuing the treacherous representative and the pirate band she belonged to, stormed the pirate stronghold intending to steal the item back and then launch an attack on the pirate fleet. They had gathered two powerful groups of allies, had a fairly solid plan, and started off rolling well. They fought tactically, maximizing use of grenades in the initial fights, but when they reached the central chamber of the stronghold, the rolls went against them. They missed often and got hit severely. One player was knocked out, another lost his eyes (Star Wars has a critical injury table for critical hits), and a third, a Droid Tech, had his prized droid companion destroyed. This could have been a TPK situation, but I find those distasteful and anticlimactic if they serve no narrative purpose; capturing is far more interesting. So, the pirates offered a chance to surrender, which the players took, and we moved on. Two characters had suffered potentially derailing occurrences during that fight which I felt threatened the possibility of them having fun in the future: our Wookiee warrior character had permanently had his eyes sliced out by a vibrosword, and our Droid Tech had lost his droid. I had not planned for these things to happen, but I knew I needed to ensure the players’ fun was not crushed by these losses, so in the next session, I had the pirates’ surgeon, wanting to “learn” on a Wookiee subject, implant one cybernetic eye on our Wookiee, while the pirates’ techie brought the Droid Tech the memory core of his droid, empathizing with his loss. The players were still very much in the hands of the pirates, imprisoned and with no weapons, but those two in particular had not suffered the complete loss of things which, in their minds, were central to their characters.
3. Lastly, you need to have a plan and provide an opportunity for the players to affect a reversal of their own. I’ll explore that in Part 2.
-Roleplaying (conversations, negotiations, decision-making, making character choices, etc)
-Story (an overarching plot, or minor plots, driving the action forward)
-Non-combat encounters (situations where rolls are required or players must plan and/or figure something out to overcome an obstacle…this includes stealth, puzzles, skill challenges, etc)
2. On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is “Totally scripted sequence of missions, linear plot progression” and 10 is “Total sandbox, no overarching plot,” what type of game would you prefer to play?
3. If you were to, for example, play a Lord of the Rings roleplaying game, would you prefer to play as members of the Fellowship of the Ring (Frodo, Aragorn, Legolas, Gandalf, etc), as characters near or following close to the Fellowship and having tangential or incidental contact with those major characters (eg Riders of Rohan or Minas Tirith soldiers at the major battles), or as characters in a different part of the world, dealing with separate events or dealing with the events in distant ways (eg Rangers in the North or Dwarves of Erebor during the War of the Ring)?
4. What is the ultimate goal for your character in the game? What do you realistically want to be able to accomplish with/for them?
5. Which of the following do you most agree with regarding combat?
-Enemies and NPCs should act realistically based on their race/organization/skill level/goals (this includes focusing fire on dangerous enemies, retreating/regrouping when necessary, and focusing on their own objectives sometimes at the expense of doing damage)
-Enemies should act as meat shields for the party to kill (won’t go for killing blows, won’t focus fire, won’t retreat)
-Important enemies should act like the first option, minions should act like the second
6. What session/event/encounter have you enjoyed the most and why?
7. What session/event/encounter have you enjoyed the least and why?
8. If you could change one thing about the game, what would it be and why?
For my first post, I thought I would combine two things which are near and dear to my heart: 1) the Washington Capitals hockey team, who I have been a massive fan of since my family moved to the DC area in 2000 and who this past season won their first-ever Stanley Cup, and 2) deep, complex villains. This will likely be the first of several posts over the lifetime of this blog on the idea of creating complex villains, since it is an important subject to me. In my experience, players remember the villains more than anything else. The game is much more engaging if the players have someone to hate, someone to work towards defeating over the long term, rather than just facing a series of one-off villains that never have a real threat or weight to them (see 99% of the villains in the Marvel Cinematic Universe). The main villain, the “big bad evil guy/girl” or BBEG, should be memorable, and it should be someone the players love to hate.
One way to make the villain memorable is making them complex. In fact, I think it’s a necessity that the villain be complex. What better way to make a villain complex than to make them relatable and understandable? It’s often said that “everyone is the hero of their own story,” and that includes villains: “villains are the hero of their own story.” I think equally as often, however, it’s difficult to really make that seem impactful outside of the villain just thinking they’re doing the best thing. Villain characters are often feared and/or hated by their own troops and men just as much as by the players. Stop me if this seems familiar: one of the villain’s henchmen fails a task, and the villain executes him to make an example to everyone else. While it goes towards making sure the players know how bad the villain is, is it really conducive to making them relatable or complex?
But how to make them relatable or complex? What about making them truly a paragon for those who follow them, even if their intentions are evil? I propose a slight change to “villains are the hero of their own story”: “villains are the hero of their own side.” Villains can be just as heroic to those who follow them as the heroes are to the innocent villagers they just saved. If the villain truly believes they are doing what they do for the “right” reasons, there are probably a lot of people who not only agree with them, but who support them wholeheartedly. Especially in a large faction such as the Empire from Star Wars, villains can be loved as leaders, heroes, and champions.
Enter Tom Wilson.
For non-hockey fans, Tom Wilson plays right wing on the top line for the Washington Capitals, alongside Russian stars Alex Ovechkin and Evgeny Kuznetsov (though their lines have been shifting around lately, this was the group he played with through all of last season and their Stanley Cup run). While a talented player who can score and assist, his primary role on the team is as an enforcer. He lays crushing body checks, starts fights with players on opposing teams, and generally exists to make sure the other team feels the pain. Many times, Wilson gets penalized for a hit that was a little too late, or a little too high, or for simply instigating a fight. Around the league, he is viewed as a bully, a dirty player, or a villain. To the Washington Capitals and their fans, he is a hero.
As a Caps fan, I understand that some of Wilson’s hits, like the one against Ashton-Reese of the Pittsburgh Penguins in Round 2 of the playoffs last year, might cross the line. I fully admit that had the roles been reversed, I would be crying just as much foul as the Penguins and their fans did on that crushing hit delivered to Ashton-Reese’s jaw that sent him out of the game. But Wilson’s job is to lay those big hits, to start those fights, to get his team amped up and demoralize the other team with his play, and it works. He does what the team needs him to do, even if some of what he does crosses the line, and the team and the fans love him for it.
The main villains in your campaign should be the same. The rank and file, the subordinates, even the average civilians of the faction your villain belong to should look up to your villain as someone they respect, someone they believe is necessary. Even if they don’t totally agree with everything the villain does, they should believe that what the villain is doing benefits them, and is what needs to be done. “That town was a safe haven for Rebels; the Moff was totally justified in blowing it apart from orbit. Sure, some civilians died, but honestly they probably deserved it for letting the Rebels hide there, and now we have no more Rebel problems.” Strive to make your villains not only the hero of their own story. Make them the hero of their side’s story.
Make your villains like Tom Wilson.