this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2024
5 points (66.7% liked)
rpg
3210 readers
10 users here now
This community is for meaningful discussions of tabletop/pen & paper RPGs
Rules (wip):
- Do not distribute pirate content
- Do not incite arguments/flamewars/gatekeeping.
- Do not submit video game content unless the game is based on a tabletop RPG property and is newsworthy.
- Image and video links MUST be TTRPG related and should be shared as self posts/text with context or discussion unless they fall under our specific case rules.
- Do not submit posts looking for players, groups or games.
- Do not advertise for livestreams
- Limit Self-promotions. Active members may promote their own content once per week. Crowdfunding posts are limited to one announcement and one reminder across all users.
- Comment respectfully. Refrain from personal attacks and discriminatory (racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) comments. Comments deemed abusive may be removed by moderators.
- No Zak S content.
- Off-Topic: Book trade, Boardgames, wargames, video games are generally off-topic.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've tried to run games (in a couple systems) that had complex NPC factions to engage with, and a lot of players just... don't. I think sometimes they just don't realize it's an option.
My last game was kind of picking up speed, where there was a bad megacorp (within it two main factions) and a fractured array of resistance groups. I was hoping the players would do some alliance building. It was kind of working, but then real life sort of scuttled the game.
The other problem that happens to me a lot is I think about the game between sessions, and the players don't. They don't remember much detail. So I'll be like, "And you discover he's been working with the Seers the whole time!" And they'll be like "the who? Is that bad?". It's hard to get factional stuff going if the players can't keep straight who's who.