Breaking an unspoken rule

[JeenLeen]

I'm about to DM a game for my group (Pathfinder, but that's not relevant to this thread.) On the off chance one of my Kingmaker players is here, stop reading immediately.




In all our games, we have a character named Richard who is both insane and insanely powerful (although sometimes in a 'beatable' range by endgame, more often just untouchably strong). He is often helpful to a degree, but may or may not be evil (or so crazy it's not clear he realizes what he's doing is seen as evil by others.)

I'm thinking of making him, or, rather, one of his personalities the final boss of our campaign. We sort of have an unspoken rule not to fight Richard, but in the last game he was a serious suspect as the big bad and the only good reason we initially had to excuse him was OOC knowledge that he's Richard and you don't fight Richard (later IC we also determined he was not the big bad.) That got me thinking of making Richard the final boss. (For those knowing about Pathfinder, we're ending around the end of Part III, so I'm changing a large bit of the big bad's stuff to make it about him.)

But I'm a little worried my players will think it's a jerk move making Richard a boss. He should be beatable, but hard, as is fitting for a final boss. And I plan to drop enough hints to make the players possibly suspect him and possibly even kick him out of their city (which will greatly limit the harm he does in the endgame or possibly make the default boss of Act III the final boss.) But I don't want to tell the players not to use usual assumptions or something else odd that might tip them off (or have them case red herrings or assume I mean something way different.)
Knowing my group, I think one of the two players will appreciate the verisimilitude this offers; the PCs should be able to suspect Richard. But I'm not sure.

Anyway, thoughts?

[Millennium]

The problem with unspoken rules it that it becomes tough to know when you're supposed to break them. Do you have a plan for somehow making it clear to the PCs that it's OK to fight Richard this time?

[jedipotter]

Don't Do It! It is just not worth the risk. Sure you might get the Awesome DM of the Year award for your Richard Idea, but it is just as likely that you will upset people. So why bother?


Ask yourself why do you want to break the rule?

*Are you trying to show off that your a more powerful DM like ''HAH, looser, you follow the rules but I break them!"

*Are you trying to show off your a more evil DM like ''HAH, you all follow the rules like the good friends you are, but I don't!"

*Are you trying to show your a Rebel DM "HA, I do what I want!"

*Are you trying to be the Shock DM "Ha, bet you never saw Tricky Richard coming! HA, bet you never thought I'd break the rules just to shock you! HA!''


Though....you never know, you might still get the award.

[Dawgmoah]

Don't Do It!

I agree with Jedipotter; if you put Richard offlimits with an unspoken rules you should leave it at that.

You could, depending on how many sessions you have left, let it be known that Richard is indeed not off limits and let him take a fall in a fight with the party and then go from there. Of course if they beat him.... Better just to find another boss to use.

[Sebastrd]

You also need to consider that once you use Richard as the BBEG, that's it - no more Richard. Sure, you guys can continue to use Richard in future campaigns, but he'll never be the same untouchable, mysterious, cool Richard he was before. If you're going to sacrifice a shared NPC like that - a touchstone for the group - you'd better be positively sure it's worth losing him forever.

[veti]

I disagree with the prevailing sentiment here.

The fact that Richard was a suspect in the last game means that his position isn't as secure and accepted as you seem to be saying. People are comfortable with at least suspecting him, which means they've thought about having to fight him before. You're just making the next logical step. If you take turns DMing, you can bet your left earlobe that the others have all thought about doing it, and are very likely thinking about it right now. If you don't do it, someone else will.

Yes, it will change Richard forever. So what? That's called character development, nothing stays the same.

I say go for it.

[Jay R]

Do you really think you have a game idea so wonderful that it's worth permanently breaking the long-term game of Richard this group is enjoying?

Before you answer, ask yourself how many games Richard has enhanced. and how many future games Richard will enhance - unless you break him.

[Jacob.Tyr]

Easy solution. The rule is "You don't fight Richard". Next campaign have Richard tell them- "Actually, guys, I prefer to go by ****". Now they just have to fight **** and all is well.

[Kol Korran]

This sounds awfully like Richard from the Looking For Group webcomic.
I suggest not to fight Richard. He sounds like a group made convention, something that has a specific role, purpose and theme in the group, over many games. You're trying to change that, and that is not something the rest might like. Quite possibly they would like Richard to occupy the current place. That is how they liked him so far, haven't they?

By having to fight Richard you permanently change it's role, and might even eliminate him altogether (Unless the future DMs decide to bring him back somehow).

It sounds that the two main components of Richard is the ambiguity about his actions and craziness, and the fact that it's supposed to be a side character, one that isn't meant to be killed. You're destroying both with making him a final boss, which is... not really your decision to make I think.

[JeenLeen]

A few clarifications:

1. The "Richard" in a given game is never the same character. He's always named Richard and has a few similar traits (insane and powerful), but otherwise it differs. So if they kill him, it won't break any continuity.

2. Yes, it is based off Looking for Group. In the first game, he was a Swordsage/Monk/Wizard or something like that. (And in that game he actually was supposed to be beatable near the end, around level 21 or so, but we quit playing due to the high-level game no longer being fun.)

3. In the last game we played, it seemed possible Richard was the actual final boss. So suspecting him does seem a valid option.

4. I remembered we did actually fight Richard in one M&M game. But it was a 'capture' mode (since no killing as heroes in DC.)

Some answers:

I don't think this will ruin the game/joke of having a Richard, but it will change it. Richard has been basically a 'do not fight' character, but it's never been clear whose side he is on or not. He always has useful info, but it's unclear if working with him will lead to danger or death to us or our allies, or if trading info with him will lead to him giving it to our enemies, or how reliable his info is. This will expand him into the domain of "is he actually a foe we can/should fight?", but I don't think that's a bad thing.

I do think this would be a nice curveball to throw the players, but near most endgames we've had similar curveballs thrown by our main DM, which the whole group (as far as I can tell) enjoys. I do plan to drop enough hints that the players will (if they act intelligently) try to persuade Richard to leave their city, or at least not make him part of the ruling council, which will greatly decrease what he can do near the end and the difficulty of the fight. The players may not get that they are supposed to fight him until Richard actually attacks, but they could get the hint that they shouldn't trust him (which we usually don't anyway.)

It sounds that the two main components of Richard is the ambiguity about his actions and craziness, and the fact that it's supposed to be a side character, one that isn't meant to be killed. You're destroying both with making him a final boss, which is... not really your decision to make I think.

The 'always a side character' part is an aspect I haven't thought of. Richard usually plays an important part in the plot at some point, but the players can generally disregard him (often to their detriment, sometimes to their benefit.)

Richard has been:
1) D&D: a husk of a man driven insane and used as a tool by an Elan manipulating the party to save the world against a demilich (so the Elan can rule the world secretly as he did before the demilich started screwing stuff up). He was a threat to the party who nevertheless sometimes saved them, but sometimes just screwed stuff up, and was basically a rarely used deus ex machina or 'get back on the rails' device (but well-done, I think).

2) Mage: a marauder Oracle who believed everything was soup. Information broker who helped the party and gave some good buffs for the final boss.

3) Vampire: a Malkavian who owned the asylum. Minor character.

4) Vampire Middle Ages: a Malkavian who was manipulating events to be reborn as Malkav. Ended a Malkav reborn. Major character.

5) M&M: a mayor a village down the coast, who occasionally interfered if the players or villains tried to attack his town. Very minor character.

6) another M&M: a super-hero whose day job was working as a thug for Two-Face. Minor character who became major after we arrested Two-Face and he started working for the big bad (again as a thug). We actually did fight Richard in this game, while he was off-work, but he just cowered as things exploded around him.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd say, use him. Why? He won't be fun if he stagnates, either. But just in case, make a back-up plan in case it backfires. Not all experiments work out well, but not experimenting at all will just get boring.

Perhaps toss in hints that Richard is the BBEG or a boss--But also throw in hints later on that Richard might not be Richard. Perhaps a clone, someone pretending to be him, or someone who even thinks they are him. Maybe a part of him somehow got free and is running amok. That way, you can gauge the final outcome on how the players react to test the waters.

[Jay R]

You called it breaking the rule, not us. If that is your opinion, I'd say not to do it.

As near as I can tell Richard is emotionally bigger for your group than any single campaign. If so, you don't want to break the coolest aspect of your group's long-time playing.

But if using him this way fits within the spirit of the shared creation, then go ahead.

[JeenLeen]

The campaign is starting on Monday, so I have some time. Richard's involvement up-front will be the same regardless.

I may see how the players react to him and determine his final role based on that.

[Null]

If the reaction from your players seem bad, you could reveal that he had been brainwashed/mind controlled.

[Dragonmuncher]

I'd say no, but for a different reason- it sounds like it'd just be a repeat.

You said that last game, he was a serious suspect for the Big Bad. So if you actually make Richard the Big Bad this time, it's not going to really come off particularly shocking, or clever, right?

[Erth16]

My group has a similar character in Alice. In our first game, we were a group of mercenaries, and she first showed up as an obscenely powerful wizard for hire, with a few golems to hold melee threats off of her, hired by the other side of a war to stop our group from capturing forts as we had been. After a few run in's with her where we either fled or convinced her to leave through diplomacy or bribes, her contract was over, and before she was rehired, we hired her to stay out of our way, and she eventually just left the continent.

Every game after that she had shown up, still just as powerful as before, and having a role as minor antagonist at times, other times a friend, but never doing anything to effect the final battle, and never coming close to being defeated, until one, long, long campaign. That campaign was the only one where we actually came close to her in power, we ended up fighting her and she went all out with her spells for the first time. This fight was a long and hard one, and eventually, she just ran out of spells, but had set up an impenetrable wall of golems and summons around her, so we called it a draw. After that well, Alice finally agree'd that our team was good enough to earn her respect. She stopped with the condescending remarks she always made when we met up (Which was often, we had the same employers often), and even outright helped in the final battle, providing transport and distracting the bosses mooks.

But after that, well, Alice just isn't that invincible force of nature anymore. We forced a level 30 caster to use all their spell slots and survived without a casualty. We beat her strongest golem in a fight, itself a level 20 fighter. Alice suddenly arriving in a battlefield just didn't have the same feeling of either "We are dead, or we are saved, either way start running."

We used Alice in one game since then, and haven't since. Alice hasn't shown up in a good seven games now. But the campaign we earned Alice's respect in? To most people in the group that was the best game we had.

So from the experience of someone who did this, DMing a campaign that it happened in, if you want to make the game memorable and unique from the others, fight Richard, but know that in doing so you can never meaningfully use Richard or his archetype again.

[JeenLeen]

I was planning on having it be that Richard was rezz'ed incorrectly and became a Worm that Walks (based on the villain in the last act of Kingmaker), with his normal-but-now-crazy personality that suffers blackouts when the undead-fey personality starts acting.

Perhaps instead I'll have Richard's body have been corrupted into a Worm that Walks, but Richard was raised. Just in horror at seeing what became of his corpse, he went insane. So the party might suspect the Worm that Walks is Richard -- indeed, if they see it, it'll look similar from using Alter Self -- but they find out in the end it is a different being.

That keeps my plot largely intact, but it makes Richard still Richard and the final boss a different being.


Thank you all for your opinions and advice.

[Sebastrd]

I was planning on having it be that Richard was rezz'ed incorrectly and became a Worm that Walks (based on the villain in the last act of Kingmaker), with his normal-but-now-crazy personality that suffers blackouts when the undead-fey personality starts acting.

Perhaps instead I'll have Richard's body have been corrupted into a Worm that Walks, but Richard was raised. Just in horror at seeing what became of his corpse, he went insane. So the party might suspect the Worm that Walks is Richard -- indeed, if they see it, it'll look similar from using Alter Self -- but they find out in the end it is a different being.

That keeps my plot largely intact, but it makes Richard still Richard and the final boss a different being.


Thank you all for your opinions and advice.

That sounds like a very elegant solution that fits the spirit of the character. Nice job.