Sup! 2 weeks ago we started a new campaign with full player count. At first my friend wanted to do the Overlord but after some talking I understood that he wanted to play a Hero a bit more and that his OL "playstyle" was more of a DM than trying to win. He did not cared to win at all which I was totally not agreeing with.
Quick story: In May 2012 we were playing a game of MoM. I was the Keeper and was trying to set the mood for the game during setup. I warned the Investigators in a RP manner that i'll make them suffer. That's when one of the biggest argument started. It lasted all game long. For him the Keeper was a DM and was not there to win. For me, the Keeper was a player that while setting the atmosphere had to try to win the game. Here's a post I made the day after while I was still boiling from the events of the night before: http://community.fan...-keeper-how-to/
Now back to the topic. When my friend (which is my best friend, we've known each other for over 15 years) started to talk about being a "soft OL" I proposed to be the OL myself. I also told him that the OL as an objective and that he HAVE TO try his best to win every quests, as the Heroes have to do to. He agreed which relieved quite a bit heheheh.
It is my first time as the Overlord, a role that I thought i would not like at all, and that i'm starting to love tremendously. I thought the OL options were few and he only moved monsters and play cards, which it is, but all the timing, the decisions, shich card to play and which cards to keep for later...everything is just really fun and involving.
So, first session the Heroes won First Blood so they got to choose the next quest. Surprisingly they chose Cardinal's Plight. BTW we're all still newbs so we don't really know which quests are more in favor or each sides. What I observed was this 4 kinds of players:
- Player 1 is the quiet one and will do what others ask him to. He won't really talk about strategy and will simply act when it is his turn.
- Player 2 is the lone wolf. Doesn't relaly talk to others and loudly will declare that it is "his turn" and proceed without really consulting his feloow heroes.
- Player 3 is the negative one that when his rolls bad or when things don't go how he want to will blame game design.
- Player 4 (my best friend) is the "good" player. Before taking his turn he will try to regroup people and make them talk...which fails most of the time.
All this while i'm sitting there, grinning and playing cards and grinning even more. At least once per quests I will remind them about their objectives, what they should concentrate on and what they should leave alone. I know I shouldn't but I do, especially when i'm pulling my punches and still win encounters.
So after playing Cardinal's Pight, which I won and yesterday playing Masquerade, which I still won i'm sitting on my throne with two shiny relics while the Heroes act as four individuals that don't really care about each other.
I keep suggesting them to strategize, talk more and think about the best move to do that would help them get their objective done. But having alpha solitaire players is not really helping them.
Last thing I wanted to discuss is about quest description. One of the players, which I could call him a bit lazy, stated that it was the OL role to explain the objectives of quests. What I replied to him was that each sides as his own set of rules and each side should read is part so if I forget one thing I couldn't be blamed or labeled as a "cheater". That worked for some time but this topic always come up at each encounters.
What's your take on this? Should the OL do all the work, read everything and explain everything to the group or should everyone do their part?
As you may see, i'm with the later option.