A Character Conundrum

[JohnK]

Hullo, folks,

One of the things pointed out in the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game in several places is that forensic specialists of any kind don't make for good player characters in the game because they spend pretty much all of their time in the lab, and only go into the field for gathering forensic evidence. 

So guess what one of the two players in my Sunday group decided to play? Yep, a forensics medical specialist. 😞

I have just finished running the first case file (home-brewed) on the Sunday group.  The forensic specialist got very little time, and the player ended up playing the non-player character Police Constable partner of the other player character for most of the scenario.  I was not happy, to say the least, and she...wasn't pleased, either.

So two questions here...

First, how do you think I should handle her character in future?

Second, anyone got an idea or three for case file plots where the forensic specialist (also the practitioner) and a police constable can work together for much of the case?

Thanks, in advance. 🙂

 

[jp1885]

Take some inspiration from the various CSI TV shows - they’re in the thick of the action all the time!

Also think of ways that the characters’ scientific skills, education and intelligence can be used in non-forensic situations (even if it’s just plain old researching).

[Greville]

You could make them junior forensic techs. Guess who gets sent out for all the fieldwork? Or you could have a contrived evidence related snafu and have the higher ups decide the teams needs some support from forensics team to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[JohnK]

On 9/11/2023 at 3:49 PM, jp1885 said:

Take some inspiration from the various CSI TV shows - they’re in the thick of the action all the time!

Also think of ways that the characters’ scientific skills, education and intelligence can be used in non-forensic situations (even if it’s just plain old researching).

The problem is, jp1885, that the CSI shows are focused on the forensics of the case, and the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game has a completely different focus entirely.  That said, the U.S. sourcebook may enlighten us about this element among others, but bear in mind that the researching aspect of this keeps the player character out of the field.  In the case file I just ran about missing children, she spend 9/10 of her time playing the (NPC) partner of the player character constable.

[JohnK]

On 9/12/2023 at 6:19 AM, Greville said:

You could make them junior forensic techs. Guess who gets sent out for all the fieldwork? Or you could have a contrived evidence related snafu and have the higher ups decide the teams needs some support from forensics team to make sure it doesn't happen again.

That's a good suggestion, Greville, but even playing a junior forensic tech, the character wouldn't be expected to interview witnesses and the like.  That's not what forensic specialists do, except in shows like the CSI franchise and the like.   The player in question thinks in American show terms and in terms of fictional forensics experts, not the way the game does. 

I'm really at a loss how to handle the character, given the only other player in the group is playing a police constable who may gain magic later.  The only saving grace of the forensic specialist character is that she's a practitioner. 

[g33k]

I think you're kind of between a rock & a hard place, honestly.

The player's fundamental understanding of the setting (CSI-franchise / Hollywood police drama) differs from YOUR understanding of the setting (i.e. the Rivers of London understanding).  This kind of conceptual disjunction is a sort of topic for a Session-Zero:  what kinds of character-concepts will work?

I only see a few resolutions ...

• You just accept that the CSI notion is canonical for this campaign
• You (and likely the player) spend some non-trivial effort to create the how-and-why of this one forensic specialist being an exception, probably-including a game-mechanical redesign
• Player abandons the character (at least mostly) & creates a more RoL-compliant concept ... and/or:
• Player accepts they will be playing a (often rotating) cast of characters instead of their Lab-Rat character  (q.v. Ars Magica, "Troupe" play, Grogs/Companions/Magi)

Edited September 13, 2023 by g33k

[radmonger]

3 hours ago, JohnK said:

I'm really at a loss how to handle the character, given the only other player in the group is playing a police constable who may gain magic later.  The only saving grace of the forensic specialist character is that she's a practitioner. 

There's a us TV show called _I, zombie_ that has pretty much that exact setup. The main character is a forensic specialist who (due to being a zombie) has what is more or less sense vestigia. For most of the show her partner is a beat cop, who is the only authority who knows of her powers.

Being a forensic specialist provides just enough plausible deniability that he can drag her along to a crime scene to use her powers, solving cases and winning him commendations. This works even better if most of the higher ups in the police are aware of magic. For maximum fun, have the PCs not know that.

At a suitable point, have DCI Seawoll say 'what, you expected us to believe that you were bringing a lab assistant out into the field to look at _forensic_ evidence?'

 

 

[g33k]

Also:  paging @Lynne H, because she has an "American Rivers Sourcebook" manuscript in-hand, and may have some good advice...

[g33k]

1 minute ago, radmonger said:

...

Being a forensic specialist provides just enough plausible deniability that he can drag her along to a crime scene to use her powers, solving cases and winning him commendations...

Except the crime scene isn't really the problem...  Doesn't take "plausible deniability" to get Forensics to the crime-scene, after all!

It's all the rest of things... canvassing neighborhoods, running-down leads, interviewing witnesses, interviewing suspects, etc etc etc; forensics is kept well-away from all that stuff!

[radmonger]

if the PC assumes they are the only PC that knows about magic, they would have to run the investigation 'off-the-books'. Which means relying on whoever it is they trust, regardless of their skills.

Alternatively, in a more standard campaign, have Folly procedure is that all interviews in Falcon-related cases should be supervised by a practicioner, as nobody has yet invented a machine that can record vestigia. And right now they are a lot shorter of those than they are of forensic specialists.

Sure, they spend their time offscreen cutting up corpses, but they will be onscreen for everything important that happens.

[g33k]

5 hours ago, radmonger said:

if the PC assumes they are the only PC that knows about magic, they would have to run the investigation 'off-the-books'. Which means relying on whoever it is they trust, regardless of their skills.

Alternatively, in a more standard campaign, have Folly procedure is that all interviews in Falcon-related cases should be supervised by a practicioner, as nobody has yet invented a machine that can record vestigia. And right now they are a lot shorter of those than they are of forensic specialists.

Sure, they spend their time offscreen cutting up corpses, but they will be onscreen for everything important that happens.

But AFAIK the Folly isn't its own whole micro-police-department within the larger one; don't they have to rely on services from the larger force (like Forensics) and face the limits associated with standard rules&regs?
(I *really* need to get the full set of novels & read them!)

Non-clued-in cops are liable to raise their eyebrows, and report others who violate regs too badly...

Edited September 14, 2023 by g33k

[JohnK]

Hullo, g33k,

 

Yeah, you're right, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one. 😞

When it comes down to it, the player in question only read a 1/4 of the first novel before she put it down, as she didn't like the style of writing, the police procedural aspects, etc..  And let's be honest... the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game is not the CSI universe or a Hollywood police drama, as you say.  Frankly, I'm not interested in a CSI/Hollywood police drama to run, and she understood that.  The Session Zero that I ran *did* go into the types of character concepts for the game that will work, but she was adamant about playing the forensics person though she did make her a practitioner. 

In terms of the solutions that you proposed, I don't like most of them, to be honest.  I'm thinking that she'll play the other player's Police Constable partner (which she did for much of the scenario), but I think that I'm going to focus on the character being a practitioner, rather than the forensics stuff, and hopefully that will work out well.

We'll see, I guess, since they'll start their next scenario very soon now...

Thanks for the advice offered.  Much appreciated. 🙂

[JohnK]

Hullo, Radmonger,

I've seen a couple of episodes of I, Zombie and I'll be honest...  I wasn't impressed, though the basic premise was interesting.

I think that when it comes down to it, I'm going to focus on the forensic character's practitioner aspects of the character, rather than her medical aspects.  I can of like that line you came up with for DCI Seawoll, and will be stealing it, if you don't mind. 🙂

 

[JohnK]

Hullo, g33k,

Yeah, I was hoping that @LynneH would come into this discussion, since like you, perhaps she could add a few comments on what I've brought up here in relation to the American sourcebook.

Hope springs eternal. 🙂

[JohnK]

On 9/13/2023 at 6:20 PM, g33k said:

Except the crime scene isn't really the problem...  Doesn't take "plausible deniability" to get Forensics to the crime-scene, after all!

It's all the rest of things... canvassing neighborhoods, running-down leads, interviewing witnesses, interviewing suspects, etc etc etc; forensics is kept well-away from all that stuff!

That last line sums up the whole issue for me, g33k! 

[JohnK]

On 9/13/2023 at 6:40 PM, radmonger said:

if the PC assumes they are the only PC that knows about magic, they would have to run the investigation 'off-the-books'. Which means relying on whoever it is they trust, regardless of their skills.

Alternatively, in a more standard campaign, have Folly procedure is that all interviews in Falcon-related cases should be supervised by a practicioner, as nobody has yet invented a machine that can record vestigia. And right now they are a lot shorter of those than they are of forensic specialists.

Sure, they spend their time offscreen cutting up corpses, but they will be onscreen for everything important that happens.

In a Folly campaign, not all case interviews should be supervised by a practitioner, until magic (Falcon-ry?) definitely is found to be associated with the case.  But a forensics expert or forensic specialist doesn't tend to have a lot of social skills, except on shows like CSI and the like.  And this is Rivers of London, not CSI, to begin with, so... 

When it comes down to it, the player isn't playing the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game or basing her character on the series of books, she's created her character because she likes a current urban fantasy system that she's been reading and wants to fit that square character into a round player character space.  And this, despite the Session Zero discussion we had on the subject.

*sigh*

[JohnK]

On 9/14/2023 at 12:18 AM, g33k said:

But AFAIK the Folly isn't its own whole micro-police-department within the larger one; don't they have to rely on services from the larger force (like Forensics) and face the limits associated with standard rules&regs?
(I *really* need to get the full set of novels & read them!)

Non-clued-in cops are liable to raise their eyebrows, and report others who violate regs too badly...

Exactly, g33k!  The game rulebook points out very specifically that the Folly may have certain experts or people in services outside the Folly itself that they rely on for assistance, and the forensics side of things is notable in this respect.  It seems rare in the books that non-Folly personnel are ever part of the Folly itself directly, though author Ben Aaronovitch has created several characters in the novels (I've read through the first five) who do have closer ties to the Folly.

Sometimes I think this is the problem with roleplaying games that are based on book series and the like, but that's getting away from the original intent of the thread, and is a subject for elsewhere and elsewhen. 🙂

[Greville]

On 9/14/2023 at 4:18 PM, g33k said:

But AFAIK the Folly isn't its own whole micro-police-department within the larger one; don't they have to rely on services from the larger force (like Forensics) and face the limits associated with standard rules&regs?

Yes and no, the Folly is officially in charge of British magic. Prior to WII they were basically the magical part of the old boys network, with some members assisting the government as and when they saw fit. After the war Nightingale believed magic was on the decline and lived in semi-retirement, helping the police on the odd case here and there. He's a police officer and is part of the police hierarchy, but still follows a lot of his own rules. There is scope for investigators that are completely outside the police altogether. Peter notes that they get away with a lot because all of their operating budget is provided privately by the Folly, not the Met.

Quote

Non-clued-in cops are liable to raise their eyebrows, and report others who violate regs too badly...

This is a big yes. In terms of mundane forensics they have to rely on normal police departments, and in the novels Peter is careful to follow the rules. They get flak from normal officers of Chief Inspector or higher, but that's as much because magic related crimes have a terrible clear up rate. In one book they wipe out a nest of vampires with the aid of friendly ex-paratroopers that Nightingale has on hand for such occasions. Peter notes there was no way that could go on the books so the missing persons files were kept open/marked unsolved.

Peter is often troubled by how much the Folly is a law unto itself and that the various arrangements that hold it all together are very fragile. 

[Greville]

7 hours ago, JohnK said:

When it comes down to it, the player isn't playing the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game or basing her character on the series of books, she's created her character because she likes a current urban fantasy system that she's been reading and wants to fit that square character into a round player character space.  And this, despite the Session Zero discussion we had on the subject.

*sigh*

So the problem isn't really with how you can make her character work, but that she wants to play something different. That's tough because it sounds like no matter what accommodations you make the character will still not fit.

I've had my fair share of session zero discussions that have then been ignored by players once character generation has started. Less so now, but I've been playing with the same small group for a long time.

One thing I've taken to doing when introducing people to a new system is to run a few sessions with some characters I've generated. It gives them a good introduction to the rules and provides more context when they make their characters, they have a better idea of what their choices mean. It also allows me to set the tone more effectively, which can help when the player has a different idea about the campaign than you do.

[g33k]

18 hours ago, JohnK said:

... the player in question only read a 1/4 of the first novel before she put it down, as she didn't like the style of writing, the police procedural aspects, etc...

That may have been your mistake, right there.

You wanted to run a game/setting/genre that the player doesn't enjoy, and vice versa.  That's the point to take a breath, and a step back, and ask some hard questions.  
If I'm gonna be brutally honest, I think that may have been your sign either to:

• pivot to a different game/setting/genre, or
• suggest the player not join this campaign.

 

BUT:  another idea I've had:  the "outside consultant."

Rather than a police "forensics" employee, have the character be some sort of specialist in the field of forensics, a consultant whom the police (regularly) call upon to consult on... oh... say blood-splatter patterns (reconstructing position & motion of the people involved in a violent crime)... or whatever.

Then have the character over-use and abuse their "Consultant's ID" to get (over)involved with investigations; specifically with the knowledge (even the instigation!) of the actual cops.

Yes, there will be downstream consequences; sooner or later, the bureaucracy will take note.  And consequences may fall harder on the cop(s) -- over whom the bureaucrats have direct control -- than the outside consultant who's actually infringing.

 

18 hours ago, JohnK said:

... 

When it comes down to it, the player isn't playing the Rivers of London: The Roleplaying Game or basing her character on the series of books, she's created her character because she likes a current urban fantasy system that she's been reading and wants to fit that square character into a round player character space...

<giving Jim Butcher's Dresden Files novels (or maybe EvilHat's DF RPG) the hoary eyeball>
I like the DF series; one of my favorite, honestly.  Waldo Butters is the (ultra-nerdy) forensics-guy there.

It's worth noting, however, that Waldo began as a pure lab-rat:  Harry Dresden (who's a private investigator (not a cop!) & a wizard (DF has a "maquerade" setting)) would go to the lab to consult & get (sub rosa, unofficial) forensic findings (clues).

When Waldo began doing "field work," it was not in his "police" capacity:  it was getting sucked into Dresden's "spookyside" work.  In the series, it's Dresden who is the "police consultant" and he (and his cop-liason Karrin Murphy) who keep bending the rules & thereby generating ill-will with other cops, with the bureaucratic Powers That Be, etc.

[g33k]

13 hours ago, Greville said:

Yes and no, the Folly is officially in charge of British magic ...

But (and please correct me if I'm mistaken; I'm new to the series & still coming up to speed) "magic" does not officially exist.

It's not like routine beat cops, their superior officers, or their superior officers are going, "Oh, there's magic afoot here?  Right-o, call the Folly!"

Nightingale & cronies are clued-in, and work actively to maintain the fiction that "everything's fine, nothing to see here, move along."  They have some implicit & explicit acknowledgement from even-higher in the gov't, who work subtly to assist them in maintaining the secrecy of the status quo.

To the average constable, it's usually more a matter of "oh, this is an odd one... bunch of foreigners' with their odd traditions... I bet it's going to the Folly" and similar notions.  Sometimes it's the Folly swooping in to take over (to the mystification of mundane cops) something that looked mundane, but wasn't.

Or have I misunderstood?

Edited September 30, 2023 by g33k

[buckyball]

I have found that players wishing to be the 'ship's doctor' in sci-fi games similarly have a role that keeps them out of the main action of the scenario. Have you asked the players why they chose crime scene investigators? What are their expectations? Can you accommodate those expectations within the games you plan to run?

 

    buckyball

[radmonger]

On 9/29/2023 at 10:55 PM, JohnK said:

In a Folly campaign, not all case interviews should be supervised by a practitioner, until magic (Falcon-ry?) definitely is found to be associated with the case.

What's the Folly doing investigating cases where magic is not suspected?

In real-life London, a murder investigation team is 30 or so people performing hundreds of interviews.  No matter how many PCs you have amongst your PCs, it's not remotely practical to have all those interviews happen 'on camera'. 

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/murder-investigation-teams#:~:text=There are around 26 officers,2 Detective Inspectors (DI)

Sometimes all those off-screen interviews will show up a clue that is relevant to the folly. Sometimes all the off-screen cutting up of bodies will.  

Either way, the important stuff happens on-screen, and most PCs are going to be present for it, most of the time. Your job as a gm is to justify and explain that, not say it is statistically unlikely and so doesn't happen. Players need to be able to play the game.

I mean, having a starship captain beam down with an away team is way harder to justify than the ship's doctor being there...

 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, radmonger said:

...

I mean, having a starship captain beam down with an away team is way harder to justify than the ship's doctor being there...

🤣
Quoted for truth!!!
To be fair, "ship's doctor" was seldom there without a story-relevant (medical) reason.

OTOH, we note that ST:TOS was pretty-clearly a sci-fi-ization of "Age of Sail" adventures:  centering Mon Capitaine  was  de rigueur, and onward thence to Picard/Janeway/et al (and associated series' scriptwriters) simply suffering under the weight of the inherited lore & fan-expectations.
 

 

However:

2 hours ago, radmonger said:

... Your job as a gm is to justify and explain that, not say it is statistically unlikely and so doesn't happen. Players need to be able to play the game.

Everybody needs to have fun; that includes the GM (who's also a player at the table)

We've got a pretty classic "clash of expectations" / "clash of vision" situation at this table; this kind of clash can ruin peoples' fun.

It is not the GM's job to bend their understanding of the setting to suit any and every want and whim of each and every player.

[JohnK]

On 9/30/2023 at 1:28 AM, Greville said:

So the problem isn't really with how you can make her character work, but that she wants to play something different. That's tough because it sounds like no matter what accommodations you make the character will still not fit.

I've had my fair share of session zero discussions that have then been ignored by players once character generation has started. Less so now, but I've been playing with the same small group for a long time.

One thing I've taken to doing when introducing people to a new system is to run a few sessions with some characters I've generated. It gives them a good introduction to the rules and provides more context when they make their characters, they have a better idea of what their choices mean. It also allows me to set the tone more effectively, which can help when the player has a different idea about the campaign than you do.

Yes, that first paragraph pretty much sums things up.  She tends to do the same things in other game systems, but since I rarely run games based on licensed books or movies or tv shows or whatever, this rarely ever comes up.  I felt pretty frustrated running the first adventure, since her actual player character only got into the story towards the middle of the plot, and she played the PC partner of the other player character for much of the adventure.  Now that I have an idea of how I'm going to approach this, we'll see if she decides to create a new character, or whether she doggedly continues to play this "part-time" character.

The player in question is part of my Sunday group, which only consists of her, one other player, and me.  I've been playing with them for decades now, and she hasn't changed in this regard over the years.  The Session Zeroes do help in many regards in this respect, but not for this game; she was intent on what she wanted to play. 

I've done what you suggested here (run a few sessions with characters I've created for them), but she's not fond of that as she gets a good feel for the system, but still prefers to create the character concept and character that she wants, regardless of the system.  If you knew the number of games that have gone by the wayside because she doesn't like them or I can't run them with her "play style"...  Oy, vey!