PDA

View Full Version : More RP in my RPG?



Sir_Mopalot
2011-04-19, 04:32 PM
So reading one of the 3.5/4E argu-threads, someone said something that really resonated with me. Basically the argument was that both versions discourage real roleplaying, and that any game that made its central power-gaining mechanic killing things and finding new crazy loot was going to encourage the violent super-rich hobos that we all know and love. So my question is this: What systems out there do a better job with that?

Odin the Ignoble
2011-04-19, 04:37 PM
I think the problem is probably more to do with the setting or DM style then anything else.

If you reward players for powergaming then you'll get power gamers.

If you reward players for role playing you'll get role players.

Tyndmyr
2011-04-19, 04:43 PM
7th Sea tends to heavily reward players for doing awesome, dramatic things, in the form of drama die, which may be exchanged for temporary power or non trivial amounts of xp.

Optimizing for awesomeness is a very good thing.

potatocubed
2011-04-19, 04:44 PM
For starters:

Burning Wheel, if you're feeling crunchy.
FATE, if you're feeling rules-light. (See also my sig, shameless self-promotion, etc.)
World of Darkness, for a mainstream game with an experience system that is not rooted in combat.


There are more, but those three should point you in the right direction.

...in fact, you could also try old-school D&D like Swords and Wizardry or OSRIC, where you get XP for treasure recovered rather than monsters slain. That encourages players to circumvent challenges without fighting wherever possible. You could even run 3.x that way, although you'd have to adjust WBL and level-up speeds a bit.

DeadManSleeping
2011-04-19, 04:51 PM
Oddly enough, Shadowrun encourages RPing heavily...as a violent, possibly super-rich hobo :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, any system that forces players to pay attention to detail that they don't care about won't be enjoyed. I do, however, encourage FATE systems. Aspects are awesome for RP.

dsmiles
2011-04-19, 04:56 PM
Mouse Guard seems like it does (it's based on Burning Wheel).

RISUS, of course.

Call of Cthulhu does.

kyoryu
2011-04-19, 04:57 PM
So reading one of the 3.5/4E argu-threads, someone said something that really resonated with me. Basically the argument was that both versions discourage real roleplaying, and that any game that made its central power-gaining mechanic killing things and finding new crazy loot was going to encourage the violent super-rich hobos that we all know and love. So my question is this: What systems out there do a better job with that?

Strangely enough, my last session was a 4E game that was completely without combat, even though I tried to drag the characters forward to the combat.

It's more dependent on players/GM than system, though certainly some systems encourage it more.

Tengu_temp
2011-04-19, 05:06 PM
I don't think if either 4e or 3.5 discourage roleplaying. First edition does, with its focus on dungeon crawling, gathering treasure and random traps that kill you instantly. However, they don't do anything to encourage roleplaying either.

Some games that encourage roleplaying include:

Exalted - doing cool stuff gives you bonus dice and Essence. There's a lot of stuff that focuses on interaction between characters.

FATE/Spirit of the Century - a lot of the rules depend on roleplaying. The best way to win a conflict is to find or create a weakness in the enemy and then exploit it, which is always roleplayed and depends on the circumstances.

Weapons of the Gods - you get Virtue points and extra Destiny points for roleplaying. You get bonuses for acquiring Lores, which exist in-game. The fluff and crunch are very tightly connected.

Legend of the Five Rings - you gain and lose Honor depending heavily on how you roleplay. To advance to a higher rank, you need to ask for permission in a letter to your Daimyo. Has a setting where saying the right thing is often as important as doing the right thing.

Sarco_Phage
2011-04-19, 05:08 PM
Dogs in the Vineyard is a good system for this.

Bang!
2011-04-19, 05:22 PM
Pretty much any game where the things you write on your character sheet/summary are what the character cares about or who the character is, rather than numeric bonuses to every possible combat action.

To name a few:
Anything using fate FATE (Diaspora, Spirit of the Century, Starblazer Adventures, Dresden Files), Dust Devils, Dogs in the Vineyard, Grey Ranks, Mouseguard/Burning Wheel, Polaris, Don't Rest Your Head, My Life with Master, Fiasco, Puppetland, Penny for My Thoughts, Primetime Adventures, Trollbabe, 3:16, Houses of the Blooded.

EDIT: These are just the ones I've played and read. There are a lot more.

Sir_Mopalot
2011-04-19, 05:48 PM
Wow! Thanks guys, I'll have to check some of those out. As for changing the style of the existing D&D game, I'm running a 4E game. I love both 4E and 3.5, but we're on 4th at the moment. Anyways, Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit? I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.

kyoryu
2011-04-19, 06:08 PM
Wow! Thanks guys, I'll have to check some of those out. As for changing the style of the existing D&D game, I'm running a 4E game. I love both 4E and 3.5, but we're on 4th at the moment. Anyways, Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit? I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.

They go to a town at some point, right? In town, when they want to go shopping, have some random encounters (non-combat) with townfolk on the way. Roleplay the interactions they have. They want to see the mayor/duke/whatever? Roleplay their interactions with the guards, how they get an audience, etc.

Have these be quirky characters if possible. Have these NPCs impose on the PCs in some way if possible (a merchant mistakes the PC for someone else (non-hostile), or asks him to invest in a business opportunity. A character gets stuff dumped on him from an upper-story window. Etc.) Give them non-combat things to react to, and place them in interesting, non-combat scenarios.

Jerthanis
2011-04-19, 06:13 PM
I think that a good cold start to roleplaying is a moral dilemma. If the Players can't agree on whether they should do something or not, they'll begin discussing it. Take note on what the characters say, and have later villains and NPCs mention the choices and arguments that they made in that case, and have them treat the PCs appropriately.

If everyone treats the PCs like real people, and react to the things they decide and continuously bring them up, the players might start developing the characters in their minds. "Oh yeah, I did say that last time... Corwyn Strongarm is the type of person who would say that." If they begin behaving in a different way later, have an NPC ask the PC why they've made a different decision compared to last time. If the PC says, "Last time was different because I care more about X than Y", you win, they're defining their character. If they say, "I've changed my mind, I used to not care about X, but do now." you win because they've now played a dynamic character.

kyoryu
2011-04-19, 06:16 PM
Another thing that can help is asking players to write in-character writeups of what happened at the last game. Give bonuses of some sort (xp, whatever) for doing so.

That can at least get them thinking about how their *character* sees things, and thinking in their character's voice.

Don't mandate them, just offer decent bonuses for them.

Comet
2011-04-19, 06:24 PM
Very good suggestions in this thread, nothing much to add there.

What I would like to say, though, is that the way to encourage RP by means of a system is to make that RP an integral part of that system, not just something that you put on top of it to make it prettier.

Stunt dice, narrative control mechanics and such do the trick, since the crunch and roleplaying come as a single package.

Awarding RP XP if the players happen to recite elven poetry while playing their miniature tactics game might help a bit, but it really isn't the way to go in the long run.

Now that I think about it, another example of a good game in this regard would Bliss Stage. Very genre specific, and every mechanic of a game is there to build up to a certain kind of story and certain kinds of character arcs. You basically can't play the game as it is written without accidentally roleplaying along the way.

Of course, not all systems need to be this specific in enforcing RP. In those cases the responsibility for the amount of RP in a session fall on the group itself, with the rules acting only as a basic way of resolving conflict. Nothing wrong with that, either.

Bang!
2011-04-19, 06:30 PM
I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.
The most fun, and the most RP I've had in a D&D game are in situations where morality questions are pushed. Things like the suspicious lady hanging around in the hell-dungeon who is almost certainly a succubus and who is almost definitely going to kill the party, and who somebody should probably kill immediately (except that nobody's actually 100% sure she's not human). Or party debates on what to do with the evil kobold prisoners, keeping in mind they have young to feed and a well-earned disrepute with the local townsfolk.

Unfortunately, D&D seems to go out of the way to kill (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/augury.htm) that sort (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) of fun (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/detectEvil.htm). Still might be worth a shot, though.

Alternatively, you could bribe them. That's how the FATE system works. You might even steal that section from the FATE rules.

Basically, FATE games ask players to write down a certain number of traits for their characters. When a player lets that trait be used against their character's best interests, the player gets rewarded with a Fate token. Fate tokens then can be exchanged to give the character an advantage in a later situation where using a trait in a beneficial manner.

[Here (http://www.crackmonkey.org/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html#id9)'s a link to the Spirit of the Century srd's description of Aspects. It goes into much better detail and it's an easy read.]

I don't know if 4th edition D&D uses Action points, but they're in 3e's Eberron and Unearthed Arcana books. Also on the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm). You could use those in place of Fate points to bribe players into characterization. It might even be a good idea to expand them to do some of the fun metagamey things Fate points do, like introduce plot elements. (Wasn't that even a fighter fix somebody was floating around these boards? could have been somewhere else.)

Edit: Guh. Ninjaed on both points.

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-04-19, 07:25 PM
The simplest hack is probably getting rid of combat XP, and implementing your own XP system. Take a page out of World of Darkness.

You get XP for things such as: achieving goals, being best RPer, heroic actions, encountering and defeating the supernatural (in D&D, this could be encountering and defeating the new and unfamiliar), learning something new about the supernatural, surviving great dangers, etc.

Though it's not my preferred solution to character advancement (stuff like Fate Points is rather cooler, IMO), it still does the job pretty well. It encourages players to divert their energies elsewhere. Just make sure they know and learn what they can get XP for.

Darklord Bright
2011-04-19, 08:23 PM
I've always enjoyed Mutants and Masterminds more than any other system (due to easy conversion to other genres through power level limits) - but it has a neat mechanic where you can give your character a flaw (say, Honour: Never runs away from a fight, or Secret Identity) and the DM will give you 'hero points' when you play up that flaw, which allow you to do things like reroll a failed roll.

Plus the actual character-building mechanics (even combat ones) are very freeform and fun as heck. :smalltongue:

But it's not really RP-encouraging any more than DnD in the end. It just encourages putting your own fluff on your abilities and such a lot more. It's also not specific to super heroes, there are conversion supplements that can turn it into Conan-style fantasy or even over-the-top anime that accounts for hangtime. :smalltongue:

Oh well, probably not what you're looking for in any case.

valadil
2011-04-19, 08:48 PM
I don't think if either 4e or 3.5 discourage roleplaying.

Agreed. I've never had trouble roleplaying in either. The problem is that they do encourage combat. If I make a character with a new prestige class, I'm gonna wanna see how his mechanics handle in a fight. Most of the time he'll be mechanically equivalent to my last character when it comes to leaving the dice on the table and just talking.


Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit?

Basically you need to come up with problems that are not solved by the adventurers standard operating procedure of "kill it, then loot it." The obvious plot that comes to mind here is a mystery. Put the players in a situation where they have to use their social skills to wheedle information out of unwilling NPCs and then puzzle it together. Once they resolve the puzzle they're free to kill the guilty party, but until then they'll have to rely on their other skills.

SiuiS
2011-04-19, 09:33 PM
Use flaws, but hang them up.

I found a list of flaws at one point (and have been looking ever since!) where each flaw had a tag to be activated once per session. For example, the flaw Star-Crossed gave the character -2 against any NPC he would reasonably be attracted to when socializing. Nothing special here.

Except once per session, either the DM or another player can say "roll a will save or fall head over heels for [NPC the PC is talking to]." the formula becomes simple; flaws aren't always going to be shaky and frail, but will be picked in a fashion that fits the character. The bonus is a feat. They don't play he flaw? They lose the feat.

I'll be darned if I could ever find that list again though...

nyarlathotep
2011-04-19, 10:44 PM
So reading one of the 3.5/4E argu-threads, someone said something that really resonated with me. Basically the argument was that both versions discourage real roleplaying, and that any game that made its central power-gaining mechanic killing things and finding new crazy loot was going to encourage the violent super-rich hobos that we all know and love. So my question is this: What systems out there do a better job with that?

Most things with regard to roleplaying don't need rules. Both 3.5 and 4th edition are more neutral to roleplaying than against it they provide rules for where rules are needed the most (combat) and rather generic rules for everything else. Most rule-systems that I find that claim to "encourage roleplaying" just bog it down with unnecessary rules. To me roleplaying should be the same regardless of system varying only based on setting.

Just find some guide on getting people to roleplay more/acting help books and choose a system that gives rules for what you think needs rules and gives that aspect the feel you think it needs. D&D (heroic combat), Dark heresy (gritty combat), Traveller (space travel), or Exalted (Dragonball Z fanfiction combat).

Totally Guy
2011-04-20, 02:32 AM
Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could change things up a little bit? I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories, set up combats that have a little complexity, and come up with non-combat scenes that have them solving puzzles and whatnot, but beyond not being able to make the horse drink from the RP trough, I don't even know how to lead them to that water.

Chatty DM, an awesome D&D blogger, recently posted this article (http://critical-hits.com/2011/02/18/mouseburning-it-hacking-a-rpgs-skill-system-small-press-style/) talking about the things he's found that are good from experimenting with other systems. He applies this stuff to his D&D game.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-20, 03:55 AM
I think the problem is probably more to do with the setting or DM style then anything else.

If you reward players for powergaming then you'll get power gamers.

If you reward players for role playing you'll get role players.
It's more complex than that. What you reward players with is as important as what you reward players for.

Kiero
2011-04-20, 05:13 AM
I think the problem is probably more to do with the setting or DM style then anything else.

If you reward players for powergaming then you'll get power gamers.

If you reward players for role playing you'll get role players.

Nah, not that simple. I've never played 3.x in tabletop, but my experience with 4e wasn't that it discouraged roleplaying. Rather that when combat started, the roleplaying stopped until it ended. This with a group who love to talk in character and chew up scenery with the best of them. All the roleplaying around the combats still took place, just not while we were all in tactical skirmish wargame mode.

EccentricCircle
2011-04-20, 05:17 AM
a good way to ween players off the "kill it and take its stuff" mentality is to use bonus xp. for any given encounter a certain amount of xp will be listed in the DMG tables. if they storm in and kill everything then they will get half of that ammount of xp, if they consider their objectives and come up with a more inteligent and thought through solution then they will get more, but in any event the ammount they get will be proportional to how well they dealt with the situation, whether their characters were played in character. and so on. it makes the DM's job a bit harder as you essentially have to mark them on their technique, but it makes the players more consious of their characters role within the story and i've found it to be the best modification to the xp system i've ever used, if not the easiest.

these days I generally just drop milestones into the story by which point they should have achieved a specific objective, got to a specific place, or done a certain deed, at which point they should level up, by moving these forwards or backwards depending on how well they are doing you control the rate of leveling up (so if they figure everything out much sooner they will level up more quickly, if they go the wrong way it will take longer)
this is easy for the DM and doesn't link xp to combats or even encounters at all, but isn't as satisfying.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-20, 10:58 AM
The simplest hack is probably getting rid of combat XP, and implementing your own XP system. Take a page out of World of Darkness.
I don't recommend this. You can encourage "role-play" in the sense of funny accents and hollow posturing by bribing players with XP, but the problem is that rewarding actual role-play with XP sends the following, subtly contradictory messages:

* The ultimate purpose of this game is to follow character motivations even at personal cost.
* The ultimate purpose of this game is to maximise your character's mechanical power.

So, no. If you expect players to actually role-play, you need to reward them with something other than a pure effectiveness-improvement mechanic.


I'm confident in my ability to write interesting stories...
Secondly- and this is particularly true if you're going to present players with underlying moral/ethical dilemmas that make correct responses non-obvious- then you have to get rid of the idea of fixed storyline. Otherwise, you present players with another set of contradictory messages-

* I expect you to take your character's motivations seriously even at personal cost.
* I expect you to react predictably to situations where your motives are in mutual conflict (including 'greed' or 'self-preservation' as motives,) AND/OR-
* Don't expect your decisions to have any genuine consequences.

(GURPS, for example, only provides partial support for role-play, because the way it handles personality traits as a fixed stimulus-response pattern obliges the GM to never create situations where character motives are in conflict.)

CarpeGuitarrem
2011-04-20, 11:32 AM
I don't recommend this. You can encourage "role-play" in the sense of funny accents and hollow posturing by bribing players with XP, but the problem is that rewarding actual role-play with XP sends the following, subtly contradictory messages:

* The ultimate purpose of this game is to follow character motivations even at personal cost.
* The ultimate purpose of this game is to maximise your character's mechanical power.

So, no. If you expect players to actually role-play, you need to reward them with something other than a pure effectiveness-improvement mechanic.
Partially agreed. If you take it to the logical conclusion, yes. But if the players have a bit of fuzzy give-and-take, expanding their scope of advancement beyond "loot and killing" and into "investigation and perils" can be a very good thing.

It's not as deep as, say, Burning Wheel or FATE, but it's still a good, simple step forward.

Plus, those two messages don't have to be contradictory. With great power comes great responsibility, or so Uncle Ben says. Overused and trite? Maybe a little, but it's still true. More mechanically powerful characters will still find reasons to pay a personal cost for their decisions.

The Big Dice
2011-04-20, 11:47 AM
(GURPS, for example, only provides partial support for role-play, because the way it handles personality traits as a fixed stimulus-response pattern obliges the GM to never create situations where character motives are in conflict.)
GURPS, like Pendragon, encourages and rewards you playing in a way that supports the numbers on your sheet. GURPS takes the line that there's a chance you'll respond a certain way in certain situations.

Is it the responsibility of the GM or the player to put the character in situations where the dice will be called on to decide how the character might react? Should the coward avoid combat? Should the phobic character look for opportunities to confront (and eventually overcome) his phobia?

They are roleplaying questions, not things the GM should be directly confronting the character with.

Britter
2011-04-20, 03:03 PM
Is it the responsibility of the GM or the player to put the character in situations where the dice will be called on to decide how the character might react? Should the coward avoid combat? Should the phobic character look for opportunities to confront (and eventually overcome) his phobia?

They are roleplaying questions, not things the GM should be directly confronting the character with.

If the GM is not putting players in situations where those elements of their character are challenged, than what is the point of having those as elements of your character? If they are not being directly confronted, how can you roleplay? (serious questions, because I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, and I don't want to disagree without groking you)

In my opinion, if you come to me with a character who you say is, for example, a coward, you are making a statement about the sorts of challenges you want to face. I will ask for details, and than I will take your coward and give him choices where he can either act to his nature, or attempt to grow past it in some way. To me, that is where the meat of roleplaying is.

Frankly, I detest GURPS and it's quirks and flaws, because they are simply mechanical things that never actually seem to matter, more so if the player chooses particularly well when selecting the so-called negative aspects of his character.

If I say I am playing a coawrd, I am asking the GM to confront me with opportunities to be cowardly, and difficult choices to make about when and how and why I should be a coward. I am also asking to have my cowardice thrown in my face as often as is appropriate, so that I must confront that aspect of my character and either accept it for what it is, or grow past it.

The Big Dice
2011-04-20, 04:06 PM
If the GM is not putting players in situations where those elements of their character are challenged, than what is the point of having those as elements of your character? If they are not being directly confronted, how can you roleplay? (serious questions, because I am not sure I understand what you are saying here, and I don't want to disagree without groking you)
What you're doing is putting all the responsibility for how you deal with situations on the head of the GM. It isn't up to the GM to decide to put you in situations tailor made for your character. It is up to you to respond to the situations your character finds himself in, but in a manner that is consistent with the numbers and words on your sheet.


In my opinion, if you come to me with a character who you say is, for example, a coward, you are making a statement about the sorts of challenges you want to face. I will ask for details, and than I will take your coward and give him choices where he can either act to his nature, or attempt to grow past it in some way. To me, that is where the meat of roleplaying is.
I'd say someone wanting to play a Coward (I've done this, btw) is making a statement about how they are going to play their character and how they are going to approach situations where danger to the character is at hand. It's not saying to the GM "I want you to adjust the world to fit me" but rather saying to the GM "This is the kind of way I am going to react to the world."

It's a subtle but crucial difference that puts the player and the way the player is going to have his character respond to things front and center. And to me, that, not the GM spoon feeding me, is the meat of roleplaying.

Frankly, I detest GURPS and it's quirks and flaws, because they are simply mechanical things that never actually seem to matter, more so if the player chooses particularly well when selecting the so-called negative aspects of his character.
I take the line that I'm going to get points back for playing the character the way I was planning to play him. Not simply treating them as free points, but rather treating the Disadvantages and Quirks are prompts to remind me what the original character concept was.

I understand that not everyone does this, but it is the way GURPS was designed to be played.

If I say I am playing a coawrd, I am asking the GM to confront me with opportunities to be cowardly, and difficult choices to make about when and how and why I should be a coward. I am also asking to have my cowardice thrown in my face as often as is appropriate, so that I must confront that aspect of my character and either accept it for what it is, or grow past it.
When I've played a Coward, I took every opportunity to have my character act in a cowardly way, with the odd flash of bravery. I would voluntarily fail the Will roll to act in combat, resulting in me spending fights hid behind wagons, under tables and behind the bigger, tougher PCs in the group.

Because, as I said, it's not about the numbers so much as it's about getting bonus points in advance for playing the character you wrote up instead of the one that you usually play.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-20, 04:08 PM
GURPS, like Pendragon, encourages and rewards you playing in a way that supports the numbers on your sheet. GURPS takes the line that there's a chance you'll respond a certain way in certain situations.
Not exactly. There are a number of disadvantages that are basically considered unconditional- if stimulus X presents itself, then response Y is basically mandatory.

Let's pretend that your character has the Code of Honour (to never perjure yourself) and Sense of Duty (to your mentor) disadvantages. Now imagine that your mentor is on trial for treason (of which you know he is guilty) and you have been called upon to testify by the prosecution. What do you do?

Under standard GURPS rules, either response here is considered bad role-play, and even if you allow a 'will save' to 'resist' a given motive, a certain % of the time you will fail both checks, and the same quandary rears it's ugly head.

Is it the responsibility of the GM or the player to put the character in situations where the dice will be called on to decide how the character might react? Should the coward avoid combat? Should the phobic character look for opportunities to confront (and eventually overcome) his phobia?

They are roleplaying questions, not things the GM should be directly confronting the character with.
The problem here is that the player can't confront these issues at all (or at least not very easily) without the GM's help. The GM is (typically) responsible for orchestrating the environment with which the PCs interact- whether or not it contains ethical-challenges-to-PC-motives depends on how the GM reacts to player decisions. Choices do not exist in a vacuum.

Now, you can argue that the GM deliberately going out of his/her way (in the sense of distorting strict in-world probability) in order to create such moral problems is an 'artificial', or 'metagamey' approach, but so too is deliberately shielding the PCs from any and all situations that threaten to short-circuit their beliefs. Internal conflicts of motive should, realistically, crop up a certain % of the time, and GURPS, to be perfectly blunt, does not know how to handle it.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-20, 04:20 PM
Partially agreed. If you take it to the logical conclusion, yes. But if the players have a bit of fuzzy give-and-take, expanding their scope of advancement beyond "loot and killing" and into "investigation and perils" can be a very good thing.

It's not as deep as, say, Burning Wheel or FATE, but it's still a good, simple step forward.
Oh, it can be perfectly functional if you want to shift the focus from pure hack'n'slash to something like investigative journalism, or whatever you like, but I feel that in these situations the basic 'idea' of play remains a kind of obstacle course laid out by the GM that the players test their wits or nerve against.

Plus, those two messages don't have to be contradictory. With great power comes great responsibility, or so Uncle Ben says. Overused and trite? Maybe a little, but it's still true. More mechanically powerful characters will still find reasons to pay a personal cost for their decisions.
Well, if it works for your players, well and good... I just personally feel that as a general recommendation, it's rather risky. Anything that can be misinterpreted, statistically, will be a fair % of the time (particularly if the players' natural inclinations lean toward powergaming.) But, hey, YMMV.

Metahuman1
2011-04-20, 04:27 PM
I like Mutants and Master Minds, and Champions my self. Bonuses for doing stuff that fits the character adaptable enough to suit different styles of play, and it gives benefits for overcoming challenges but not necessarily kill and loot, and for doing it with a fitting style or with just flat cool factor.

Stubbazubba
2011-04-21, 12:05 AM
Let the players know that their actions will have long-reaching consequences.

A friend of mine told me of a campaign he DM'd once where in one of the first encounters, the PCs happened upon a seemingly unimportant kobold camp. Rumor in town was that the kobolds were considering joining the rising Dark Lord's alliance of evil (to paraphrase), so the PCs knew just what to do; slaughter the entire camp so it couldn't come to pass. When all was said and done, they discovered a letter written by the leader of the anti-Dark Lord faction of kobolds, pleading with this camp's leader to appear at the kobold conference being held to decide the issue and convince the masses that this alliance would prove to be the end of kobold independence and prosperity. That's what never came to pass.

Sure enough, later in the campaign, the PCs witnessed that very conference, and failed to convince the kobolds to not join the Dark Lord since they had slaughtered an important figurehead in cold blood. The Dark Lord (or one of his lieutenants, I can't remember) was also there and got the kobolds so riled up about the fact that they ended up chasing the PCs away. After that, d'you think the PCs ever rushed into a combat for some quick XP again? Nope, they had to slow down, consider their actions, and make decisions related more to the world than to the numbers on the page.

The Big Dice
2011-04-21, 05:26 AM
Not exactly. There are a number of disadvantages that are basically considered unconditional- if stimulus X presents itself, then response Y is basically mandatory.

Let's pretend that your character has the Code of Honour (to never perjure yourself) and Sense of Duty (to your mentor) disadvantages. Now imagine that your mentor is on trial for treason (of which you know he is guilty) and you have been called upon to testify by the prosecution. What do you do?
That's called a Moral Dilemma. And a Code of Honour isn't as specific as your example. A code of honour is something like chivalry or the pirate code. It's vague, informing behaviour rather than dictating it.

Never perjuring yourself would be a Vow. An obscure and somewhat strange one, probably designed to give you back points without ever requiring any sort of action on the player's behalf.

Under standard GURPS rules, either response here is considered bad role-play, and even if you allow a 'will save' to 'resist' a given motive, a certain % of the time you will fail both checks, and the same quandary rears it's ugly head.
Or you stand up as you are called to testify and declare yourself as an unreliable witness due to emotional involvement with the accused. In other words, you roleplay the moral and emotional situation your character has been put in, using what is on your sheet to guide and inform you.

You know, in a playing a role sense, rather than a being told how to react sense.

The problem here is that the player can't confront these issues at all (or at least not very easily) without the GM's help. The GM is (typically) responsible for orchestrating the environment with which the PCs interact- whether or not it contains ethical-challenges-to-PC-motives depends on how the GM reacts to player decisions. Choices do not exist in a vacuum.
Again, is it the responsibility of the GM to tailor the universe to the characters, or is it the responsibility of the players to tailor their actions and reactions to the world the GM presents?

You make the claim that the GM is solely responsible for putting the character in a situation where his Disadvantages will be challenged. and to a point, that's right. But the player is also obligated to act in a manner that is right for the character. especially in a system like GURPS that defines personality with numbers and mechanics.

Now, you can argue that the GM deliberately going out of his/her way (in the sense of distorting strict in-world probability) in order to create such moral problems is an 'artificial', or 'metagamey' approach, but so too is deliberately shielding the PCs from any and all situations that threaten to short-circuit their beliefs. Internal conflicts of motive should, realistically, crop up a certain % of the time, and GURPS, to be perfectly blunt, does not know how to handle it.
GURPS neither tells nor fails to tell you how to roleplay. What the system there does is inform and guide, rather than lay down the law. Personally, I think the problem lies in your interpretation rather than the system itself. You're looking for something that simply isn't there, because GURPS assumes a certain level of maturity and free thinking from the people who play it.

Unlike some other games that have to spell things out in various ways, GURPS just gives you a toolkit and lets you decide what to do with it. Failure to use that system isn't on the system or the designers. It's on the people interpreting and playing the game. In other words, the failure of comprehension is yours. Go play a game that tells you how to do everything, instead of one that doesn't because the design team doesn't think you need telling how to play.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-21, 11:38 AM
That's called a Moral Dilemma. And a Code of Honour isn't as specific as your example. A code of honour is something like chivalry or the pirate code. It's vague, informing behaviour rather than dictating it.

Never perjuring yourself would be a Vow. An obscure and somewhat strange one, probably designed to give you back points without ever requiring any sort of action on the player's behalf.
Again, this would presumably depend on whether or not the GM presents situations keyed to this facet of personality. And call it what you like, but not wanting to lie under oaths seems an entirely valid ethical hangup. (Heck, it's the entire premise of A Man for All Seasons.)

The general sense I get from a strict reading of the GURPS rules is that these 'disadvantages' are not intended to be vague- indeed, if they are so vague, how are you supposed to know when they kick in?

I absolutely agree that this is a moral dilemma. My point is that GURPS, by implication, encourages the GM to not allow these situations, because then the system, as written, grinds to a halt. (I say this as someone who's actually quite fond of GURPS, but I won't pretend it doesn't have serious limitations.)

Or you stand up as you are called to testify and declare yourself as an unreliable witness due to emotional involvement with the accused.
Okay, what if the prosecution get a subpoena and drag you to the bench as a hostile witness? You can name any two personality-based 'disadvantages' that GURPS can list, and it's almost always possible to imagine a confluence of circumstances where they come into mutual conflict.

You make the claim that the GM is solely responsible for putting the character in a situation where his Disadvantages will be challenged. and to a point, that's right. But the player is also obligated to act in a manner that is right for the character.
I did not claim the GM was solely responsible. I said that the player needs the GM's help. I absolutely agree that the player is expected to reciprocate by showing a degree of respect for character motivations, but there are ways to encourage that reciprocation without turning motives into knee-jerk reactions that lead to logical paradoxes.

GURPS neither tells nor fails to tell you how to roleplay. What the system there does is inform and guide, rather than lay down the law.
I don't believe this interpretation is favoured by a reading of the text. If you look at the GURPS Lite text, for example, you have the following:

A few mental disadvantages don’t affect you constantly. An asterisk (*) appears next to the name of any disadvantage that gives you a chance to control your urges. In circumstances likely to trigger your problem, roll 3d against a target number of 12. A roll of 12 or less means you succeed and shrug off your disadvantage. A roll of 13 or higher means you fail and suffer its effects! This is a self-control roll. You never have to roll– it’s good roleplaying to give in willingly.

Why, exactly, would you need to roll for self-control against a given disadvantage (such as Curious or Bad Temper,) if they are only there to 'inform' and 'guide' one's actions? And what about all the other disadvantages where you don't even get to make a will save?

Samurai Jill
2011-04-21, 12:11 PM
If the GM is not putting players in situations where those elements of their character are challenged, than what is the point of having those as elements of your character? If they are not being directly confronted, how can you roleplay?
This is a serious question, alright. I mean, if these issues never come up, then personality traits wind up being strictly decorative, and what's the point to that?

If I say I am playing a coawrd, I am asking the GM to confront me with opportunities to be cowardly, and difficult choices to make about when and how and why I should be a coward. I am also asking to have my cowardice thrown in my face as often as is appropriate, so that I must confront that aspect of my character and either accept it for what it is, or grow past it.
(I'm just gonna ramble a bit in 'lecture mode' here- none of this is intended as a specific criticism of you, it just got sparked off by the point you raise. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental, etc. :P)


*ahem*
I feel that a way of reformulating this basic principle is by asking the following questions.

(1) Does the scene have an uncertain outcome in a way that matters?
(2) If so, does the scene's outcome depend on PC choices?
(3) If so, are the PCs' responses going to be less than utterly predictable?

If you answered "No" to any of the above questions, then there is, in a certain sense, no point to bothering the players with that scene at any great length. Either (1) what happens is irrelevant, or (2) the players' characters can't affect it either way, or (3) the players can't provide input without breaking character. So, what a lot of systems do is... skip over it. Fast-forward. Resolve it with one or two rolls by way of rough approximation, if that, and keep the focus on the real players' input.

(Now, if you're a hardcore sim-inclined player, you might break out some dice and resolve things in detail for the sake of completeness, perhaps enlisting the players' co-operation to speed things up and keep the proceedings transparent, and indeed get a real kick out of following the minutiae of cause-and-effect in a 'detached' fashion. I'll admit I'm sometimes very partial to this!)

The Big Dice
2011-04-21, 01:46 PM
The general sense I get from a strict reading of the GURPS rules is that these 'disadvantages' are not intended to be vague- indeed, if they are so vague, how are you supposed to know when they kick in?
Have you read what it says under Code of Honour? It doesn't give you an exhaustive list of tenets to live by. It gives a guideline that is divided up by how much it constrains your behaviour. The more restrictions your code gives you, the more points you get back for it.

But it doesn't tell you what a Chivalric Code of Honour actually is. Because it expects you to decide for yourself when your code applies. And that can vary in different campaigns.


My point is that GURPS, by implication, encourages the GM to not allow these situations, because then the system, as written, grinds to a halt. (I say this as someone who's actually quite fond of GURPS, but I won't pretend it doesn't have serious limitations.)
The limitations GURPS has are nothing to do with limiting your ability to play your character. In fact, I'd say when it comes to playing a character rather than a stat block, GURPS is the most empowering game I have ever played. I don't see how encouraging people to face up to their Disadvantages causes a system built on those same Disadvantages to grind to a halt.

My own decade of playing GURPS 3rd edition disagrees with you. The times the character system breaks down is when people don't play their disadvantages, not when they do.


Okay, what if the prosecution get a subpoena and drag you to the bench as a hostile witness? You can name any two personality-based 'disadvantages' that GURPS can list, and it's almost always possible to imagine a confluence of circumstances where they come into mutual conflict.
You say that like it's a bad thing.

I did not claim the GM was solely responsible. I said that the player needs the GM's help. I absolutely agree that the player is expected to reciprocate by showing a degree of respect for character motivations, but there are ways to encourage that reciprocation without turning motives into knee-jerk reactions that lead to logical paradoxes.
You put the onus squarely on the GM to pander to the characters and for the world to bend to fit them. I ask, why should that be the case?

GURPS is not a game of player entitlement. Sure, you can play it that way if you want, but the default assumption is, the characters will adjust to fit the world by the GM giving them a narrowed down list of options.

And quite frankly, people are complex and contradictory. Why should an RPG not have the capacity to reflect that?


Why, exactly, would you need to roll for self-control against a given disadvantage (such as Curious or Bad Temper,) if they are only there to 'inform' and 'guide' one's actions? And what about all the other disadvantages where you don't even get to make a will save?
You always have the option to fail voluntarily. You only need to roll to resist, not to succumb. And that is why those kind of mental traits are there to inform your choices as a player. I don't have to roll to see if my Bad Tempered character is going to launch into a tirade, unless there is a reason not to at that time. And then the dice give me the uncertainty factor. I don't need to roll to see if my Curious character can resist pressing the button labelled "DO NOT PRESS" unless there is a reason not to want to press it.

Again I say, GURPS assumes a certain level of maturity from it's players. It is not there to tell you how to play, it is there to give you a toolkit you can customise to fit the way you want to play.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-21, 04:40 PM
But it doesn't tell you what a Chivalric Code of Honour actually is. Because it expects you to decide for yourself when your code applies. And that can vary in different campaigns.
Yes, but my point is, once you decide what your personal Code of Honour is, it's no longer vague.

I don't see how encouraging people to face up to their Disadvantages causes a system built on those same Disadvantages to grind to a halt...
The limitations GURPS has are nothing to do with limiting your ability to play your character.
Big Dice, I'm not certain you're listening to me. When your character is in a situation where their formalised motives indicate contradictory responses, and the system demands (either 100% of the time, or as a result of just-falled dice rolls,) that the character adhere stringently to both those motives, then satisfying the demands of the system becomes logically impossible.

You say that like [moral conflict is] a bad thing.
It's not an inherently bad thing. At all. But the point I am making is that GURPS's basic mechanics can lead to logic paradoxes in these situations, where the character is obliged to both do X and Not X.

If the rules just stated, up front, that if two or more disadvantages contradict eachother in a given situation, then the player is free to choose between them at his/her discretion, then that would be fine. (Or, you could even have a system where you pitted motives against eachother in some kind of numeric contest.) But to my knowledge it does not say that.

And quite frankly, people are complex and contradictory. Why should an RPG not have the capacity to reflect that?
GURPS doesn't reflect that. That is my entire point. In order for the system to function at all, the players and the GM have to arrange that no situation could ever arise that will cause the character to feel internally conflicted.

You put the onus squarely on the GM to pander to the characters and for the world to bend to fit them. I ask, why should that be the case?
Again, I really feel that this is missing the point. If the internal causal integrity of the world is really your first and foremost concern, then yes, deliberately distorting events to reflect on the PCs' ethical profiles could be interpreted as 'pandering' to the characters. But so, too, is deliberately avoiding any situation that would trigger an internal conflict of motive, which GURPS basically requires in order to function at all. That's still 'pandering', just to a different breed of player.

Look, I don't want to turn this into an extended GURPS-bashing session. I enjoy it in the same way I like Star Trek: TNG- well-intentioned, and mostly good clean fun, even if the characters are a little bland and the action gets weighed down by gratuitous technobabble now and then. But you couldn't easily use GURPS to model something like Deep Space Nine.

Conners
2011-04-22, 12:54 AM
The main problem I see with DnD, is "Encounters". Mechanics based around the premise that your character will be forced to enter a fight with enemies calculated to a certain CR. Also, the only way to advance, unless your GM works out their own mechanics, is to kill enemies in these encounters.

Want to increase your skill in lockpicking? Go and shoot some kobolds with arrows!
Sneak around the guards, and miss out on the XP they give? No way!

The system basically requires you to have knightly battles, even if you aren't a knight and aren't fighting knights. Especially this is the case, when you consider HP works more like heavily armoured knights--even if the fighters you're up against are naked (Sneak Attacks barely have the level of usefulness you'd expect, for this reason).

Ravens_cry
2011-04-22, 01:54 AM
No.
You only have to solve the problem to get XP from an encounter. This problem is generally survival and their are several ways you can win at surviving.
You can . . .
Sneak around it.
Talk it into letting past.
The above with bribery.
The above with menaces.
The above with lies.
The wizard does something non-lethal that gets you past. Lots of options there.
See? Killing isn't the only option to win an encounter. If your DM refuses to give you XP for solving the problem but instead only for killing, well, they are just being mean.

BayardSPSR
2011-04-22, 02:12 AM
If your DM refuses to give you XP for solving the problem but instead only for killing, well, they are just being mean.

The DM of the only two games of D&D I ever played did this. Don't blame the DM so much, though; there seems to be a strong implication (emphasized by MMORPG traditions) to equate XP with murder. Me being me, I of course blame D&D for that trend.


To respond to the OP: giving up on D&D is the right decision if the lack of RP in your G is frustrating you. The System I Play is pretty good at keeping the same premise (players are heroes in a fantasy world) with more of a focus on the RP side without being so rules-light that you the rules don't reward tactics.

Unfortunately, it is homebrew, so you can't find the rules in a store.

Fortunately, it is free. If you're interested, email [email protected], and they'll get back to you within a few days. The main rules document's only about ten pages long.

Knaight
2011-04-22, 02:55 AM
See? Killing isn't the only option to win an encounter. If your DM refuses to give you XP for solving the problem but instead only for killing, well, they are just being mean.
Of course, it is still based around problem solving, meaning that it breaks down a bit once problem solving is relegating to secondary or lower goals, after such things as playing a character.

Conners
2011-04-22, 02:55 AM
No.
You only have to solve the problem to get XP from an encounter. This problem is generally survival and their are several ways you can win at surviving.
You can . . .
Sneak around it.
Talk it into letting past.
The above with bribery.
The above with menaces.
The above with lies.
The wizard does something non-lethal that gets you past. Lots of options there.
See? Killing isn't the only option to win an encounter. If your DM refuses to give you XP for solving the problem but instead only for killing, well, they are just being mean. So, is the CR rating of the twenty golems taken into consideration when you just convince the weak senile ex-wizard (lost his powers somehow) to let you pass? I don't recall any rules in the DMG to that light. They mention rewarding your players XP, I think, but that was it.

I didn't think sneaking around dragons would be so profitable and advancing, either.


Mostly, that's depending on a GM who arranges it contrary to the rule set's main goal. Really, the whole advancement system has been made entirely on the basis of killing monsters and levelling up. This is fine, but they could've focused one of their many add-on books for rules of making other options more usable (like slitting someone's throat doing more than 14 points of damage).

You can change the rules around to do things so that the broken diplomacy system and stealth have point to them... just that it seems like you may as well make a system from scratch at that rate.

The Big Dice
2011-04-22, 05:01 AM
Big Dice, I'm not certain you're listening to me. When your character is in a situation where their formalised motives indicate contradictory responses, and the system demands (either 100% of the time, or as a result of just-falled dice rolls,) that the character adhere stringently to both those motives, then satisfying the demands of the system becomes logically impossible.
And I am saying that real people find themselves in these kind of situations more often than you might think. And if you're playing a samurai drama game, be it Bushido, Sengoku, L5R or whatever, your character is going to find himself in situations where duty says one thing and morality says another from time to time. The same if you're playing in a military game.

What is wrong with that?

If the rules just stated, up front, that if two or more disadvantages contradict eachother in a given situation, then the player is free to choose between them at his/her discretion, then that would be fine. (Or, you could even have a system where you pitted motives against eachother in some kind of numeric contest.) But to my knowledge it does not say that.
Rules, rules, rules. Why is it so hard to accept that an RPG doesn't have to tell you how to interpret every single situation you might find in play? Have you ever been in a situation where you want to do something, but you know you shouldn't? For a normal person that could be, should I order dessert? My [Gluttony] Disadvantage says, "Yes, order dessert and get extra cream with it!" My [Miserly] Disadvantage says, "No because ordering dessert will cost more money. And that extra cream will cost even more!"

This is a more prosaic and banal version of the exact situation you say should be avoided and the GURPS utterly fails to deal with. And I say that GURPS seeks to model the real world as well as an RPG can. Real people can feel conflicted and have to choose the lesser of two evils from time to time. Why should GURPS characters never be in that situation?


GURPS doesn't reflect that. That is my entire point. In order for the system to function at all, the players and the GM have to arrange that no situation could ever arise that will cause the character to feel internally conflicted.
Why should a character never have an internal conflict? Why should a character never have to choose between love and duty, between greed and responsibility? I think you're missing a huge point about just how sphisticated character building in GURPS actually is.


Look, I don't want to turn this into an extended GURPS-bashing session. I enjoy it in the same way I like Star Trek: TNG- well-intentioned, and mostly good clean fun, even if the characters are a little bland and the action gets weighed down by gratuitous technobabble now and then. But you couldn't easily use GURPS to model something like Deep Space Nine.
I don't see why you couldn't use GURPS to model DS9. All the ingredients are there, assuming you find or homebrew ways of dealing with things like the alien races and tech that's unique to Star Trek. Other than that, all the ingredients are there.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-22, 05:32 AM
Why should a character never have an internal conflict? Why should a character never have to choose between love and duty, between greed and responsibility?...

And I am saying that real people find themselves in these kind of situations more often than you might think.... where duty says one thing and morality says another from time to time. The same if you're playing in a military game.

What is wrong with that?
Once more, there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. {Scrubbed} GURPS cannot handle these situations because a literal interpretation of how disadvantages are modelled means that the player is considered to be a 'bad role-player' no matter how they respond here (possibly involving a loss of CP for their trouble.) They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Again, quoting from the GURPS Lite text:

At the end of each play session, the GM should award bonus character points for good play. “Good play” is anything that advances the heroes’ mission or shows good roleplaying – preferably both. But roleplaying trumps mission success! If a player did something totally outside his character’s personality (for instance, if a total coward performed a brave act), this should not be worth any points, even if it saved the day for the rest of the group!

A literal reading of the GURPS rules indicates that the game actively punishes character development. Anything you do in contravention of your personality profile takes away CP, and you have to pay CP in order to negate disadvantages (so that the capacity to modify one's personality apparently implies some kind of learning disability when it comes to directly useful skills.)

This is why I think GURPS would not be well-suited to handling a Deep Space Nine-type campaign, because it involves many characters that undergo conflict of inner motives and development of personality over time. You can get that in GURPS, but you'll either have to fight the system all the way, or override the rules-as-written, in which case you are no longer playing GURPS.

This is a more prosaic and banal version of the exact situation you say should be avoided and the GURPS utterly fails to deal with.
I am not saying these situations 'should' be avoided, I am saying that the standard GURPS rules require these situations be avoided in order for the rules to make any sense. I don't consider that requirement to be a virtue! Quite the opposite! My point is that this is a serious limitation of those rules.

Now, if you, personally, as a GM, have house-ruled things differently- so that the players are free to choose whatever response seems apt to them under the circumstances, without reproach or penalty- then well and good. Great. But then you are no longer playing by standard GURPS rules. That is not a bad thing! That is arguably a very good thing! But it does not say much for GURPS's claim as 'Generic Universal' system that you have to rewrite the rules in order to cater to your group's needs.

...I don't think this argument is likely to go anywhere further without retreading the same ground.

profitofrage
2011-04-22, 06:32 AM
This is perhaps one reason I really like DH.
Its XP system is based on time played. You gain 200 or so xp per session, the only way to change that is to do something the GM likes enough to think you deserve a reward (or alternativly piss him off and lose xp).
I think any system that rewards players for specific actions only encourages mechanical thinking. "Im doing this for the XP" e.t.c
Where as in a system where the XP componant is already handled they only have to worry about the task at hand i.e playing the game.

The Big Dice
2011-04-22, 07:28 AM
Once more, there is nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} GURPS cannot handle these situations because a literal interpretation of how disadvantages are modelled means that the player is considered to be a 'bad role-player' no matter how they respond here (possibly involving a loss of CP for their trouble.) They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
I'm listening to you, but you are adamant that your interpretation is the only valid one. Where exactly does it say that having conflicting disadvantages means you are a bad roleplayer? Being damned if you do and damned if you don't is exactly the kind of situation Disadvantages are supposed to create. In every game that uses them.

Again, quoting from the GURPS Lite text:

At the end of each play session, the GM should award bonus character points for good play. “Good play” is anything that advances the heroes’ mission or shows good roleplaying – preferably both. But roleplaying trumps mission success! If a player did something totally outside his character’s personality (for instance, if a total coward performed a brave act), this should not be worth any points, even if it saved the day for the rest of the group!
Exactly how does that support your position? You are putting your own interpretation onto that extract, with the unfortunate filter of being a slave to the rules. The bolded text is the key here. The whole point of Disadvantages is to encourage roleplaying. Implicit in this extract from a highly stripped down source, which is designed as a primer and not the full text, is the concept that the roleplaying is the most important consideration.

That Coward that performs a brave act should not be rewarded if he doesn't play out his Cowardice. You are taking the text to mean that not playing your Disadvantages is "bad" and therefore the system is failing. But the truth is deeper. The system isn't there to think for you, it acknowledges the human factor.

A literal reading of the GURPS rules indicates that the game actively punishes character development. Anything you do in contravention of your personality profile takes away CP, and you have to pay CP in order to negate disadvantages (so that the capacity to modify one's personality apparently implies some kind of learning disability when it comes to directly useful skills.)
What? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Especially as you claim to like GURPS. I'm starting to think your experience of the system is limited to GURPS Lite. Which frankly is great for demo games and not much else.

Ignoring your Disadvantages, not acting despite them, is where you are getting confused. Being brave despite cowardice, being kind despite cruelty, holding your temper when in important person insults you. By your definition, these are all acting outside your personality profile. But I would say that they are roleplayed Disadvantages. As long as the player acts in a way that shows some kind of internal struggle. Perhaps falling back on the dice to make difficult decisions, perhaps using his own roleplaying skills to show the conflict.

You say that you have to "pay to negate Disadvantages" which I presume is a reference to buying them off in play. Remember, these Disadvantages gave you bonus points during character creation. The paying off of the Disadvantage is paying off the bonus CP, or CP debt even, that you gained. You want to lose the effects, then you have to return the "game mechanic currency" loan you took out by taking that Disadvantage.

Again, your understanding of the mechanics involved seems based on conclusions drawn from a free sample, not from actual game play experience.


This is why I think GURPS would not be well-suited to handling a Deep Space Nine-type campaign, because it involves many characters that undergo conflict of inner motives and development of personality over time. You can get that in GURPS, but you'll either have to fight the system all the way, or override the rules-as-written, in which case you are no longer playing GURPS.
You don't have to fight, or override anything to get conflicted characters in GURPS. Play the game with players of a mature disposition. People who are interested in a character rather than a dysfunctional psychopath. Using your DS9 analogy, Ben Sisko has a Duty to Star Fleet, a heavy one. Probably the maximum points, with the Extreme Hazard bonus on top. And he also has a Destiny from the Prophets. At times, the two come into conflict. It's not a problem, though. Conflict is the root source of drama. And drama makes for more involving roleplay. Well, in-character drama can.

Another DS9 character, Major Kira. She has a strong Loyalty to her homeworld. But she also has a powerful Sense of Duty binding her to Sisko and his Star Fleet crew. They come into conflict from time to time, too.

In fact every character on DS9 can be defined in terms of GURPS far more easily than they can be defined in terms of most RPGs.


I am not saying these situations 'should' be avoided, I am saying that the standard GURPS rules require these situations be avoided in order for the rules to make any sense. I don't consider that requirement to be a virtue! Quite the opposite! My point is that this is a serious limitation of those rules.
And I am saying you're ignoring the potential for character driven drama and having to make tough descisions that is implicit in the system. I'm saying that in many ways, you are so focussed on what is on the page that you can't see the wood for the trees.

Now, if you, personally, as a GM, have house-ruled things differently- so that the players are free to choose whatever response seems apt to them under the circumstances, without reproach or penalty- then well and good. Great. But then you are no longer playing by standard GURPS rules. That is not a bad thing! That is arguably a very good thing! But it does not say much for GURPS's claim as 'Generic Universal' system that you have to rewrite the rules in order to cater to your group's needs.

...I don't think this argument is likely to go anywhere further without retreading the same ground.
There's no need at all to rewrite rules. GURPS is built on the idea that characters will take conflicting Disadvantages. Heck, my personal favourite (and so powerful I had to retire him) GURPS character was a Wizard who was an abject coward, had a morbid fear of heights and a deep sense of curiosity. The fact that I could play a character with powerful personality traits like that and not only have fun, but get to a point where he was literally disrupting the fun for everyone else at the table speaks volumes.

You're taking things far too literally and not really seeing the potential for internal character conflict that GURPS allows.

Ravens_cry
2011-04-22, 11:06 AM
So, is the CR rating of the twenty golems taken into consideration when you just convince the weak senile ex-wizard (lost his powers somehow) to let you pass? I don't recall any rules in the DMG to that light. They mention rewarding your players XP, I think, but that was it.

I didn't think sneaking around dragons would be so profitable and advancing, either.

If he was the one controlling the golems, then yes,if the goal was "get past the golems" If the task was to stop the dragon that was rampaging the countryside, then no, sneaking past does not solve the problem. However, if you can convince it to leave the area by some means, render it harmless, then yes, full XP. If the goal was merely to survive to go beyond, sneaking past is worth full XP. Look up the first page on Chapter 7 in the DMG. It talks, briefly, about overcoming challenges does not for certain mean killing, with the example being defeating a Minotaur encounter by sneaking around it.


Mostly, that's depending on a GM who arranges it contrary to the rule set's main goal. Really, the whole advancement system has been made entirely on the basis of killing monsters and levelling up. This is fine, but they could've focused one of their many add-on books for rules of making other options more usable (like slitting someone's throat doing more than 14 points of damage).

You can change the rules around to do things so that the broken diplomacy system and stealth have point to them... just that it seems like you may as well make a system from scratch at that rate.

Combat is the main focus of D&D, but even D&D allows many options besides "kill 'em all." Also, why you are doping it is as varied as any story. Revenge, wealth, a thirst for power, for great justice, all those and more motivations can be seen in a single party. If the rules focus mainly on combat, that is because that is the part most in need of rules. You don't need a latrine digging system, or a feild ploughing table to roll on for most Fantasy games. Talking to other characters doesn't need many rules either, merely some to help players to play characters they are not. Combat needs more because it is more contentious, it is, literally ,for the characters a matter of life and death.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-22, 11:31 AM
Another DS9 character, Major Kira. She has a strong Loyalty to her homeworld. But she also has a powerful Sense of Duty binding her to Sisko and his Star Fleet crew. They come into conflict from time to time, too.
Yes. Indeed they do. Unfortunately, by a literal interpretation of standard GURPS rules, whenever her Loyalty to Bajor conflicts with her Duty to Sisko, her character should, logically, be deprived of CP for 'breaking character'. Whatever action she takes here is technically inconsistent with her formal personality profile.

You say that you have to "pay to negate Disadvantages" which I presume is a reference to buying them off in play. Remember, these Disadvantages gave you bonus points during character creation...
I am familiar with the process, yes. There's simply no logical in-character reason why changing personality should make you a slow learner. You shouldn't be using mechanical advantages to bribe players into defining character personality, because that subsequently puts the two in direct competition with eachother.

Being brave despite cowardice, being kind despite cruelty, holding your temper when in important person insults you. By your definition, these are all acting outside your personality profile. But I would say that they are roleplayed Disadvantages.
Not according to the GURPS definition. According to the GURPS definition, good role-playing consists of giving into those urges. It says absolutely nothing about resisting them being good role-play, and in many cases stresses the idea that you are not allowed to act against them, ever.

Code of Honor (Gentleman’s): Never break your word. Never ignore an insult to yourself, a lady, or your flag; insults may only be wiped out by an apology or a duel (not necessarily to the death!). Never take advantage of an opponent in any way; weapons and circumstances must be equal (except in open war).

Not 'sometimes', 'most of the time', 'unless you have overwhelming contrary motivation', etc. 'Never'. Not ever. This applies all the time, period. This is not ambiguous or equivocal phrasing.

There's no need at all to rewrite rules.
You already are rewriting the rules, just by allowing characters to act against their 'disadvantages' whenever it seems dramatically appropriate. If there is a section of the standard GURPS rules-text that explicitly states "it is okay to violate your disadvantages in <insert appropriate situations>", then quote it to me. But I don't think it exists. You simply made it up.

None of that is bad! It may very well be wonderful for your group! But you are not playing standard GURPS!

Hecuba
2011-04-22, 12:17 PM
Okay, what if the prosecution get a subpoena and drag you to the bench as a hostile witness? You can name any two personality-based 'disadvantages' that GURPS can list, and it's almost always possible to imagine a confluence of circumstances where they come into mutual conflict.

Then you refuse to answer and accept the judgment of contempt.

Bang!
2011-04-22, 12:38 PM
Talking to other characters doesn't need many rules either, merely some to help players to play characters they are not. Combat needs more because it is more contentious, it is, literally ,for the characters a matter of life and death.Well, yes. Combat is where life-and-death decisions are made in the fighting and war genres.

In other areas, like investigative or spy fiction, it's the interactions between characters which have the highest stakes. Characters talk to each other to determine who lives and dies. Any shooting or violence is basically procedural. Many rpgs emphasize the interpersonal and characterizing aspects of a game, which are the key elements of non-fighting-centered games.

Combat gets the majority of the rules in D&D because combat needs the most rules in D&D because D&D is a thinly-veiled wargame (specifically, an evolved Chainmail). It's totally possible to roleplay in D&D, but the system doesn't do anything to help. D&D's design focus has always been on killing goblins rather than (and sometimes at the expense of) developing characters or creating an interesting narrative.

It's hard to differentiate the product from the medium. I totally thought D&D was as good at roleplaying as any other game until I started reading some of the alternatives. Just as counterexamples, to see the design decisions made in D&D: Dogs in the Vineyard uses a character's values as a source of power in conflict resolution, clearly putting characterization ahead of battle tactics, even in matters of life and death; Dust Devils is completely focused around character development and storytelling, everything else is secondary; Fiasco is about building a complex story, regardless of metagame goals for a character's success or advancement (it actually encourages players to undermine their characters for the sake of an interesting downfall).

Just for clarification, I'm not trying to attack D&D. It's good at what it does, which is rules-heavy fantasy dungeoncrawls. The designers just don't pay much attention to roleplaying, except as a way of filling the gaps between fights. That's not a bad thing.

kyoryu
2011-04-22, 03:07 PM
Code of Honor (Gentleman’s): Never break your word. Never ignore an insult to yourself, a lady, or your flag; insults may only be wiped out by an apology or a duel (not necessarily to the death!). Never take advantage of an opponent in any way; weapons and circumstances must be equal (except in open war).

Not 'sometimes', 'most of the time', 'unless you have overwhelming contrary motivation', etc. 'Never'. Not ever. This applies all the time, period. This is not ambiguous or equivocal phrasing.


And that's pretty typical wording for, in non-game terms, a gentleman's code of honor. If you do those things, you have broken the Code of Honor, and there is no getting around that.

But some of the wording in the description of the Code of Honor disadvantage itself suggests that characters *can* break their Code of Honor.



You will do nearly anything – perhaps even risk death – to avoid the label “dishonorable” (whatever that means to you).


The phrase "nearly anything" itself implies that there are circumstances where the character *may* break the code.

Also,



A formal Code that applies all the time, or that requires suicide if broken, is worth -15 points.


Again, note that this wording *implies* that even the most strict code may be broken, but that there'd be consequences for doing so.

It's a lot like the Paladin's code in 3.x and prior versions. It doesn't *stop* a Paladin from committing an Evil act, but it does specify that there are consequences.

Typically, the way this would work in GURPS is that a character casually violating the code would take an XP penalty, based on the judgement of the GM. A character who breaks the code under extreme duress, and goes through appropriate hand-wringing, might get an XP bonus.

Personally, if running a game, if someone broke their code of honor, I would ensure that there was appropriate social reactions to their breaking the CoH. If they continually and flagrantly broke it, I'd remove the CoH from their sheet (since they're clearly ignoring it, they should get no points from it) and replace it with an equivalent *or greater* number of social disadvantages stemming from breaking the Code.

Most things in GURPS roleplaying are subject to "as defined by the players/GM". It's not a horribly legalistic system in that regard - it doesn't typically use mechanics to enforce player actions, but rather to inform them, and give the GM a guideline for what is or is not good roleplaying for the character. There are some exceptions to this, usually around mental compulsions where the character *literally* cannot control them. A Code of Honor does not fit this case.

And while GURPS does tell GMs to reward roleplaying, it does not define roleplaying as following a specific set of actions. Ultimately, the definition of "good roleplaying" is left to GM's discretion.

Conners
2011-04-22, 03:19 PM
If he was the one controlling the golems, then yes,if the goal was "get past the golems" If the task was to stop the dragon that was rampaging the countryside, then no, sneaking past does not solve the problem. However, if you can convince it to leave the area by some means, render it harmless, then yes, full XP. If the goal was merely to survive to go beyond, sneaking past is worth full XP. Look up the first page on Chapter 7 in the DMG. It talks, briefly, about overcoming challenges does not for certain mean killing, with the example being defeating a Minotaur encounter by sneaking around it.


Combat is the main focus of D&D, but even D&D allows many options besides "kill 'em all." Also, why you are doping it is as varied as any story. Revenge, wealth, a thirst for power, for great justice, all those and more motivations can be seen in a single party. If the rules focus mainly on combat, that is because that is the part most in need of rules. You don't need a latrine digging system, or a feild ploughing table to roll on for most Fantasy games. Talking to other characters doesn't need many rules either, merely some to help players to play characters they are not. Combat needs more because it is more contentious, it is, literally ,for the characters a matter of life and death. While I see that the cost of failure is pretty steep, when the DC11 Diplomacy checks rolls a 1 and all the golems attack--but none the less that is too much experience wouldn't you say (GM: "Congratulations! You level up!" Players: "Convincing the crazy old man we're just a figment of his imagination levels us up...?")? It'd make more sense to just get experience appropriate to how challenging the GM wants to make things, if they need excuses to give it to you, or it really doesn't matter how a situation is dealt with.


Either way, this swings back to the point I make: Yes, you can do it. You can make rules for it, or just do it on common-sense. But then, really, the same could be done with just about any game--even single-player computer ones!
To an extent, roleplay doesn't need rules... However, with DnD, you need to make exceptions and judgements against the rules and ignore the rules at different times (otherwise, you can't slit a high-level hostage's throat in less than a minute, a Diplomacy-focused Bard can make the King his slave, and all sorts of other problem big and small).

Samurai Jill
2011-04-23, 05:39 AM
Typically, the way this would work in GURPS is that a character casually violating the code would take an XP penalty, based on the judgement of the GM. A character who breaks the code under extreme duress, and goes through appropriate hand-wringing, might get an XP bonus.
Again, I don't see anything in the rules to suggest this is what should happen, and a great deal to suggest the contrary interpretation. FWIW, it also doesn't especially match up with my own experience of the system in play.

And while GURPS does tell GMs to reward roleplaying, it does not define roleplaying as following a specific set of actions.
It absolutely does define role-playing as following a specific set of actions. That's the whole purpose to how mental disadvantages are set up.

Look, this isn't to say that you can't get certain forms of role-play within GURPS- in the sense of making sacrifices or inviting complications for the sake of particular motives or beliefs. But drama and character development are not particularly well-supported by the system, and that is a significant limitation if you want to maximise the RP in your RPG.

The Big Dice
2011-04-23, 06:57 AM
Not according to the GURPS definition. According to the GURPS definition, good role-playing consists of giving into those urges. It says absolutely nothing about resisting them being good role-play, and in many cases stresses the idea that you are not allowed to act against them, ever.
If this were the case, there would be no option to rsist those urges. You really are missing the point, favouring a literalist and self limiting view over the idea that a character with flaws can struggle to overcome them. Which in the end is going to put you at odds with everyone else (http://ptgptb.org/0002/alltheboys.html). Do you understand the idea that a Disadvantage is only a Disadvantage if it is tested? You seem to, but you aren't fully grokking the idea that having a Disadvantage doesn't mean giving in to it.

If I am playing up one aspect of a character and downplaying another at one time, then in a different situation I play up the aspect I formerly played down, is this inherently bad roleplaying by GURPS standards?

Your opinion is yes it is, you have to satisfy all criteria at all times, no exceptions. I say that GURPS is far more sophisticated than you give it credit for.

Code of Honor (Gentleman’s): Never break your word. Never ignore an insult to yourself, a lady, or your flag; insults may only be wiped out by an apology or a duel (not necessarily to the death!). Never take advantage of an opponent in any way; weapons and circumstances must be equal (except in open war).

Not 'sometimes', 'most of the time', 'unless you have overwhelming contrary motivation', etc. 'Never'. Not ever. This applies all the time, period. This is not ambiguous or equivocal phrasing.
You ignore the possibility of accepting dishonour in order to live up to another aspect of your character. The point of a Code of Honour is to direct your actions. And to be broken when the code demands it. Sometimes there are no right or wrong answers, and GURPS does a great job of sitting in that grey area that you are adamant that it can't fill.

Using Star Trek as an example, there's a moment in First Contact that, according to your interpretation of GURPS, means that Data acted out of character. When he tells Picard, to hell with Star Fleet orders. Or, in GURPS terms, he chooses his Sense of Duty over his Duty.

Your argument would be that by not simultaneously meeting the requirements of all his Disadvantages, Data is, by GURPS standards, not roleplaying well. To which I say, conflicting desires and motivations make for more interesting characters.

You seem to want people to play an equation rather than a person.

lYou[/url] already are rewriting the rules, just by allowing characters to act against their 'disadvantages' whenever it seems dramatically appropriate. If there is a section of the standard GURPS rules-text that explicitly states "it is okay to violate your disadvantages in <insert appropriate situations>", then quote it to me. But I don't think it exists. You simply made it up.
There are mechanical consequences to your character for going against his Disadvantages. Therefore, if you act against something on your sheet, the game includes potential consequences for that. In other words, the game has already allowed for that possibility and left the outcome entirely in the hands of the GM.

Nowhere does it say you can't accept the consequences for acting against your Disadvantages. And in the case of Disadvantages that you can roll to resist, you should act against them as often as the dice let you. The whole point of things like Alcoholism and Bloodlust is that they are difficulties for the hero to be heroic despite them rather than because of them.

And because the final decision on whether or not you acted out of character lies with the GM, the factors of differing in game situations and combinations of Disadvantages can be handled as each group needs.


It absolutely does define role-playing as following a specific set of actions. That's the whole purpose to how mental disadvantages are set up.
No. GURPS Basic Set 3rd editon revised defines roleplaying thusly:

Part of the object of a roleplaying game is to have each player meet the situation as the character would. A roleplaying game can let a player take the part of a stern Japanese samurai, a medieval jester, a wise priest, a stowaway gutter kid on her first star-trip . . . or absolutely anyone else. In a given situation, all those characters would react differently. And that's what roleplaying is about!
If a character has conflicting drives, that isn't a problem unless you make it one.

But drama and character development are not particularly well-supported by the system, and that is a significant limitation if you want to maximise the RP in your RPG.
I'm sorry, but no. Maybe in GNS terms drama and character development aren't possible in GURPS. But then, GURPS is the kind of game that Ron Edwards was describing when he said some games will give you brain damage if you try to play them. It allows for complex mechanical interactions of rule constructs as well as it allows for fast and dirty character driven play.

The only limitation on RP in your gaming group is people trying to impose limits on the RP of your group. Some games don't have rules for RP, because they don't think something so inherent to the nature of the hobby needs them. Sure, rules for social interactions are useful. But if you have to be a slave to The Book when it comes to playing a complex, layered character with subtle and conflicted motivations, there's a problem.

And I'm not sure it's with the games you're playing.

Samurai Jill
2011-04-23, 09:30 AM
If this were the case, there would be no option to rsist those urges. You really are missing the point, favouring a literalist and self limiting view over the idea that a character with flaws can struggle to overcome them...
Big Dice, for the third or fourth time, I am not advocating that a character should be obliged to adhere to a fixed stimulus-response pattern at all time and under all circumstances. I am saying that this is the approach that the default reading of the default GURPS rules encourage, and that this is a potential problem.

I absolutely agree that characters with flaws- though whether a Code of Honour should be described as a 'flaw' is debatable- should be able to struggle to overcome them. The problem, in GURPS, is that the rules-as-written make this struggle twofold- the emotional struggle of the character facing difficult circumstances AND the mechanical struggle of the player who has to suffer loss of character points in order to be allowed to modify their character's formalised personality or break with it, no matter how great the dramatic compulsion. Character development is not rewarded- it is explicitly, mechanically, penalised.

Now, if you, as a GM, have chosen to waive that default interpretation in favour of something more accommodating, well and good. But that is not a virtue of GURPS as a system, but of you as a GM. Two entirely separate things.

The Big Dice
2011-04-23, 03:04 PM
I've spent an afternoon scouring my GURPS 3rd edition basic set and I can't find anything to support your view of the game. There's that one sentence about a cowardly character acting courageously. But in the Cowardice Disadvantage, there's a roll to overcome it. With a hefty penalty if the situation is deadly dangerous.

As for character development being punished, that is simply not the case. Overcoming a condition that has placed (sometimes severe) restrictions on character behavious isn't a "learning disorder" and nor is it penalising you for your character changing. In mechanical terms, it is still increasing your Points value by the same amount as the Disadvantage that you bought off.

In other words, you take a restriction on the way your character can act during character creation, then through the investment of earned Character Points, you are able to pay off that debt. That's not penalising you in the slightest. That is maintaining parity.

Think about this, a standard GURPS 3rd ed character starts with a points value of 100. You take up to 40 points worth of Disadvantages and up to 5 points worth of Quirks. Those negative points values give you extra points to spend on your character. So when you buy them off, you are still increasing your points total, but with effect of removing a negative effect rather than increasing a Skill.

So in other words, your character is growing both in roleplaying and mechanical terms, just not in combat efficiency.

Denomar
2011-04-23, 06:49 PM
I think that D&D is still a good system for roleplaying. It just might need a few....pushes in the right direction.

For example. The bread and butter of any roleplay I've ever taken part in or run has always been interaction. However, this can be difficult when there's actually a statistic on your character sheet that can automate the process. So what I did is when I started running a campaign I told my players that there was no diplomacy, bluff, or sense motive skill. If they wanted to try and convince someone of something than they'd have to actually Roleplay It. I think its led to some nice character development.

Secondly. Whenever there's the possibility to make the game degenerate into a math fest I tend to cut some corners as well. In this case what I do is as the DM I am the only one to record and keep track of people's hitpoints, its up to me to try and make someone understand how badly they've been hurt or whether they've been knocked unconscious. Before this the game would get bogged down by players who were terrified of doing anything because they only had two hitpoints left!

If your problem really is limited to violence and such than it would probably be simpler to think about the story you are weaving rather than the system it takes place in. I'm sure you could use mutants and masterminds to run a game about a Hamburger joint and the endless crusade to reclaim your parking spots from the pet store next door.

Tiki Snakes
2011-04-23, 07:52 PM
There are mechanical consequences to your character for going against his Disadvantages. Therefore, if you act against something on your sheet, the game includes potential consequences for that. In other words, the game has already allowed for that possibility and left the outcome entirely in the hands of the GM.


Just to try and cut to the core of this back-and-forth (and for what it's worth, I've not read the gurps rules nor do I really have an opinion on them), here's my 2cents.

As far as I can see, the crux is in your comment here, Big Dice.

If you go against your Disadvantages, there are consequences, right? Negative ones, for going against something that you took as a penalty in exchange for a bonus, if I'm following.
I believe the point being made is, if there are negative consequences for going against your Disadvantage, it can be argued that the system itself views going against your disadvantages as 'Bad RP'. But within the system, it is possible apparently to be put in a situation where you MUST break one or the other disadvantage, leaving no 'Good RP' option, by strict RAW.

Whether or not that is a valid reading of RAW I couldn't say, and you both seem to agree both that conflicting character elements causing hard choices and Star Trek are both good things.

Everything else seems secondary to the above issue, really.

Strangefate
2011-04-23, 09:09 PM
No edition of DnD encourages roleplaying. The whole game is built on the dungeon crawl format. 3.5e is still built on that foundation with a ton of additional rules and changes made in response to player complaints over the years. 4e in turn was built on the foundation of 3.5e, which had introduced elements like powers and feats linked to grid-based combat as a way to balance the classes. 4e decided to make grid combat itself the focus of the game.

Roleplay is just a side element in DnD. Something people choose to do. Some will even swear it’s the most important part. Surely they’re not lying. To them, personally, and probably for the group they play with, that’s what they enjoy most. They’re not using a system that optimizes, encourages, or rewards that though. Which is okay, maybe they don’t need that, maybe all they need is decent combat mechanics.

Recent games like those produced with FATE or Burning Wheel are much more interested in making character the focus of the game. It may be of interest to you look up FUDGE -- the system that inspired FATE -- since it’s available online for free online and is all based entirely around a GM and players building the kind of characters they want to play. It’s very simple and works quite well for most types of games. The exception? The dungeon crawl. It’s not especially great at that sort of thing…DnD kinda has that market cornered.

Not making roleplay a necessity is probably one of DnD's longterm strenghs actually. It can be purely gamist in nature, like a video game, kill the monsters, collect the loot, rinse, repeat. Not everyone wants to be an actor or storyteller, after all. Those people can still enjoy DnD. Not so much with Fate or BW where character is key.

stainboy
2011-04-24, 12:26 AM
No edition of DnD encourages roleplaying. The whole game is built on the dungeon crawl format.

People use the word roleplaying to mean two different things:

A. Describing a World. Specifically a world that matters beyond the game mechanics. Game mechanics serve to help establish the world, not the other way around.

B. Exploring Character Motivations. Players are rewarded for developing a character rather than making purely tactical decisions.

The claim that 4e does not support roleplaying is based on A. The claim that no edition of D&D supports roleplaying is based on B, and was originally brought up by 4e defenders to sidetrack an argument about A. So in the interest of discussing roleplaying without constant derails whenever one person reads roleplaying as A and another reads roleplaying as B, it would probably be best not to use the word "roleplaying."

(@Stranglefate: If this sounds like it's directed at you specifically, it's not. I'm just quoting to show relevance.)



Recent games like those produced with FATE or Burning Wheel are much more interested in making character the focus of the game. It may be of interest to you look up FUDGE -- the system that inspired FATE -- since it’s available online for free online and is all based entirely around a GM and players building the kind of characters they want to play. It’s very simple and works quite well for most types of games. The exception? The dungeon crawl. It’s not especially great at that sort of thing…DnD kinda has that market cornered.

It's hard to look at Burning Wheel as a template for supporting character-driven play in other games. Burning Wheel makes some design choices that would be gigantic steps backward in a traditional RPG. Having the players and the GM literally play against each other would turn D&D or Shadowrun into a straight-up wargame.

I'm not saying those decisions don't work in Burning Wheel, just that Burning Wheel is too different to copy its innovations piecemeal.

Britter
2011-04-24, 02:55 AM
I'm not saying those decisions don't work in Burning Wheel, just that Burning Wheel is too different to copy its innovations piecemeal.

I am a big BW proponent, but I absolutely agree with this.

We are dealing with a bigger issue than just encouraging Role Playing once we start into the subject of how to make a system encourage Role Playing. Although you can hack some aspects of BW/Fate/Fudge/whatever into other types of game, the actual design of the games doesn't support some of the methods associated with, say, BW.

Let me give a more specific example. I recently played a DnD game with my friend, a great GM and a fellow proponent of BW. We tried to follow the BW principles as much as we could. We found that, without the mechanics of BW's Wises, Resources, and Circles, that the system simply couldn't handle us back-porting BW ideas into it.

In other words, if you want mechanically encouraged and rewarded roleplaying, in the sense of character development (as opposed to increasing in power/level), you need to have a system designed to promote that goal. Most traditional systems don't have that. And that is totally ok, for what they are trying to do.

Pick the right system for what you want. If you want more RP and you want to have a system supporting that, grab one of the systems that does. It is my opinion that most systems don't give that support, because they are designed with other sorts of play in mind.

Conners
2011-04-24, 04:01 AM
In other words, it's like trying to hack a Street Fighter 4 to work like a roleplaying game. Not quite that bad, but you get the idea.

DnD has been built up upon three editions. Building on it more will mean a tower that doesn't match the foundations.

The Big Dice
2011-04-24, 04:30 AM
I believe the point being made is, if there are negative consequences for going against your Disadvantage, it can be argued that the system itself views going against your disadvantages as 'Bad RP'. But within the system, it is possible apparently to be put in a situation where you MUST break one or the other disadvantage, leaving no 'Good RP' option, by strict RAW.

Whether or not that is a valid reading of RAW I couldn't say, and you both seem to agree both that conflicting character elements causing hard choices and Star Trek are both good things.

Everything else seems secondary to the above issue, really.
That's the point exactly. And is also why the GM is left as the final arbiter of what is worthy of penalty and what gets a reward under the rules. Because it's way more sophisticated than a D&D-like "you kill this/deactivate that/figure out the other and you get a specific number of XP."

That's not to say that there aren't flaws with GURPS. It's the gaming equivalent of white rice. That is, it's substantial and it fills you up but it takes effort to make it interesting. Lots of effort.

Britter
2011-04-24, 09:18 AM
In other words, it's like trying to hack a Street Fighter 4 to work like a roleplaying game. Not quite that bad, but you get the idea.



Actually I think that is quite apt as a way to describe the issue.

Rulesets that have mechanical support for role playing create a different set of table behaviors than games that do not. Additionally, I theorize that the behaviors will differ from game to game (my experience with these sorts of games is limited to Burning Wheel. I imagine that Dogs in the Vineyard or Fate/Fudge have their own distinct flavor).

You can see this even in traditional games. My players never approached Shadowrun the same way they approached DnD, for instance. The table behaviors were quite different. But the gap between one traditional game and another is, in my opinion, much smaller than the gap between DnD and Burning Wheel.

Knaight
2011-04-24, 09:27 AM
We are dealing with a bigger issue than just encouraging Role Playing once we start into the subject of how to make a system encourage Role Playing. Although you can hack some aspects of BW/Fate/Fudge/whatever into other types of game, the actual design of the games doesn't support some of the methods associated with, say, BW.

BW and Fate yes. Fudge is really the same style as GURPS, merely far lighter. It is a traditional game.

Britter
2011-04-24, 01:26 PM
BW and Fate yes. Fudge is really the same style as GURPS, merely far lighter. It is a traditional game.

Thanks for the correction Knaight. I have never played it myself, so I was making an assumption.

Knaight
2011-04-24, 01:51 PM
Thanks for the correction Knaight. I have never played it myself, so I was making an assumption.

Huh. I was expecting being chewed out for nitpicking.

Britter
2011-04-24, 02:02 PM
Huh. I was expecting being chewed out for nitpicking.

Nope. For starters you have the experience of the system that I don't, and secondly I am all for precision in these types of discussion, so as to minimize misunderstanding and maximize the clarity of the conversation. If people aren't really clear about what they are trying to say, these sorts of conversations can easily descend into pedantry and pointless side discussions, ime.