PDA

View Full Version : Roleplaying Why a defined structure for Roleplay in an RPG system?



Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 11:59 AM
Warning: I am prone to verbosity, descriptive language, diatribes, and ramblings. I lack the ability to gesticulate through text, so I must compensate somehow... or.... something.

So, I have been looking around these forums for a while now, reading through threads. Reading through threads related to roleplaying, or more specifically; roleplay and how individual systems accommodate it, a recurring theme I see is people saying: if you want lots of roleplay, D&D isn't a good system to use, because there a few, if any, rules relating to roleplay itself, and something like Burning Wheel is a much better choice because of all the ways the system focuses on it. And to be perfectly honest, that makes absolutely no sense to me.

Now before I go on, and for those of you who are still reading and didn't simply read that last sentence then promptly assault the reply button with righteous fury, allow me to clarify my own exposure to RPG systems. I am not one who has only played D&D and am simply having trouble 'thinking outside the box' or comprehending what other systems can offer differently (I do not mean that as a slight against those who are in that position, for myself if I had to pick only 1 system to ever play it would be D&D, and yes I admit my bias to D&D as a system, and yes it is where most of my experience lies). I do have years of experience with D&D 3.0/3.5, only a little of 4.0, and am mainlining 5.0 as of now, Pathfinder only a little, as I surprisingly did not enjoy that, Legend of the Five Rings, The Burning Wheel, Shadowrun, various homebrews (that I did find to be quiet enjoyable, even more so than some established systems I have played), and various other systems whose names I cannot remember.

But I digress, while I am open to a discussion or debate on the proper inclusion and implementation of roleplay into a system in general, the crux of my concern is specifically to ask; why do people feel that a system that has more structure around the roleplaying element of that game is better for roleplay, than one that does not? I do not mean to put words in people's mouths with that statement, it is just what I have taken as the general sentiment, among many, from what I have read.

And in the interest of fairness and disclosure (and in case my opinion has not already become clear), I prefer the D&D method where there is no real structure built into the game around the roleplay aspects of the game.

NichG
2015-12-30, 12:13 PM
I suspect actual opinions about this point are quite varied. Its just that, if you're advising someone on a system, you're not going to write a post saying 'this system is fine, it has no rules for roleplay, so you can do any kind of roleplay you like' - its like describing something by all the things it isn't. So when someone brings it up, they'll almost always going to be doing so from the point of view of wanting that structure and finding it lacking for some reason.

Now, aside from that, the rules that something like D&D has certainly do influence and structure the roleplay. For example, the availability of resurrection as a known quantity is logically going to influence people's ideas about death and the afterlife. The fact that classes are mechanically described in ways which focus on what they can do in a fight means that there's a sort of base-line acceptance of violent methods for conflict resolution, and that spreading those tools widely is a generally accepted thing - if you compare the fraction of spells that have no combat use to the fraction of spells that only really have a use in combat, the former is much smaller than the latter.

So even if you don't have rules for roleplay, the rules you do have are going to influence roleplay. And D&D may not be a good match if you want to roleplay something in the genre of, for example, existential cosmic horror or love stories because the rules will strongly suggest 'if there's a conflict, fighting is generally an option'.

BRC
2015-12-30, 12:23 PM
The issue is Roleplay-as-solution.

What differs a "Game" from a group storytelling exercise/pure Roleplay, is the existence of some sort of objective system to determine success and failure.

"Roll the dice, add the bonuses, compare to the target number". Sure, the DM controls the target number, and can add or remove bonuses, but there is still that dice roll.

With things like Combat, lockpicking, ect, which are much more about execution than ideas, this sort of system works pretty well. Add how good you are at lockpicking + A factor of chance, compare to how good the lock is. As opposed to having the player sit down and mention feeling out the tumblers or whatever ( I don't know how locks work).

But, Conversation, and with it Roleplay, is a different matter. A player CAN think of a good argument or a believable lie. That sort of thing can be done at the table.

But, as a mechanic for overcoming obstacles it falls flat without support. There is no objective standard for determining a convincing argument.
Sure, in D&D, you can roll a Diplomacy check, but that is almost too much structure. Hinging the conversation on a single die roll, even if the DM is good about giving bonuses for good roleplay, drains much of the nuance from the encounter. Especially when a 10-minute in character conversation can get the same result as somebody saying "Okay, but you should really let us past", then roll an 18 with a +12 bonus.

Which is okay for your average murderhobo D&D game, where Diplomacy comes up infrequently enough that a mix of rolling dice and roleplay works. But, if you want to run, say, a courtly intrigue game, where 90% of the action is talking with people, you want a more engaging system.


There is also the question of encouraging good roleplay between party members/outside trying to convince NPCs of things. Games are built as elaborate skinner boxes designed to provide a steady trickle of reward for the things you do. Killing monsters and solving puzzles gets you closer to your goal, picking how to advance your character gets you new bonuses and capabilities. But Roleplay, especially inter-party banter type stuff, while it can be a ton of fun, goes unrewarded. Time spent roleplaying gets you nothing, it would be faster to say "We talk for a while" and skip to the part that the game rewards you for. Having a structure for roleplay turns it into a mechanically rewarding part of the game.

if your goal is to spend 50% of the session roleplaying, you might want a mechanic that rewards you for that time, rather than having to split your time between Roleplay (which is fun), and "Doing things that help you achieve your goals".

mephnick
2015-12-30, 12:36 PM
People who say you don't need rules to role-play are completely missing the point of the argument. Yeah, you don't need rules to role-play, but mechanics of certain systems objectively encourage or discourage role-play. For instance, an important part of game design is reward structure and how it effects player actions. Games like D&D offer no mechanical rewards to a player who role-plays a character consistently. The only "reward" it offers you is inspiration, but since it's rewarded at some vague whim of the DM with no mechanical expectation, it's ability to encourage player actions is mechanically non-existent. Games like Burning Wheel, Pendragon etc mechanically require you to role-play in order to advance the game.

If a game requires the DM and players to put 100% of the workload into role-playing then the system is not designed to encourage role-play. You can still role-play in D&D (I've DMed many great characters) but the system does nothing to encourage this. If a main goal of your group is to have great role-play sessions, D&D simply isn't the best choice. Role-Playing Games require systems that facilitate role-play. That's what the name means. Systems do this in a huge variety of ways to varying effectiveness. D&D dives deep in the Game and less into the Role-Play. That's fine. But to say it's as effective at facilitating role-play as another system is wrong.

Eisenheim
2015-12-30, 12:36 PM
I like games that focus on solving problems in different ways, depending on the character and the situation. When I played D&D, we basically always solved problems with lots of combat and a little wandering around in between.

In systems that have the same amount of rules for non-combat skills like stealth and utility magic as combat, we did more of that.

Now I play fate, which has the same depth of rules for physical combat, sneaking, banking, lockpicking, magic, driving and social manipulation. I like that best because it means we decide how to do things based on what the characters want and are good at, rather than what there are deep rules for.

I don't know what people mean by "rules for roleplay" Everything I do at the table is roleplay. I just like rules that let my character solve problems by social means as much as by violent ones, without the social depending entirely on me convincing the GM and the violent depending only on the dice.

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 01:01 PM
@NichG - While I understand the argument about the genre of the game, I have never seen it matter in practice. If you intend to set up your game as Cosmic Horror, then (unless you missed a step as DM) your players will have already been informed of the kind of game you are playing, and what kind of challenge to expect as well. The thinking here seems to be that 'well you should be playing Call of Cthulhu or something similar that', but even if you are playing that and even though it is designed for Cosmic Horror, you cannot force your players to roleplay amazement, fear or becoming unhinged, they have to do that of their own accord, just as if they were playing D&D

@BRC & mephnick - Your response seems to me to basically boil down to that a system should treat you like Pavlov's Dog, and for a game to do that seems condescending to me (for clarification; that criticism is not directed to you it is directed to the game system). In my experience either a player want/likes to roleplay, or they do not. If they do, then they do not need the system to reward them because they will have fun doing so and that is the true goal for any of us when we sit at the table for a game. If they do not, then the game encouraging (or in the case of Burning Wheel or such; forcing) will bore or anger them

@Eidenheim - We have very different experiences then. Other than with brand new players who have yet to realize the difference between a Tabletop game and Skyrim, players who truly just preferred combat, or when I was a teenager, I have not encountered the same problem where combat was the de facto solution. More often than that we end up trying to use non combat skills in the most absurd circumstances (hey look its the big bad and we have just destroyed everything he loves and foiled his plans, lets spend an hour+ real time trying to just talk to him and solve this peacefully). Maybe I am/have just been lucky.


If I misunderstood or over simplified your point I apologize. Also note, I am naturally a Devil's Advocate and argumentative :smallbiggrin:

BRC
2015-12-30, 01:17 PM
@BRC & mephnick - Your response seems to me to basically boil down to that a system should treat you like Pavlov's Dog, and for a game to do that seems condescending to me (for clarification; that criticism is not directed to you it is directed to the game system). In my experience either a player want/likes to roleplay, or they do not. If they do, then they do not need the system to reward them because they will have fun doing so and that is the true goal for any of us when we sit at the table for a game. If they do not, then the game encouraging (or in the case of Burning Wheel or such; forcing) will bore or anger them


I wasn't saying what a system should DO, I was saying why people might want more structural support for Roleplay.

(Pendantic note: Pavlov's Dog was conditioned to respond to a stimuli. This is more like Skinner's Pigeons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning_chamber), which were conditioned to perform actions to get rewards).
Also, how is it condescending? If people cared only about roleplay, they could just do a Free-form RP.

Some people want to roleplay, but also want the structure that RPGs provide. In a system that has no/little support or reward for Roleplay, you basically have two seperate systems happening.

First, Roleplay, which has no defined mechanical support, or (in the case of D&D), has clunky mechanical support that exists almost entirely independent from the actual meat of roleplaying (Which is to say, saying stuff and making decisions). The only reward for this is the fun of roleplaying.

Second, the mechanical parts of the game, by which progress is measured and rewards are handed out.

It's not that people won't roleplay without reward. They WANT to roleplay, they just want their roleplay to be better integrated into the rest of the game.

There is also those systems that reward roleplaying character flaws (Like fear, bigotry, greed, ect). Roleplaying as a greedy or cowardly character often means making decisions that, while in-character, are not optimal for completing the group's goals.

In a system with no roleplay support. Playing like that is purely negative. Your character is overconfident, so you charge into a battle that all the Players know you should try to avoid. By playing your Character, you have made it harder for the group to achieve it's goals.

Mechanical rewards for roleplay can help balance that out.

it's not a matter of "I won't roleplay without a treat". It's a matter of wanting the two parts of the game: The Mechanics, and the roleplay, to work together. The player will roleplay regardless if that's what they want to do. However if Roleplaying is purely a waste of time, or even detrimental to the group as far as the mechanics are concerned, the game does not flow as well, and the player is forced to choose between spending time Roleplaying (which is fun, and they want to do), OR spending time advancing the group's goals (Which is fun and they want to do).

Mechanical support for roleplay lets you have your cake and eat it too. It's not about changing how people play, it's about supporting how people already want to play.

neonchameleon
2015-12-30, 01:20 PM
My first answer is play Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Grey Ranks, Monsterhearts, Smallville, Dog Eat Dog, and a few others and then get back to me.

My second answer is because I can't play a fighter capable of kicking Elminster in the nards with any chance of success in D&D - the games tell you what works.

My third answer is that trying to play 1E D&D with XP for GP or trying to play any of the games I listed will get us all on the same page much faster than games like 3.X, 5E, or Shadowrun.

Anonymouswizard
2015-12-30, 01:26 PM
To start with, I'd like to state that as a general rule I prefer simulationist games, with Fate as the sole exception, so I don't spend much time with 'roleplaying mechanics'. Now, we also have to realise that when people say 'roleplaying mechanics' they can mean several things:

Mechanics that define a character, such as Fate's Aspects or Triggers in Unknown Armies. I'm limiting this category to mechanics with a direct mechanical effect, because then we get into 'how is a Noble Trigger different to a trait' territory (in short, not only does my Noble Trigger have a specific mechanical effect instead of an indirect one, it's a much more powerful effect, on par with an Aspect).

Mechanics that encourage roleplay. This is where things like Inspiration and Fate Points come in, as does giving XP or Hero Points for flaws coming up.

Social Interaction mechanics, either D&D's 'skill check' variety, D&D4e's skill challenges (which I thought were great for anything except for social encounters), or even a social combat system (please not 'social health' is a bad way to do this). This is my favourite variety, as I'm bad at running social encounters, but so few games have a good one.

You can subdivide more, but I think the point is made. Generally when people push for 'roleplaying mechanics' they are talking about one of the first two, and people either think they are talking about the third or go 'but you don't need mechanics for roleplaying'.

Well, you don't need special mechanics for combat either. Just spend 10 minutes describing what you do in the combat and roll an opposed 'fighting' check with modifiers from your description. Loser is killed and the winner gets loot. Now combat is fun and the weak Fangshi can participate in a different way to the mighty Xia, but it doesn't need 10 pages of mechanics as it can be done in one sentence.

On the other hand, I do like having 30 pages of combat rules with another 5 pages of weapons and armour and 60 pages of monsters, why else would I own Anima: Beyond Fantasy? I just also like a well-made combat system that is 6 pages in length, and a good generic contests system as well.

mephnick
2015-12-30, 01:39 PM
Mechanical support for roleplay lets you have your cake and eat it too. It's not about changing how people play, it's about supporting how people already want to play.

Exactly. You still have to pick the right system to support your goals. Other systems offer depth that D&D does not provide.

If that isn't important to you than that's fine. That doesn't mean it isn't a weak ass system in certain respects. I feel like lots of people here would have their minds blown by playing something that isn't a D&D clone.

D&D is my main system and it always has been. I love it. But it is objectively bad at lots of things.

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 01:59 PM
Some people want to roleplay, but also want the structure that RPGs provide. In a system that has no/little support or reward for Roleplay, you basically have two seperate systems happening.

First, Roleplay, which has no defined mechanical support, or (in the case of D&D), has clunky mechanical support that exists almost entirely independent from the actual meat of roleplaying (Which is to say, saying stuff and making decisions). The only reward for this is the fun of roleplaying.

Second, the mechanical parts of the game, by which progress is measured and rewards are handed out.

It's not that people won't roleplay without reward. They WANT to roleplay, they just want their roleplay to be better integrated into the rest of the game.

There is also those systems that reward roleplaying character flaws (Like fear, bigotry, greed, ect). Roleplaying as a greedy or cowardly character often means making decisions that, while in-character, are not optimal for completing the group's goals.

In a system with no roleplay support. Playing like that is purely negative. Your character is overconfident, so you charge into a battle that all the Players know you should try to avoid. By playing your Character, you have made it harder for the group to achieve it's goals.

Mechanical rewards for roleplay can help balance that out.

it's not a matter of "I won't roleplay without a treat". It's a matter of wanting the two parts of the game: The Mechanics, and the roleplay, to work together. The player will roleplay regardless if that's what they want to do. However if Roleplaying is purely a waste of time, or even detrimental to the group as far as the mechanics are concerned, the game does not flow as well, and the player is forced to choose between spending time Roleplaying (which is fun, and they want to do), OR spending time advancing the group's goals (Which is fun and they want to do).

Mechanical support for roleplay lets you have your cake and eat it too. It's not about changing how people play, it's about supporting how people already want to play.

I have to say, again I see a comment mentioning that the 'only' reward for roleplay is having fun, as if of all the important or crucial ingredients to this hobby, having fun is not 90% of it. Its like complaining that yes you did get your ice cream sundae with hot fudge and chocolate sprinkles, but it would have been better if you had gotten rainbow sprinkles.

I have sour experiences with systems of this caliber. Occasionally you will come across systems that force you to have traits, stories, or connections for your character, when you would prefer to build your character as you go (I love 5th ed, but I am not a huge fan of the background system. I allow my players to roll randomly, choose freely, make one up, or ignore it completely). Or you get a situation that built in support leads to you get the benefit based on whether GM thinks you roleplayed well, now you are not roleplaying yourself, you are acting to appease 'god' for approval.

As for your point on detrimental character aspects, here you have a situation where the concern is hurting the party (*because if you only hurt yourself, and do it even without structural support for it, then everyone wins, including you, because you chose to do it since it was more fun for you). But here is the thing, structural support doesn't help the rest of the party for doing something bad, it only gives that single player a boost in the end. The rest of the party will still be just as annoyed in or out of character regardless of the system. Why is it worse to have done that because "I was in character" than to have done it because "Yeah, but I get more XP now :smallbiggrin:"

And to make the unspoken spoken these arguments from both of us are as if playing purely RAW

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 02:06 PM
My first answer is play Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Grey Ranks, Monsterhearts, Smallville, Dog Eat Dog, and a few others and then get back to me.

My second answer is because I can't play a fighter capable of kicking Elminster in the nards with any chance of success in D&D - the games tell you what works.

My third answer is that trying to play 1E D&D with XP for GP or trying to play any of the games I listed will get us all on the same page much faster than games like 3.X, 5E, or Shadowrun.

My first response: No, this thread is for a contructive dialogue not homework

My second response: Sure you can, he's right there, go get him tiger

My third response: I'm sure that makes sense to someone

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 02:21 PM
Perhaps someone could give an example of where or why a system without this direct support/structure for roleplay would fail whereas another that did have all that would succeed?

BRC
2015-12-30, 02:31 PM
I have to say, again I see a comment mentioning that the 'only' reward for roleplay is having fun, as if of all the important or crucial ingredients to this hobby, having fun is not 90% of it. Its like complaining that yes you did get your ice cream sundae with hot fudge and chocolate sprinkles, but it would have been better if you had gotten rainbow sprinkles.

But I want rainbow sprinkles, and I can have rainbow sprinkles. So, why shouldn't I have rainbow sprinkles?


I have sour experiences with systems of this caliber. Occasionally you will come across systems that force you to have traits, stories, or connections for your character, when you would prefer to build your character as you go (I love 5th ed, but I am not a huge fan of the background system. I allow my players to roll randomly, choose freely, make one up, or ignore it completely). Or you get a situation that built in support leads to you get the benefit based on whether GM thinks you roleplayed well, now you are not roleplaying yourself, you are acting to appease 'god' for approval.

If you don't like systems with structured roleplay, don't play them. I'm not trying to convince you, Dhuraal, to embrace mechanically-structured RP, I'm trying to answer your question: Why do people like mechanically supported/encouraged roleplay.

Also, ideally, what you think of as good roleplay, and what the DM thinks of as good roleplay, should match. Generally speaking, when one person is having fun, everybody is having fun, and vice-versa. nine times out of ten when I've been rewarded for roleplay, I also felt that it was some of the best RP I had done, rather than pandering to the GM's whims. I'm sorry if your experience is different, but that sort of system can work well, which is why some people prefer it.



As for your point on detrimental character aspects, here you have a situation where the concern is hurting the party (*because if you only hurt yourself, and do it even without structural support for it, then everyone wins, including you, because you chose to do it since it was more fun for you). But here is the thing, structural support doesn't help the rest of the party for doing something bad, it only gives that single player a boost in the end. The rest of the party will still be just as annoyed in or out of character regardless of the system. Why is it worse to have done that because "I was in character" than to have done it because "Yeah, but I get more XP now :smallbiggrin:"

And to make the unspoken spoken these arguments from both of us are as if playing purely RAW


As for "Only giving one player a boost", most groups are cooperative, which means boosting one player effectively boosts everybody, and punishing one player effectively punishes everybody.

If our goal is to kill the dragon, then giving another party member some resource they can spend to make that happen helps me as well, since we are all working together.

As far as party annoyance goes, having such mechanics in the system helps change the table culture. If playing up your character's flaws has no mechanical support, then your fellow players are more likely to see it as JUST an attempt to frustrate their efforts. If the system encourages playing your character's flaws, then it is understood that doing so is welcome and expected at the table. It becomes part of the game, rather than you being disruptive.

sktarq
2015-12-30, 02:49 PM
For every reason to have a complex combat system.

Higher replay value, better character definition and variety (if every social roll is Persuade Bluff or Intimidate you only need one player to cover all that-while if there are 10 major skills being used regularly on a social basis then two players can avoid conflict/overlap while both being social)
Also structured RP helps those people who are not as quick in social situations. I am pretty clueless for when to thrust, choke up, pommel smash, lever strike etc with a two-handed sword but I'm not being penalized I can just say "I attack" and it basically works-why should a social conflict not be able to work the same way. I often consider the "RP support" in games like DnD to be like DnD combat without flanking, tripping, sunder, bullrush, or the feat trees-sure it works but having them there allows for arbitration of ideas that make it easy to try various ideas rather than thrashing them out each time with the DM.

As for "rewarding" RP - with XP, choices etc. It allows for a wider variety of play within the party-if the combat king is racking up on paper gains vs the guy who talks his way past a conflict and RP's it up then that power differential will make it harder to ST/DM for them easily and can be a source of RW social conflict.


I get preferring a rules light system but the arguments for it work equally well

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 02:53 PM
But I want rainbow sprinkles, and I can have rainbow sprinkles. So, why shouldn't I have rainbow sprinkles?

If you don't like systems with structured roleplay, don't play them. I'm not trying to convince you, Dhuraal, to embrace mechanically-structured RP, I'm trying to answer your question: Why do people like mechanically supported/encouraged roleplay.

Oh I apologize if you feel I am being defensive. As I said, I am naturally argumentative/devil's advocate. Besides a constructive dialogue between people does require some back forth does it not? :smalltongue:


Also, ideally, what you think of as good roleplay, and what the DM thinks of as good roleplay, should match. Generally speaking, when one person is having fun, everybody is having fun, and vice-versa. nine times out of ten when I've been rewarded for roleplay, I also felt that it was some of the best RP I had done, rather than pandering to the GM's whims. I'm sorry if your experience is different, but that sort of system can work well, which is why some people prefer it.

And here is where I play devil's advocate; as others have said about D&D in this thread, in that with the specific rules leaning towards combat, therefore making combat almost a de facto response/answer, does not the system having the GM reward roleplay lead to the same conclusion? Roleplay such that the GM approves to get your reward? You have to be consistent here. If it is a non issue for the structured roleplay to reward roleplay specifically then D&D having combat heavy rules is also a non issue. But if you want to say that D&D's rules can be problematic then you must admit that so can this form of roleplay structure.


As for "Only giving one player a boost", most groups are cooperative, which means boosting one player effectively boosts everybody, and punishing one player effectively punishes everybody.

If our goal is to kill the dragon, then giving another party member some resource they can spend to make that happen helps me as well, since we are all working together.

As far as party annoyance goes, having such mechanics in the system helps change the table culture. If playing up your character's flaws has no mechanical support, then your fellow players are more likely to see it as JUST an attempt to frustrate their efforts. If the system encourages playing your character's flaws, then it is understood that doing so is welcome and expected at the table. It becomes part of the game, rather than you being disruptive.

And maybe this is the crux of differing opinions, groups I play in or run (we always confer before the campaign start or shortly into it anyway, but the result is the same) are completely fine with detrimental roleplay, up to and including PVP that result in character perma death. So long as it is in character, of course. I only have 1 experience with 'roleplay' being take badly and that simply a bad player wanting everyone to do things his way more than anything else.

BRC
2015-12-30, 03:00 PM
Perhaps someone could give an example of where or why a system without this direct support/structure for roleplay would fail whereas another that did have all that would succeed?
Define "Succeed" and "Fail.


But hey, I can find at least one point where it definitely made the game more fun.

I'm in a Deadlands game. In Deadlands, you get chips everytime your flaws come into play, chips which can be cashed in for XP/to cancel wounds/to give bonuses on rolls.

My character is overly confident in his ability to handle any given situation. I was about to approach an NPC and try to convince him to help us.
Another party member did some magic to boost my Persuasion roll, but they screwed up. Instead of being more persuasive, my character became listless, and had trouble stringing words together.

BUT, my character was very confident. He felt that he had the ability to handle any situation.

Now, in a system without support for Roleplay, the only reasonable decision here is to either wait for the failed magic to wear off, or go try to do something else. Since my persuasion roll was severely hindered by the failed spell. "We walked in, he cast a spell, it failed, we walked out" isn't a good story. It's barely a footnote.

However, because my character was Confident, I got a chip if I went in and tried to talk the NPC into helping us anyway. A chip I could then spend on boosting the now-hindered roll.

Now, mechanically speaking I took a hit from the failed spell, but made up for it with the chip.

Narratively speaking, my character was so full of himself that he went ahead with the talks, and the plot moved forward as I convinced the NPC to help us. That conversation ended up having pretty substantial repercussions (Short Version: I am now the Shadow Lord of California), but it would probably never have happened without a system in place to encourage playing up my character's overconfidence. The risk would have been too great, and we would have tried to find some other, less entertaining, solution.

While it may have been nestled in mechanics, the decision to go ahead with the talks was a Roleplaying decision.

solidork
2015-12-30, 03:15 PM
I find that structure actually helps creativity. It's like a pearl, you need a little bit of sand in the center in order for your character to form around it. I think one of the best examples for this is Fiasco, a game that is basically nothing but roleplaying, but does scenario and scene creation in a structured way. You can watch an example of play on Geek and Sundry's Tabletop show:

Setup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuJizhyf-y4
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXJxQ0NbFtk
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj7NcdDh-WM

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 03:35 PM
Now, in a system without support for Roleplay, the only reasonable optimal decision here is to either wait for the failed magic to wear off, or go try to do something else. Since my persuasion roll was severely hindered by the failed spell. "We walked in, he cast a spell, it failed, we walked out" isn't a good story. It's barely a footnote

I believe right here may be a philosophical difference (edits for emphasis), as I am not a fan of optimizing, min/maxing, or what have you. First, why must you do the reasonable/optimal thing? (this is more of a rhetorical question, but I put it here anyway) Second, you essentially said it yourself, but I will re-state, why would your character do the reasonable/optimal thing there? That would be out of character. Third, in a system without roleplay support would you really have thrown away the whole ice cream sundae, and just grabbed a handful of rainbow sprinkles instead? You said yourself it would have been less fun for everyone and out of character

Lord Raziere
2015-12-30, 03:54 PM
My first response: No, this thread is for a contructive dialogue not homework

My second response: Sure you can, he's right there, go get him tiger

My third response: I'm sure that makes sense to someone

My first response: sorry, your among nerds: if you don't do your homework, your not engaging in constructive dialogue.

My second response: yes, then I'll die, because in 3.5, wizards are gods, fighters are not, I lose.

My third response: well here is saying I'd like to tell you: "don't knock it until you try it". if you haven't tried any of the systems your criticizing, how can we take anything you say as valid criticism?

BRC
2015-12-30, 03:57 PM
I believe right here may be a philosophical difference (edits for emphasis), as I am not a fan of optimizing, min/maxing, or what have you. First, why must you do the reasonable/optimal thing? (this is more of a rhetorical question, but I put it here anyway) Second, you essentially said it yourself, but I will re-state, why would your character do the reasonable/optimal thing there? That would be out of character. Third, in a system without roleplay support would you really have thrown away the whole ice cream sundae, and just grabbed a handful of rainbow sprinkles instead? You said yourself it would have been less fun for everyone and out of character

Because I, as a player, want to have fun.

Remember what I said earlier about two seperate systems. The roleplay, and the mechanics, by which you measure the progression of your character's goals.


Three potential outcomes
Succeeding the check: Advances our goals, and is fun from the "advance our in-character goals" perspective!

Not making the check at all: Does not advance our goals, is not fun from the "advance our in-character goals" perspective.

Failing the check: Sets us back, is not fun from the "Advance our in-character goals" perspective.


Trying to make the check anyway: Fun from a roleplay perspective.
Not trying to make the check: Not fun from a roleplay perspective.


I must do the Reasonable/Optimal thing because this is a game, and I want to win. Some people can play totally dispassionately without getting invested in their character's goals, but I want to see my character succeed. As a result, I am encouraged to do what is mechanically sound, regardless of whether or not that is in-character. This does not mean I play hyper-optimized characters and make decisions by consulting probability spreadsheets, but it does mean I make decisions based both on what my character would want to do, AND what I think will actually work. Because failing is not fun. You're the one who brought in the word "Optimal", but, here "Optimal" is not used in the same way as "Optimizing a Character". "Optimal" means factoring in which decision gives you the best chance of succeeding at your goals.

In the above scenario, risking almost certain defeat, and dealing with the fallout would greatly outweigh the momentary rush of "I'M DOING THIS ANYWAY BECAUSE MY CHARACTER IS CONFIDENT!"

Deadlands' reward system made acting in-character ALSO a mechanically sound choice, or at least it helped negate some of the risk I was taking/give me a greater reward for taking that risk (if I critically failed, the chip couldn't help me. If I Succeeded without using the chip, I got to keep it for later), and pushed me towards the most fun outcome (My character tries to do the thing anyway, and succeeds!).


Your issue is that you are seeing things as a binary. Either I am 100% devoted to acting in-character, OR I am playing a logic game, concerned only with maximizing chance of success.

People play somewhere in the middle of that. I want to have fun. Making decisions based on what my character would do is fun. Succeeding at my goals is fun. Sometimes those two things come into conflict. These sorts of systems help resolve that conflict by rewarding playing to your character, whether that results in tipping the balance of decision making towards the in-character action, or simply rewarding you for doing what you would have done anyway, it makes the game more fun.


Edit: and as for the question of "Out of Character", my character is a smart, if overconfident, person who wants to succeed and does not want to fail. Just because he is overconfident does not mean that he rushes blindly into every situation. It means that he is prone to being overconfident.
It would have been in character for him to say "No, I'm not going to try this while I'm addled by this spell".
It would have been in-character for him to say "I Gots this".
Either would have been in-character, because character traits are not absolutes. It may be more fun to lean into the more flawed aspects of the character, but not doing so in every instances does not mean I am necessarily acting "out of character". The character traits describe general trends, they do not dictate literally every action.

NichG
2015-12-30, 04:01 PM
@NichG - While I understand the argument about the genre of the game, I have never seen it matter in practice. If you intend to set up your game as Cosmic Horror, then (unless you missed a step as DM) your players will have already been informed of the kind of game you are playing, and what kind of challenge to expect as well. The thinking here seems to be that 'well you should be playing Call of Cthulhu or something similar that', but even if you are playing that and even though it is designed for Cosmic Horror, you cannot force your players to roleplay amazement, fear or becoming unhinged, they have to do that of their own accord, just as if they were playing D&D


Well for example, if you're playing D&D, very little really threatens a character. If you get killed, there's always Resurrection. If you get driven insane, mutated into something hideous, etc, there's Greater Restoration. And generally humanity is quite powerful in a D&D setting - a high level human can reverse death, stop time or even rewind it, turn the entirety of reality into a dream that they wake up from, alter their form to suit their purposes, command powerful supernatural entities with zero chance of failure, etc. If I'm playing a walking god in practice, I'm going to see some kind of cosmic horror and think 'cool challenge!' not 'augh, gotta run away!'. On the other hand, in Call of Cthulhu, if you happen to come into the power to do any of those things, there's no guarantee that they work as advertised, and there's probably an irreversible mechanical price to pay for that power. You're going to lose sanity, and you know that when you hit zero that's the end of you. It creates an incredibly different feel. Paranoia is another example of a game where a simple rule 'you have 6 clones, when you inevitably get killed, your next clone takes your place' completely changes the feel - it makes it okay to be capricious with the life of your character, whereas presumably that clone wants to live as much as a guy without clone backups.

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 04:07 PM
My second response: yes, then I'll die, because in 3.5, wizards are gods, fighters are not, I lose.

First: Why must we only consider D&D 3.5? Second: Wizards in general were not discussed, it was specifically Elminster. And if we switch Elminster with Cthulhu (which isn't all that unreasonable), same outcome


My third response: well here is saying I'd like to tell you: "don't knock it until you try it". if you haven't tried any of the systems your criticizing, how can we take anything you say as valid criticism?

And now where exactly did you get that I have not tried any of these systems? I very clearly mentioned in the OP that I had played various systems beyond D&D, and ones that were very roleplay focused, among them Burning Wheel (which I played extensively and exclusively for several months with my group at the time). So if you're not even going to do your due diligence and read the opening post to the thread how can I take anything you say as valid criticism? :smallwink:

Beleriphon
2015-12-30, 04:17 PM
I believe right here may be a philosophical difference (edits for emphasis), as I am not a fan of optimizing, min/maxing, or what have you. First, why must you do the reasonable/optimal thing? (this is more of a rhetorical question, but I put it here anyway) Second, you essentially said it yourself, but I will re-state, why would your character do the reasonable/optimal thing there? That would be out of character. Third, in a system without roleplay support would you really have thrown away the whole ice cream sundae, and just grabbed a handful of rainbow sprinkles instead? You said yourself it would have been less fun for everyone and out of character

The better question is what would you do in D&D? There is no reason to not go ahead and just wait it out. Sure in character they could go ahead with the plan, but there's no reward in D&D for the player to take that risk. Games with RP reward systems provide a way to encourage the player to do so, especially if the revolve around flaws. FATE works in a similar manner, although it tends to operate on your character's traits getting them into trouble (the game is kind of bent towards action movie or adventure story type play) even if the trait is positive. So if you have a character with a trait like Always Keeps His Word the character can be compelled (forced to stay in character by the GM) if that would be bad for the character the player gets a FATE point, or they can spend a FATE point to avoid having the character trait guide the course of action. FATE is fun since players can self compel, and still get FATE points.

Dhuraal
2015-12-30, 05:08 PM
Well for example, if you're playing D&D, very little really threatens a character. If you get killed, there's always Resurrection. If you get driven insane, mutated into something hideous, etc, there's Greater Restoration. And generally humanity is quite powerful in a D&D setting - a high level human can reverse death, stop time or even rewind it, turn the entirety of reality into a dream that they wake up from, alter their form to suit their purposes, command powerful supernatural entities with zero chance of failure, etc. If I'm playing a walking god in practice, I'm going to see some kind of cosmic horror and think 'cool challenge!' not 'augh, gotta run away!'. On the other hand, in Call of Cthulhu, if you happen to come into the power to do any of those things, there's no guarantee that they work as advertised, and there's probably an irreversible mechanical price to pay for that power. You're going to lose sanity, and you know that when you hit zero that's the end of you. It creates an incredibly different feel. Paranoia is another example of a game where a simple rule 'you have 6 clones, when you inevitably get killed, your next clone takes your place' completely changes the feel - it makes it okay to be capricious with the life of your character, whereas presumably that clone wants to live as much as a guy without clone backups.

I understand your point, and you are correct going for a Cosmic Horror or such atmosphere theme in RAW D&D or similar system would fall kind of flat, but if you are wanting to do that kind of game I would accept and expect house rulings to come into play. You have every right to say that does not count and that if to do it you need to use house rules it is the wrong system, I just do not agree :smalltongue: Every system could use a little house ruling after

neonchameleon
2015-12-30, 05:56 PM
My first response: No, this thread is for a contructive dialogue not homework

OK. So you're interested in arguing rather than finding things out. Fair enough - if you don't want to actually know.

Gastronomie
2015-12-30, 06:27 PM
Isn't there the "Inspiration" system in D&D 5e? Where you get bonuses for RP'ing well.

And if, for instance, someone uses the "Persuation" skill and role-plays wonderfully, only to roll a 1, the DM could just ignore the roll and say he successfully persuaded the guy. Hell, the DM doesn't even have to order the "Persuation" roll.

At least, that's how I've done it in other TRPGs.

Quertus
2015-12-30, 07:51 PM
OK. So you're interested in arguing rather than finding things out. Fair enough - if you don't want to actually know.

The Tremere believe in learning by asking those who know; the Tzimichi (sp?) believe you can only learn by experiencing things for yourself.

The OP seems more interested in doing things the former way.

Talakeal
2015-12-30, 09:27 PM
The only system I have played which actively tried to have mechanics to reinforce RP was The Riddle of Steel.

I must say I did not care for it. It turned RP into just another stat to crunch, and that meant that there was a clearly optimal choice whenever I was confronted with an otherwise complex dilema or character building moment.

Susano-wo
2015-12-30, 09:28 PM
I understand your point, and you are correct going for a Cosmic Horror or such atmosphere theme in RAW D&D or similar system would fall kind of flat, but if you are wanting to do that kind of game I would accept and expect house rulings to come into play. You have every right to say that does not count and that if to do it you need to use house rules it is the wrong system, I just do not agree :smalltongue: Every system could use a little house ruling after

So...what you are saying is that you would want the rules structured in a way to facilitate RP in a certain way? Almost like mechanics can affect RP? :smallwink:

Less flippantly, I play a lot of DnD/Pathfinder, and though you don't need rules to RP (I'm a Roleplayer first and foremost, the game aspect is always secondary), the presence of rules that bring RP matters into the mechanical arena can help a heavy RPer not be frustrated that he is screwing himself because of RP.

This is not necessarily rewards for RP, or complicated social rules, though it can be. It can be as simple as making different solutions more viable (try disabling someone without killing them in 3.5. It requires gimping yourself,specialized equipment/build choices, or both). Having rules that prevent people who have characters that don't act like grave robbing murder hobos(many of my characters fight for causes, and don't just kill things because they are there, and they are often not doing it to get rich, so have little motivation to cart off loot) from feeling hosed for playing such characters is a plus for a system, to me.

On the RP rewards side, if you don't trust your GM to issue RP rewards for whatever triggers the game has in place (which are not about, in my experience, how good the performance, but whether the action keys into your character's character traits), then how can you trsut them to run fair encounters, or not railroad you, etc?

To reiterate, no you don't need RP rules to RP. But rules for social situations, or rules sets that allow differing solutions to situations, including, not not exclusively, combat, or bonuses for acting according to your character traits, or rules that encourage a certain game style can enhance RP, and make it work with the game system, instead of the RP, at best, not interfering with the system, and at worst, the RP or system interfering with each other.

NichG
2015-12-30, 09:33 PM
I understand your point, and you are correct going for a Cosmic Horror or such atmosphere theme in RAW D&D or similar system would fall kind of flat, but if you are wanting to do that kind of game I would accept and expect house rulings to come into play. You have every right to say that does not count and that if to do it you need to use house rules it is the wrong system, I just do not agree :smalltongue: Every system could use a little house ruling after

House ruling doesn't make it the wrong system, but it does make it a different system - e.g. one in which you've altered the rules in order to facilitate roleplay.

oxybe
2015-12-30, 10:05 PM
simply put: rules help structure the play you want.

in the same way there are rules about what you can bring on the ice in a hockey game (your stick and approved protective gear) there are rules forbidding other objects (a zamboni with chainsaws strapped to it's sides).

to bring it down to a less abstract level: rules, whether by design or accident, influence play choices.

in 3rd ed D&D, for example, you likely wouldn't try tripping an enemy without the appropriate feats due to the penalties and drawbacks for doing so, so this will inform you on what actions are appropriate or should be performing.

white wolf's virtue/vice system is an example of rewarding players for taking certain actions: it's easy to fall prey to your vice and doing so will result in a minor boon, giving the player incentive to choose a potentially self-destructive road. on the flipside taking an action that shows your virtues actually gives you larger boons then the vices, but often this is done as a self-sacrifice or knowing that it's an action that could bite you in the end (like the virtue of mercy letting a known dangerous enemy live or escape) but it's the "right" action (in the moral, not mechanical) sense.

again, this informs a type of play.

D&D's alignment system, at least where divine characters are involve, is a punitive one. you don't get any particular benefit from playing your alignment other then "i get to keep my class features". as such the character's motivation to do certain actions is based around the fear of potential retribution, rather their feeling towards the actions themselves.

mephnick
2015-12-31, 12:42 AM
On the RP rewards side, if you don't trust your GM to issue RP rewards for whatever triggers the game has in place (which are not about, in my experience, how good the performance, but whether the action keys into your character's character traits), then how can you trsut them to run fair encounters, or not railroad you, etc?

Because unlike encounter building and adventure structure the system gives the DM absolutely no guidance on how to use RP rewards. I can't trust the DM to do it well in 5e because the system doesn't care how you do it or if you do it at all. It basically says "uh reward inspiration when you want. Or if you find someone funny. I guess." How does that encourage or facilitate the DM to use that mechanic? Why is it even in the book? I can't believe actual game designers looked at that and said "Yep. That's good design." The developer of Dungeon World asked the designers of 5e what their intentions were for the inspiration mechanic and they couldn't answer the question. Maybe RP mechanics aren't everyone's bag, but D&D offers absolutely zero to a DM or his players to encourage role-play. Therefore it is a weak system for role-play.

Frozen_Feet
2015-12-31, 05:05 AM
Dunno about 5e, but 1st Ed AD&D had all sorts of subsystems for structuring roleplay, from alignment to morale to mental disorders etc. Many such rules are absent from later editions, though retroclones continue to have and elaborate upon them.

Most of the rules were on the DM's side, however, hidden from players. Players had to learn by trial and error.

neonchameleon
2015-12-31, 05:42 AM
The Tremere believe in learning by asking those who know; the Tzimichi (sp?) believe you can only learn by experiencing things for yourself.

The OP seems more interested in doing things the former way.

He's not even a Tremere. He's some sort of parody of the Tremere (and I thought most of the V:tM clans were impossible to parody), trying to get people to offer answers so he can declare them shot down in flames rather than take them on board, grapple with them, and come back later. The only winning move in that game is not to play.

Florian
2015-12-31, 05:44 AM
Multifacetten topic.

1) There are always rules how to role-play. They´re just not written in the damn core books as there is this nebulous assumption that everybody and their dog knows how to role-play.
Now this gets especially weird when you look at those assumptions in different countries or cultures.

2) Carrot and Stick. Games like D&D only know the stick (the Paladin falls...) and there´s no real carrot for sticking to your character, roleplaying him constantly, even when it gets difficult or will lead to trouble, thereby promoting a "mercenary approach" or teflon billies.

3) A reward structure speeds up game and focuses the players on what actions should be done or taken in a game, even if they´re "bad" for your character, they will mostly be "good" for the fun at the table, like the consequences in DitV or triggering the negative side of an aspect in Fate.

themaque
2015-12-31, 06:45 AM
I believe right here may be a philosophical difference (edits for emphasis), as I am not a fan of optimizing, min/maxing, or what have you. First, why must you do the reasonable/optimal thing? (this is more of a rhetorical question, but I put it here anyway) Second, you essentially said it yourself, but I will re-state, why would your character do the reasonable/optimal thing there? That would be out of character. Third, in a system without roleplay support would you really have thrown away the whole ice cream sundae, and just grabbed a handful of rainbow sprinkles instead? You said yourself it would have been less fun for everyone and out of character


Because you're guaranteed to fail. The rest of the table is asking why did you do that? It was stupid and wasted everyone's time. Remember this?



As for your point on detrimental character aspects, here you have a situation where the concern is hurting the party (*because if you only hurt yourself, and do it even without structural support for it, then everyone wins, including you, because you chose to do it since it was more fun for you). But here is the thing, structural support doesn't help the rest of the party for doing something bad, it only gives that single player a boost in the end. The rest of the party will still be just as annoyed in or out of character regardless of the system. Why is it worse to have done that because "I was in character" than to have done it because "Yeah, but I get more XP now :smallbiggrin:"

And to make the unspoken spoken these arguments from both of us are as if playing purely RAW

You said taking flaws hurt your character and bring down the game for everyone. Well what does Starting fights you KNOW you can't win or making hedging it all on this 23% chance of success just because "I was in character" with NO mechanical support?

Yes, I can come up with a beautiful reasoning as to why my character would do something and then the GM can say "Roll diplomacy" and I get a 4. The mechanics directly reward using them while RP is much more nebulous.

Now if you are in the same group for a decade, you know your players, and you know your GM then you know what to expect. Some people don't have the benefits of that. I've moved around a LOT and had to learn many new GM's and many new groups. It can be difficult to know how each group will handle things like "Do we try TALKING to the Goblins?"

Or the flip side. What about people who want to role play or play a smooth talker but are more reserved in real life? This gives them a crutch to help them out.

Jormengand
2015-12-31, 06:55 AM
You have a defined structure for roleplay so that you know whether or not your character manages what they're trying to do. You have a defined structure for roleplay because your character has a charisma score in excess of double yours. You have a defined structure for roleplay for the same reason you don't have to arm-wrestle the DM to roll a strength check. You have a defined structure for roleplay because that makes roleplaying easier. It's like having a letter-writing template, I guess. So there are two reasons: one so that success/failure isn't arbitrary, and two so that it makes it a lot easier for people who aren't natural-born talkers.

mephnick
2015-12-31, 11:47 AM
it makes it a lot easier for people who aren't natural-born talkers.

This is the other part of it. It's a lot easier to get newer people who aren't comfortable with role-play to engage with their characters when it's something they have to do because it's ingrained in the system.

Dhuraal
2015-12-31, 12:41 PM
This is the other part of it. It's a lot easier to get newer people who aren't comfortable with role-play to engage with their characters when it's something they have to do because it's ingrained in the system.

Hmmm, yes, that is a good point I had not considered. I guess I can see how having the built in support or motivation can help shy people get more engaged

CharonsHelper
2015-12-31, 02:43 PM
I'm going to pop in here and weigh in on the side of a minimal system.

IF I saw a system which was relatively objective in the social rules - I'd give it a chance. However - all of the ones I've read are mostly about the GM, or possibly the other players, giving them bonuses for when they role-play well and/or correctly. This seems far too subjective to me. (Maybe there are ones that aren't. I know I've tried before to read through Apocalypse World as someone suggested above. The writing was horrible! I couldn't get through it. It felt like it was written by the kid from Catcher in the Rye - which I consider to be one of the most overrated books of all time.)

Now - in D&D combat (as a more combat mechanics game) the GM controls the monsters, and technically he could unleash things which I'd have no chance against - all of which is subjective to the GM. However, there are enough objective rules/rolls that it doesn't feel that way.

It's like how the judges for sports such as gymnastics/skating truly control it. It's all about their scores. Sure there are rules for how those scores are tallied - but it's still subjective.

Sure - in football or tennis, the ref/judge can tweak the game - shifting the ball forward a half yard or calling the ball out on every close call for a given player. Those parts of the game are all subjective. (And it's amazing how little most sports fans realize it.) But it doesn't FEEL subjective, because there are objective rules, and the ref/judge doesn't seem like they're in control of the action.

mephnick
2015-12-31, 02:57 PM
IF I saw a system which was relatively objective in the social rules - I'd give it a chance. However - all of the ones I've read are mostly about the GM, or possibly the other players, giving them bonuses for when they role-play well and/or correctly. This seems far too subjective to me.

Games with good role-playings systems take that decision away from the GM. That's the point of them. The GM doesn't decide when to reward inspiration, it's something that happens in the system during the normal course of play. Games that rely on DM fiat to reward role-playing (5e inspiration) are not good role-playing systems. A good system means the DM has less to do. The systems for games like Burning Wheel and Pendragon actually take control away from the DM to encourage role-play.

Talakeal
2015-12-31, 03:25 PM
So to use another example, I am playing in a Mage campaign right now and my character has a nature / demeanor of Loner / Martyr. This causes quite a bit of conflict with the rest of the party, and every time I try and accomplish something by myself or take an unnecessary risk the rest of the players get frustrated that I am either hogging the spotlight or sabotaging our chance of success at the task. So I am trying to, in character, grow and overcome my personality flaws to be a better team player and learn that it is ok to ask for help.

If the game had a more hard coded approach to RP I imagine that the rest of the party would get really frustrated really quick with everyone showboating their personality quirks at the expense of the mission, and I feel that the system would probably punish me for trying to grow as a character rather than just playing a static stereotype.

Maybe it is just the group, but we actually have a problem with too MUCH role-play, even though mechanically it is a disadvantage, and I can't see rewarding such things as improving the game.

mephnick
2015-12-31, 03:42 PM
I suppose it's the difference in goals and expectations for the systems. Games like D&D you "play to win". That's the point of the system. Role-playing flaws and personality can often get in the way of winning, thus they are frustrating. Games like Pendragon/Apocalypse World/Burning Wheel you "play to see what happens". The personalities of the characters drive the narrative forward and setbacks due to those personalities are not seen as negatives.

It always comes down to "play the game that meets your group's goals". But there are ways to incorporate role-playing mechanically for the benefit of the game and some systems (like D&D) don't even try.

NichG
2015-12-31, 03:55 PM
For me, I really don't like when games take the attitude that the purpose of the rules is to adjudicate conflicts of interest between the participants in the game. I much prefer to start from the assumption that everyone at the table can be trusted and is responsible for eachothers' enjoyment of the gameplay experience - so if there's a problem, rather than having to anticipate it in advance with a rule, it can be talked out with the group. I think giving rules space to that kind of thing is wasteful at best, and at worst can be very encumbering.

A lot of attempts at making 'rules for roleplay' tend to fall into that category. People think 'lets add a mechanic to resolve whether you succeed or not' because they're starting from a point of view of there being two opposing desires (the player wants the NPC to do something, the GM doesn't want the NPC to do it), and the rules provide some kind of impartial tie-breaker.

But that kind of binary interaction isn't what real socialization is like. When I talk to someone, I don't 'win' or 'lose' at the conversation; I have a conversation, maybe information is shared, maybe my mental picture of the other person changes, maybe emotions shift, maybe it changes some future decision in an ineffable way. It's rarely anything as stark as 'I am going to try to convince you to do X, which you would normally refuse, lets see if I can convince you to do X', and usually when it comes down to that, the only way it ever works is if there's actually some concrete leverage that the convincer can apply like 'if you don't do X, you're fired' or 'if you do X, I'll pay you'. And even in such cases, the skill of the convincer isn't in raising their tone on the third syllable or anything like that, it's choosing the right leverage to use.

I think if you want a good set of rules to encourage roleplay, you absolutely have to step away from success versus failure. Even more strongly, I would say that questions of success and failure are anathema to rich, nuanced roleplay. Roleplay isn't just about failing occasionally because of character flaws, its about getting into a state of mind where what your character says and does and how they react feels completely natural in the moment.

So if you want the rules to provide that, they shouldn't be something which ever interrupts the moment with thinking about how the rules work. Instead, the rules should actually be shaping the context for that roleplay all the time but then stepping away during the actual RP moments. It should be about setting the mood, helping the player get into that state of mind, not about providing a script or a referee.

One thing that can be very effective for this is something which just makes the player answer a question about their character that they wouldn't normally consider. Take Nobilis' character creation rules. First the game tells you 'There are three laws that a Noble must follow. One of which is, you may not love' (meant here as any kind of love - love for a child, love for a friend, romance, etc). So immediately that gives a context: what does this character think about not being allowed to love, about any kind of love being forbidden? Then, this follows with: now, make a list of a set of 3-10 things that you love, which anchor you to this existence, and without which you would become a soulless husk. Those things have mechanical weight - if someone attacks them and you fail to defend them, they can drain you of your power or do other things to you.

But the big thing it does is it makes the player think about that question of 'what does my character secretly love, despite the penalty for being found out being the eradication of their soul?'. It pushes the game towards more passionate characters. It doesn't really say 'here is how you resolve a social conflict', but it certainly does something to help structure and encourage a particular kind of roleplay - by encouraging the players to think about their characters in terms of their attachments rather than just their powers.

Honestly though, just avoiding mechanical dissonance - places where the fluff and mechanics disagree - goes a long way to helping encourage roleplay. That's something a lot of games fail at.

sktarq
2015-12-31, 04:12 PM
He's not even a Tremere. He's some sort of parody of the Tremere (and I thought most of the V:tM clans were impossible to parody), trying to get people to offer answers so he can declare them shot down in flames rather than take them on board, grapple with them, and come back later. The only winning move in that game is not to play.

Bolded Section: Really? the Malkavians have an entire social tradition built around the idea ingame. . . in the clanbook. . .

CharonsHelper
2015-12-31, 04:50 PM
I suppose it's the difference in goals and expectations for the systems. Games like D&D you "play to win". That's the point of the system. Role-playing flaws and personality can often get in the way of winning, thus they are frustrating. Games like Pendragon/Apocalypse World/Burning Wheel you "play to see what happens". The personalities of the characters drive the narrative forward and setbacks due to those personalities are not seen as negatives.

The negatives in games like that generally seem overblown in how much they affect the action.

In the vast majority of games I've seen (outside of Call of Chthulu) the characters are professionals of some stripe. Why should my character (for example) not liking a particular alien species affect their doing their job much? I mean - just because a MLB pitcher doesn't like an opposing player doesn't mean that they're going to bean them with the ball every time they're up to bat. The pitcher and my character are both professionals - they'll suck it up and do their job.

Lord Raziere
2015-12-31, 05:01 PM
The negatives in games like that generally seem overblown in how much they affect the action.

In the vast majority of games I've seen (outside of Call of Chthulu) the characters are professionals of some stripe. Why should my character (for example) not liking a particular alien species affect their doing their job much? I mean - just because a MLB pitcher doesn't like an opposing player doesn't mean that they're going to bean them with the ball every time they're up to bat. The pitcher and my character are both professionals - they'll suck it up and do their job.

that sounds too much like an ideal. even being perfectly professional all the time is an ideal that can erode with time, and succumb to entropy. eventually people do something unprofessional, they get tired, they get stressed, it happens. stress builds and builds until you've got to let it out, they gradually lose control over their emotions as things go more and more wrong, until they accidentally be a little short with someone else because they weren't thinking, things like that.

point is, no one has perfect emotional control. not forever. that kind of social masking takes energy to do, and when you run out and get tired, you find that you don't have the energy to muster that kind of patience. and not everyone has the same amount of energy for doing that.

Tanarii
2015-12-31, 05:15 PM
Role playing is making decisions about what your character does. Any decision with consequences.

Defined RP systems are any mechanical system that determines the consequences and outcomes of decisions made, as opposed to the GM or DM deciding on his own. So Combat systems are also Structured Roleplaying systems. As are skill systems.

Susano-wo
2016-01-01, 12:18 AM
@ mephnick: Its seems that you are thinking that I am contesting some thing I am not contesting, so let me be clear: One can definitely have mechanical Rp bennies that enhance or steer a game toward certain goals. Dnd does not have those goals, and on top of that is constructed to that certain types of characters are hard to pull off. Not claiming that Dnd, especially 4th and prior, is strong RP system

That being siad, I think you are bing a bit unfair to Inspiration. It could be laid out clearer, but the game doesnt tell you to "uh reward inspiration when you want. Or if you find someone funny. I guess." The PHB says: "Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way." That's all pretty structured, though the last item is a total catchall. The DMG goes into a number of ways that you can award it, including not using the system, giving it only for completing important goals or victories to reduce the need for a judgement call, or using it when people pull dangerous stunts. Basically, there should be a clear idea what will or won't give inspiration in any given campaign. Any ambiguity is a table problem, and one that should definitely be hammered out.

@NickG: +1. With the exception of a few characters that haven't (or haven't yet) "clicked," I typically act instictively. I can point to why they did this, or why this action made them react in such a way, but I don't think, "I don't like Y, so I will do Z," first. What you said is the essence of role playing in my mind

Florian
2016-01-01, 04:50 AM
The negatives in games like that generally seem overblown in how much they affect the action.

In the vast majority of games I've seen (outside of Call of Chthulu) the characters are professionals of some stripe. Why should my character (for example) not liking a particular alien species affect their doing their job much? I mean - just because a MLB pitcher doesn't like an opposing player doesn't mean that they're going to bean them with the ball every time they're up to bat. The pitcher and my character are both professionals - they'll suck it up and do their job.

(Also @NichG)

And that is pretty much missing the whole point, you know?

"Traditional" Games like D&D are called "gamey" because they pit a group against a challenge and th only thing that truly count is reaching the goal of the challenge, beating it.
Therefore they need a gm in the dual role of referee and antagonist, which is pretty borked when you think about it. Heck, the whole development of 3E and later editions is based on this model and aims at moving the referee part over to the more and more codified system behind stuff like CR and so on.

Let´s look at two things here: Alignments and the Paladin Code. Both are restrictive and enforce certain behaviors that we might call the seed for "good roleplaying". Both are the most common things that are removed from D&D-style games because they can hinder a group from reaching their goal by the most expedient way possible.

Now, the other type of games we talk about here are solely based on creating "Drama", the inter-character tension and escalation. Those games do not focus on the goal, the focus is on the way there and they need the characters to clash constantly to really get going.
It would be wrong to call that PvP, as that is not what´s happening, but a heavy dose of SC vs. SC is needed and the actual focus of most games. Failure and Flaws must happen for it to work.

neonchameleon
2016-01-01, 09:14 AM
IF I saw a system which was relatively objective in the social rules - I'd give it a chance. However - all of the ones I've read are mostly about the GM, or possibly the other players, giving them bonuses for when they role-play well and/or correctly. This seems far too subjective to me. (Maybe there are ones that aren't. I know I've tried before to read through Apocalypse World as someone suggested above. The writing was horrible! I couldn't get through it. It felt like it was written by the kid from Catcher in the Rye - which I consider to be one of the most overrated books of all time.)

Yeah, not going to defend Vincent Baker's writing (and we're in full agreement on the subject of Catcher). So I'm going to break down the AW social system because it gets things more right for a generic slightly gritty RPG than any other game I can think of.

The social system comes in three parts.

First there's backgrounds. Each PC starts with a prior relationship with each other PC. This both makes characterising both PCs faster and easier for the first session (AW aims to hit the ground running) and makes a shared pool of background to expand. AW games start in media res rather than any of this "You all meet in a pub". This is useful (a cut down version of one of the advantages of Fate's Aspects) but nothing special.

Second there's Hx. An interesting idea - but there's a reason that the pro-wrestling hack of AW is the only one I know to use it. I can see what was being tried for (Vincent Baker threw in the kitchen sink) and at a strictly gamist level it works, but no one I've ever met actually likes it. In play it isn't that intrusive however.

Third there's the social skills - which work better than in almost any other game I can think of. Three social skills are nothing special - Read A Person (Sense Motive), Seduce or Manipulate (Bluff + Diplomacy), and Go Aggro (Intimidate - also works for things like covering fire). All of them do something very, very right - they never actually force the other PC to do something.

Dealing with each in turn:
Sense Motive
When you read a person in a charged interaction, roll. On a Full Success, hold 3. On a Partial Success, hold 1. While you’re interacting with them, spend your hold to ask their player questions, 1 for 1:
• is your character telling the truth?
• what’s your character really feeling?
• what does your character intend to do?
• what does your character wish I’d do?
• how could I get your character to __?

In short it's an active skill rather than a passive one. You need to interact and probe to use it (rather than just make a roll), and it allows the other player to answer (either in character or out). It's not a simple lie detector and how they answer it is up to them. Also it never gets everything - just the sort of information you can get from probing. It's also not mind reading - and leaves how it's answered up to the opposing player to build on the situation (and frequently to show their tells).

Bluff or Diplomacy vs PCs
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll. On a partial success you get one result. On a full success both.
• if they do it, they mark experience
• if they refuse, it’s acting under Fire
What they do then is up to them

In short you can make things more worthwhile for other PCs. And make things harder for them to not do what you want. But you never, ever get to control their actions. Or even what they know or think. They always retain control of their character - but you can influence them with both carrot and stick. It works well, gives weight to the socially manipulative characters, and

Intimidate
When you go aggro on someone, roll+hard. On a full success, they have to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what you want. On a partial success, they can instead choose 1:
• get the hell out of your way
• barricade themselves securely in
• give you something they think you want
• back off calmly, hands where you can see
• tell you what you want to know (or what you want to hear)

(Note that last point means interrogation via intimidate is generally a bad choice). But once again, how to respond to intimidation is up to the person being intimidated - within sensible options.

It's on the face of it nothing revolutionary - just a skill system (it's no Smallville for instance). But it's a skill system done right, where the social rules and the social abilities of the character have mechanical weight but no matter how good socially you are you never take the actual control of a character away from that character's player. And in which all the guided options are ones that should make sense (it's entirely within the spirit of the game if you're using Go Aggro for interrogation to tie someone to a chair so they can't actually take three of the five options as the victims hands are tied, they can't back off, they can't get out of your way, and they can't barricade themselves in).

And at every point the rules add interest and depth to the scene rather than closing it off. Read a Person is not the end to the investigation - it's probably the beginning.

NichG
2016-01-01, 09:26 AM
(Also @NichG)

And that is pretty much missing the whole point, you know?

"Traditional" Games like D&D are called "gamey" because they pit a group against a challenge and th only thing that truly count is reaching the goal of the challenge, beating it.
Therefore they need a gm in the dual role of referee and antagonist, which is pretty borked when you think about it. Heck, the whole development of 3E and later editions is based on this model and aims at moving the referee part over to the more and more codified system behind stuff like CR and so on.

Let´s look at two things here: Alignments and the Paladin Code. Both are restrictive and enforce certain behaviors that we might call the seed for "good roleplaying". Both are the most common things that are removed from D&D-style games because they can hinder a group from reaching their goal by the most expedient way possible.

Now, the other type of games we talk about here are solely based on creating "Drama", the inter-character tension and escalation. Those games do not focus on the goal, the focus is on the way there and they need the characters to clash constantly to really get going.
It would be wrong to call that PvP, as that is not what´s happening, but a heavy dose of SC vs. SC is needed and the actual focus of most games. Failure and Flaws must happen for it to work.

Neither of these things really hit the mark for me. For the former, all that you need is for the GM to understand that their goal isn't to win, its to provide something to push against. Good GMs understand that you ultimately play to lose, but to lose in a memorable way. So its entirely possible to do this and to referee at the same time. But aside from that, challenge on its own isn't something you need the medium of tabletop RPGs to explore, so I think its too narrow to make the game entirely just about being challenged.

And for the latter, drama for drama's sake is inherently empty. Writing 'my character has temper control problems' creates empty drama - its conflict and trouble just for the sake of conflict and trouble. In the traditional games you mentioned, its the equivalent of a dungeon which is there purely to provide cannon fodder enemies for the PCs to engage the combat mechanics with - without rhyme or reason for why they're there. If you create characters that fundamentally have different and nuanced desires and goals, then meaningful conflict will arise when those desires can't be simultaneously satisfied. You'll also get cooperation, negotiation, deceit, and even the occasional moment of personal growth and discovery. All that good stuff. And no one has to hold the idiot ball to make it work.

But ultimately, for me, the point of roleplay, of all these fantasy and science fiction elements, of creating all these worlds that aren't our own, is to in some sense enable oneself to experience a bit of 'what it would be like', from an alternate point of view. Which brings in aspects of discovery, as well as simply being able to have interactions and explore possibilities that one could not do in real life (for a variety of reasons). 'What is it like to be from a different culture, a different race, or a different gender?', 'What is it like to be ruthless?', 'What is it like to fear for one's life?', 'What is it like to decide the fate of nations?', 'What is it like to make a transformative discovery?', 'What is it like to life for three centuries?', etc.

Conflict can be a part of those things, but its just one part.

goto124
2016-01-04, 01:56 AM
I've always been pretty scared of what I see as "enforced roleplay". I fear that if I don't somehow "roleplay" "well enough", I end up lagging behind and left out... yet if I "roleplay" "well enough" that I let character flaws in, I end up bogging down the entire party with made-up flaws!

I already have RL flaws that get into the game because of who I am, I don't need to make more artificial flaws!

Florian
2016-01-04, 03:35 AM
I've always been pretty scared of what I see as "enforced roleplay". I fear that if I don't somehow "roleplay" "well enough", I end up lagging behind and left out... yet if I "roleplay" "well enough" that I let character flaws in, I end up bogging down the entire party with made-up flaws!

I already have RL flaws that get into the game because of who I am, I don't need to make more artificial flaws!

That´s not really how this, especially flaws, is supposed to work. Flaws are "flags", chosen by the player and should indicate what kind of drama he wants to enjoy with his character. Flaws should be rewarded, not punished and they should enhance the gameplay.

For example, if you take the Aspect "The Last Knight of Cydonia" in Fate Core and everyone agrees what that means (drop consent), then it can be used as a "flaw" insofar, as you or the other players can ask you to act on it in a scene, even if it is a disadvantage to you, but you´ll get rewarded for doing so and playing along. "Say, doesn´t your knight take that as a slight to his honor?"

Edit: It is important to stress that the "flaw" you chose is something that you actually want to see as a "positive" part of the developing drama and nothing that annoys the heck out of everybody.

neonchameleon
2016-01-04, 08:43 AM
I've always been pretty scared of what I see as "enforced roleplay". I fear that if I don't somehow "roleplay" "well enough", I end up lagging behind and left out... yet if I "roleplay" "well enough" that I let character flaws in, I end up bogging down the entire party with made-up flaws!

I already have RL flaws that get into the game because of who I am, I don't need to make more artificial flaws!

This is the strength of games like Fate which provide IC benefits for playing to IC flaws, at least taking the edge off the problem.

Quertus
2016-01-04, 08:54 AM
I love flaws at least as much as the next player. Heck, playing the primary damage dealer in a D&D game, I surprised the party when I turned from being a brave, tactically adept warrior to running away the first time we encountered something truly freaky. But why should a discussion about role-playing be dominated by a discussion of flaws? There is more to role-playing than just disadvantaging yourself (and the party).

Is your character motivated by greed? Fame? Vengeance? Knowledge? Duty? More altruistic reasons? Or some combination of the above, depending on the circumstances?

My signature character is almost caricature academia - verbose, loves 50¢ words, and is very focused on magic and research. Another of my characters, a moody young elf who apprenticed under him briefly, intentionally uses more simplified vocabulary, as, in his opinion, "it's called the common tongue because it's meant to be understood by the common man." Yet another of my characters speaks so infrequently, I always use a noticeably different tone and cadence when speaking in character to make the distinction obvious. While any of these traits could be flaws, they have all been advantageous at times, as well.

Are there any systems that provide a defined structure for how often you talk, or which words you choose to use? For which buttons the quest giver needs to push under which situations to achieve character buy-in for the plot? For what your character's emotional response (or lack thereof) is to a given stimulus? And should there be?

Frozen_Feet
2016-01-04, 09:03 AM
I own and have played a lot of games which try to reward the player for taking or playing out flaws, and I've found them all wanting. In all cases I've seen, only the players who genuinely wanted to explore flawed characters actually roleplayed those characters in the way intended, while everyone else milked the system for the "balancing" benefits. As such, I don't believe in granting any sort of reward for such; it either is its own reward to the player, or it's not. Next time I device a system, flaws will be optional and nothing will be offered in return for them for the sake of "balance".

As a commentary on what NichG said, I'm of almost exact opposite opinion. Rules serve to direct flow of the game, and the most common situation requiring direction is conflict of interest about what, exactly, that direction should be. Whether it's combat, diplomacy or any other aspect of the game, it borders on insane to expect people to co-operate all the time. Dice and GMs-as-referees, indeed, the whole Game part of Roleplaying Games exists mostly for reason of conflict resolution.

This said, as previously noted by others, it's dubious how much simulation or GM interference diplomacy and discussion actually needs, because talking is something that can be done at the table, unlike combat. For the most part, it makes for better roleplay when the people involved are trying to get into and talk as their characters, rather than rolling dice. It might be more helpful to look at acting, rather than dice games, for inspiration and adopt stage direction and hint cards the GM can pass to the players (or the players can pass to one another) in case someone is findng it hard to come up with a convincing argument etc..

Florian
2016-01-04, 12:14 PM
*sigh*

Sorry, guys and gals, but that can´t be so hard, can it?

Basically, we´re talking about two things here:
- Differentiating between character and player. Whose story do we tell?
- The Difference between telling "a story" and telling "this story".

Please do your homework and look up some small indie systems here: Lady Blackbird, Endurance, Mountain Witch, Dogs in the Vineyard. Some of them are even free to download.
Then think about how we, as GMs, modify stuff like DCs to be fitting to the current story being told, how we house rule things and what subsystems we use to do just that.

Systems that use a defined structure are mostly coupled with challenging the characters and use the "this story" mode to function. Does Lady Blackbird marry her prince? We play that to find out ...

Frozen_Feet
2016-01-04, 12:56 PM
Yeah, but my observation is that a system which can tell "a story" can tell almost any number of "those stories" if you adapt them into adventure modules. This is why relatively loosely structured games like early D&D and several of its retroclones have more staying power than many more heavily structured games. Zak Smith made a similar point about Call of Cthulhu - it's horror game, but because it has loose structure and models lots of stuff that are not particular to horror genre, it can be used to run a whole lot of different games.

mephnick
2016-01-04, 01:02 PM
Please do your homework and look up some small indie systems here

Systems that use a defined structure are mostly coupled with challenging the characters and use the "this story" mode to function. Does Lady Blackbird marry her prince? We play that to find out ...

Exactly. It's not about tacking on a flaw system and calling it role-playing. There are actual systems that help the DM and players tell a story and influence character growth.

If your experience is limited to the main few systems (D&D, Pathfinder, Warhammer, Shadowrun) then you need to branch out and see what some inventive systems do with role-playing.

Segev
2016-01-04, 03:33 PM
The short answer, which others have alluded to, is that "rules for role-play" are no more needed than the "rules for combat" are. In fact, there's no reason combat and roleplay are mutually exclusive.


You could have combat without a system, as well! Or with a greatly simplified system, a la D&D's rules for Diplomacy: describe how you fight, and then roll your d20+Str+"Combat Skill" to determine if you win or not.

D&D is the grandpappy of RPGs, and combat and other rather specialized physical tasks are things which we can easily see as things which have concrete success/failure modes AND which are sufficiently outside our daily experience as modern citizens Western Civilization that we do not wish to try to simulate them with demonstrations of personal skill.

What people usually mean when they say "roleplay" is "social encounters." This is actually a bad definition of "roleplay," since everything in an RPG is an aspect of roleplay. Playing a role means choosing your character's actions and approaches to problems according to the characterization you envision. It shows up in not just how you engage in combat, but when and even whether you do so (e.g. do you do it at the drop of a hat, or when it looks like the easiest way to get what you want, or only when everything up to and including running away has failed?), as much as in what skills you try to use to solve a given problem (e.g. diplomacy/social engineering vs. pickpocketing vs. lockpicking to get past a locked door).

The reason social encounters - what many people mean when they say "roleplay" - often have so few rules, and why people often think they "don't need" rules, is that we, as players, are used to talking. We may acknowledge that we're not the smoothest-talking people in the world, but we believe we can present cogent arguments, and we also believe that, if WE are persuaded, anybody should be. Right?

This is less so for physical activities; we can easily believe that, even if one guy can lift 100 lbs., another guy might not. It's harder to grasp why if Bob can persuade Joe that paying for half the gas on their road trip is fair, why Jim can't do the same. After all, Jim's just as capable of choosing the same words that Bob used...he just ... didn't.

We easily forget that there is a talent and skill to knowing the right thing to say. That delivery is important. And that just because Jim didn't think of the right thing to say doesn't mean that Bob, his character, shouldn't be able to.

And that last is really where mechanics help with roleplay in a social situation.

If Jim is playing Bob the Bard, and Jim couldn't sell water in a desert while Bob's supposed to be able to talk a politician into refusing a campaign donation, then it's roleplay to have Bob turn to talking and persuasion as his first (and best) choice of means of accomplishing something. However, if mechanics exist for combat but not for roleplay, Jim may well find that his most effective choice is to just let things go to combat, since every time he tries to talk things out, his lack of persuasive talent means that the GM takes his arguments for the lousy ones they are and finds the NPC to get insulted by them.

If there are, however, mechanics for social engagement, Jim can express what he's trying to do, and even describe it (perhaps poorly, just as a guy who knows nothing of combat could describe a lousy, foolish attack but roll to have his skilled swashbuckler still stab the foe adroitly)...and then invoke mechanics to see how well his argument REALLY worked in-game.

Bob the Bard is more eloquent than Jim, so when Jim says Bob tries to talk them into something, even if Jim's suggested way to talk them into it is exactly the WRONG thing to say to get what he wants, Bob's mechanics say that Bob either knew it was the wrong thing to say and said something else, or was just so smooth that he made the wrong thing to say come off as a brilliant and witty thing that had the target NPC(s) so impressed that they didn't take offense and came to the conclusion he wanted.



That's why mechanics for what you want the game to focus on are important. There are no mechanics for "roleplay." Mechanics enable roleplay by giving options that let you have your character act according to his role and have a more accurate chance to succeed than if you do it without mechanics. Do it without mechanics, and it's up to your persuasive skill as a player to convince the GM your PC should succeed, and this is as true for combat as it is for athletics, lockpicking, rocket science, or social engagement.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-04, 04:17 PM
Segev - to play devil's advocate - what if a player is horrible at tactics? Should the game compensate them because their character is an amazing tactician? Should the game somehow automatically have his character move to flanks - choose the correct maneuvers against his foes etc.?

NichG
2016-01-04, 05:53 PM
It's not like there's one 'should' for all games. Different games, different goals. Some games have the philosophy of letting players write down a (constrained) definition of their character, and then the game tries to permit an accurate simulation of that definition. So for such a game if you're allowed to define the character as a 'good tactician' then the game should just let you mechanically generate your tactical choices. I don't personally get much immersion out of this style, but it works for others.

But other games try to engage particular faculties of the players as a means to immersion. If the player has to think about how to achieve something in the character's shoes, they become closer to the character as a result. Such games should avoid overtly mechanizing the aspect of the player that they want to engage - tactics, social interaction, etc. Or they need to focus mainly on prosthetic mechanics - augmentation rather than replacement. For example, for tactics, the ability to know the result of a stratagem before committing to it.

And other games are intentionally competitive endeavors, and are explicitly testing players against each other.

Choice of game comes down to a matter of taste and what you're trying get out of the experience.

Florian
2016-01-05, 12:44 AM
@Charonshelper/NichG:

I don´t think that this has anything to do with the rules compensating/hindering actual player skill.
In fact, the opposite is true, this kind of rules aim to remove player skills as a whole and level the playing field, accentuating what is really important for the ongoing action.

The two main questions are:
- Does it have a focus and what rules are there to enhance that focus?
- Who is challenged and what rules support that challenge?

Also important is the question:
- Is GM fiat needed? Does it actually need a GM at all?

If you take a critical look at the progress made between AD&D - 3E - 4E, you´ll notice a dramatic shift on who exactly is challenged, moving from 1/1 player to 2/3 player to 1/3 player.

goto124
2016-01-05, 01:03 AM
Do 'social mechanics' resemble 'social combat'?

Alice says "My warrior lifts up her mighty sword, and with a loud roar smashes it down upon the goblin's head". This is followed by "Rolling for Power Attack", and rolls a... three. Alice then says "... or rather, attempts to smash the goblin's head, but misses".

Beth says "My bard adjusts her feathered hat, and in her most eloquent voice convinces the king to help them, explaining how it would benefit both parties". This is followed by "Rolling for Diplomancy", and rolls a... three. Beth then says "... or rather, attempts to convince the king, but farts in the middle of her speech".

Florian
2016-01-05, 01:10 AM
Do 'social mechanics' resemble 'social combat'?

Not necessarily. It depends on the game used and what the social mechanics do cover.

NichG
2016-01-05, 04:16 AM
@Charonshelper/NichG:

I don´t think that this has anything to do with the rules compensating/hindering actual player skill.
In fact, the opposite is true, this kind of rules aim to remove player skills as a whole and level the playing field, accentuating what is really important for the ongoing action.

This motive serves the first out of the three example classes of game that I gave. It's not the exclusive goal of all games. Leveling the playing field is not universally the correct design decision for all types of games. Some games are better served by downplaying competitive aspects but preserving inter-player variation as much as possible, so that the playing field can be non-level but have that fact not matter to the game experience. Other games are better served by accentuating particular differences between players as a means to enable players to test their skill against each other.

Even in those cases where leveling the playing field is the desirable design goal, there are ways to do it which seek to mask the differences between players, and ways to do it which seek to compensate for the differences between players, and those have a very different feel.

If you look at the different kinds of motivations people have for playing games, they're quite broad. Leveling the playing field is something which is only relevant to a subset of those interests.

Jormengand
2016-01-05, 09:38 AM
Segev - to play devil's advocate - what if a player is horrible at tactics? Should the game compensate them because their character is an amazing tactician? Should the game somehow automatically have his character move to flanks - choose the correct maneuvers against his foes etc.?

In both combat and roleplay, you need to be good at deciding what to do (what you're going to try to convince the king, which orc you're going to hit), but you don't need to be good at doing it. You don't need to arm-wrestle the DM to roll a strength check.

Segev
2016-01-05, 10:48 AM
Segev - to play devil's advocate - what if a player is horrible at tactics? Should the game compensate them because their character is an amazing tactician? Should the game somehow automatically have his character move to flanks - choose the correct maneuvers against his foes etc.?


In both combat and roleplay, you need to be good at deciding what to do (what you're going to try to convince the king, which orc you're going to hit), but you don't need to be good at doing it. You don't need to arm-wrestle the DM to roll a strength check.

Mostly what Jormengand said. But yes, if the game has tactical skill/talent as a mechanical element of character design (e.g. with a skill called "Tactics" or "Knowledge: Tactics" or the like), then there should be some mechanical way to represent its advantages.

Because the way combat is usually run in RPGs is heavily descended from miniatures wargaming, the players' tactical skill often remains part of the "game" aspect, rather than the game engine. There are games which attempt to represent more tactically-minded characters having advantages without changing this; d20 Modern, for example, has the Smart Hero have several Talents which are meant to represent his "plan" or other "smart thinking" skills letting him set things up to his advantage.

This gets abstracted into bonuses on rolls for himself and his party based on his "smartness" roll (it has various names and uses various stats in the actual mechanics).

In some games, the "mass combat" rules are heavily abstracted, not resembling the minis wargame at all, and a "tactician" type character is your best "general" because he gets the most bonuses on the abstracted rolls (which often are only slightly more involved than a lot of "social combat" rolls).

For good or ill, the nature of a game will always have player skill and talent matter in some fashion. A well-designed RPG will transform skills that the target audience of players enjoys exercising into simulations of skills they do not have but their characters should. Most RPG players are, on some level, tactical gamers. I am not going to get into the chicken-or-the-egg discussion as to why this is; it simply is the case as far as I can tell. Because of this, tactical choices of WHAT to attempt to do are not something that most people feel need to be abstracted out; skill at DOING those things is what an RPG generally tries to simulate in its mechanics, as the "doing" (rather than the choosing) is where PC skill and player skill are seen most to diverge.

Quertus
2016-01-05, 11:57 AM
The short answer, which others have alluded to, is that "rules for role-play" are no more needed than the "rules for combat" are. In fact, there's no reason combat and roleplay are mutually exclusive.


You could have combat without a system, as well! Or with a greatly simplified system, a la D&D's rules for Diplomacy: describe how you fight, and then roll your d20+Str+"Combat Skill" to determine if you win or not.

D&D is the grandpappy of RPGs, and combat and other rather specialized physical tasks are things which we can easily see as things which have concrete success/failure modes AND which are sufficiently outside our daily experience as modern citizens Western Civilization that we do not wish to try to simulate them with demonstrations of personal skill.

What people usually mean when they say "roleplay" is "social encounters." This is actually a bad definition of "roleplay," since everything in an RPG is an aspect of roleplay. Playing a role means choosing your character's actions and approaches to problems according to the characterization you envision. It shows up in not just how you engage in combat, but when and even whether you do so (e.g. do you do it at the drop of a hat, or when it looks like the easiest way to get what you want, or only when everything up to and including running away has failed?), as much as in what skills you try to use to solve a given problem (e.g. diplomacy/social engineering vs. pickpocketing vs. lockpicking to get past a locked door).

The reason social encounters - what many people mean when they say "roleplay" - often have so few rules, and why people often think they "don't need" rules, is that we, as players, are used to talking. We may acknowledge that we're not the smoothest-talking people in the world, but we believe we can present cogent arguments, and we also believe that, if WE are persuaded, anybody should be. Right?

This is less so for physical activities; we can easily believe that, even if one guy can lift 100 lbs., another guy might not. It's harder to grasp why if Bob can persuade Joe that paying for half the gas on their road trip is fair, why Jim can't do the same. After all, Jim's just as capable of choosing the same words that Bob used...he just ... didn't.

We easily forget that there is a talent and skill to knowing the right thing to say. That delivery is important. And that just because Jim didn't think of the right thing to say doesn't mean that Bob, his character, shouldn't be able to.

And that last is really where mechanics help with roleplay in a social situation.

If Jim is playing Bob the Bard, and Jim couldn't sell water in a desert while Bob's supposed to be able to talk a politician into refusing a campaign donation, then it's roleplay to have Bob turn to talking and persuasion as his first (and best) choice of means of accomplishing something. However, if mechanics exist for combat but not for roleplay, Jim may well find that his most effective choice is to just let things go to combat, since every time he tries to talk things out, his lack of persuasive talent means that the GM takes his arguments for the lousy ones they are and finds the NPC to get insulted by them.

If there are, however, mechanics for social engagement, Jim can express what he's trying to do, and even describe it (perhaps poorly, just as a guy who knows nothing of combat could describe a lousy, foolish attack but roll to have his skilled swashbuckler still stab the foe adroitly)...and then invoke mechanics to see how well his argument REALLY worked in-game.

Bob the Bard is more eloquent than Jim, so when Jim says Bob tries to talk them into something, even if Jim's suggested way to talk them into it is exactly the WRONG thing to say to get what he wants, Bob's mechanics say that Bob either knew it was the wrong thing to say and said something else, or was just so smooth that he made the wrong thing to say come off as a brilliant and witty thing that had the target NPC(s) so impressed that they didn't take offense and came to the conclusion he wanted.



That's why mechanics for what you want the game to focus on are important. There are no mechanics for "roleplay." Mechanics enable roleplay by giving options that let you have your character act according to his role and have a more accurate chance to succeed than if you do it without mechanics. Do it without mechanics, and it's up to your persuasive skill as a player to convince the GM your PC should succeed, and this is as true for combat as it is for athletics, lockpicking, rocket science, or social engagement.


Segev - to play devil's advocate - what if a player is horrible at tactics? Should the game compensate them because their character is an amazing tactician? Should the game somehow automatically have his character move to flanks - choose the correct maneuvers against his foes etc.?


In both combat and roleplay, you need to be good at deciding what to do (what you're going to try to convince the king, which orc you're going to hit), but you don't need to be good at doing it. You don't need to arm-wrestle the DM to roll a strength check.

So, I tend to take the direction the conversation goes from the player, but the distance it goes in that direction from the character.

For example, party goes to meet the king. Party face is absent, so the party's next best thing (Diplomacy +10) gathers some intel on local politics (+2 circumstance bonus) and history (+2 circumstance bonus), quickly studies up on his court etiquette (+2 circumstance bonus), makes sure everyone's clothes are in the best possible shape (+2 circumstance bonus), brings the party into the audience chamber, and attempts to explain their proposal to the king.

The king appreciates their attempts, and hides his amusement at the occasional mistakes the character makes. Convinced that the plan might have merit, he says he will bring the proposal before his advisors.

Then the party face (diplomacy +50) walks in wearing a bath robe, and addresses the king with a simple wave of his hand and a, "yo, dude." The king is pleased with his spirit, admires his audacity, and offers him a set of more suitable clothes. The face declines, saying he is comfortable the way he is. He couldn't help overhear the party's proposal, and liked it. The king makes a mental note to encourage his advisors to accept the proposal. Oh, and by the way, the face adds, he thinks he got the king's daughter pregnant.

The king sends for a diviner, to verify this, and prepares to welcome the face into the family. The character-who-should-never-talk (diplomacy -10) can't take it any more, and points out that the law of the land is that only nobility can marry nobility, and that having children outside of wedlock is against the law, too. The king orders the impudent cur arrested, and begins talking with the face about how to make their union legal.

----------

I consider it bad roleplaying when the GM has NPCs respond to the player's social ability, rather than the character's social ability.

----------

As to how to deal with someone who is terrible at tactics... or decisions in general... culling out the worst of this is why DMs ask, "are you sure?". In 3.x, I made a mechanic for it - I had the player roll a wisdom check, DC 5, whenever they were about to do something truly stupid. If they made the check, I would tell them why it was stupid (provoking an AoO unnecessarily, casting cure light wounds on an undead ally, etc); if they failed, I let their character go ahead and do the stupid thing. This way, wise characters were wise.

Tactics is tricky. I see people all the time posting, "how do I solve problem X" on these boards. Although I like to respond, in the back of my head, I'm always wondering, "and how do you justify your character knowing this answer?" The same goes for table talk. Most groups don't have a problem with it, and allow everyone to work together on party tactics, at which point this question is mostly moot, unless no one has any tactical skill. But for groups where table talk is generally verboten, you either have to make an exception for someone whose lack of tactical skill makes them unable to successfully roleplay their character, or force them to play someone "at their level". :smallannoyed:

Segev
2016-01-05, 12:09 PM
"Table talk" is, too, a good tool for playing the parts of a character inadequately represented by the rules but which you, the player, lack the requisite skills. If you're playing somebody more charismatic than you, get advice from the more charming people at the table. If you're playing somebody smarter than you, have the table think together about solutions (multiple heads simulating higher intelligence) and give "credit" for the solution, IC, to the smart PC.

obryn
2016-01-05, 02:22 PM
Perhaps someone could give an example of where or why a system without this direct support/structure for roleplay would fail whereas another that did have all that would succeed?
You should ask neonchameleon for his Fate vs. GURPS breakdown of an 'Alcoholism' flaw. It's pretty illustrative.

Jormengand
2016-01-06, 07:52 AM
You should ask neonchameleon for his Fate vs. GURPS breakdown of an 'Alcoholism' flaw. It's pretty illustrative.

Let me get that for you. (www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?328753-Why-have-dissociated-mechanics-returned&p=6007890&viewfull=1#post6007890)

Segev
2016-01-06, 10:28 AM
I did not read the linked thread's history to figure out what "dissociated mechanics" are, but I largely agree with neonchameleon's approach. The immersion, in my experience, in a character's choices comes when the player feels those choices, if not just as keenly, at least with a similar pull. A player should feel tempted when his character does (if not always for the same reasons).

"Roll or your character does something stupid that you don't want him to do," isn't tempting for the player, and incentivizes the player to carefully maneuver to avoid that roll. Appropriate, as neonphoenix notes, for a recovering alcoholic, perhaps, or anybody else trying to overcome a bad habit: reshape your life around avoiding the habit. Not so appropriate for a character who has a bad habit that is just a part of him; in character, he wouldn't be avoiding the temptation because he hasn't made a commitment to overcome a problem (or, possibly, even admitted he has one).

That's why there need to be mechanical REWARDS for behaving as the character "should," and PENALTIES for trying to act against that nature. Sure, there can be rewards for acting against that nature, too, but those rewards are harder to achieve because you have to fight through the penalties.

Stepping away from GURPS/FATE alcoholism, but not too far, let's examine the Vampire.

A common way to portray the Vampire's inescapable hunger and the temptation to feed in a horrifying and murderous way is to say that, in character, it's a HUNGER and feeding feels SO GOOD that they just can't help themselves and forget to stop. Modeling it mechanically, they are forced to make rolls to resist STARTING and then to bring themselves to STOP.

Cleverer versions of this might keep track of how hungry they are, making it easier to wait for a more opportune time and easier to stop before going "too far" if one is not starving.

But cleverer still are systems where HAVING blood in your system, HAVING fed, makes you stronger.

Vampire: the Masquerade (and the Requiem, as well) use blood as your "mana pool." Feeding gets you more of it, and it's easy to feed to top off so you're always primed. There are penalties, too, for being too low (such as the fact that you have to spend blood just to wake up each night), and there ARE the "you have to work to stop!" mechanics. But the temptation to give in is THERE.

In my own personal fiction and creations, I give vampires the means to survive just fine without killing anybody. Feeding on animals or sipping from humans without killing them is perfectly doable. The temptation is narratively present, but barring extreme situations it's assumed it's largely under control. However, drink a human dry, and the vampire can be (essentially) a "day walker" for one solar cycle. Now, there's mechanical incentive to kill even when one isn't in extremis!


I like contemplating taint/corruption systems, for this reason. The way a lot of them are modeled, yes, you want to avoid corruption at all costs. It's purely bad. But you also don't want to BEHAVE like you're corrupted; it's almost always a willpower related roll to keep control of your character, or you temporarily do evil stuff. It feels stilted, and leaves a clear mark between the "real you" and the "corruption's influence."

To me, the most engaging "corruption" stories are the ones where it is sometimes (or even often) hard to tell whether it's "the corruption talking" or some dark part of one's own nature. Such things can lead, in well-done stories, to people who are known to be potentially exposed to "the taint" fearing to do even the RIGHT thing, IN CASE it might be for the wrong reasons.

The best taint/corruption mechanics offer incentives to the afflicted. New powers, or bonuses to rolls, or the like when acting the way the taint would influence them to act. Offers of "dark gifts" that come, perhaps, with the cost of increasing the taint, are also valid (though they don't make the player doubt himself nearly so much; that's a pure risk/reward thing). But if the taint rewards as the GM sees fit, and only later starts to penalize as the GM also sees fit, the player will start to be tempted to act in specific ways to get the bonuses and avoid the penalties. Particularly if the GM is subtle about it, and doesn't just say "due to your taint, you gain/suffer a +X bonus/penalty here."

Give rewards for behaving "correctly," and the player is tempted OOC as well as the character IC to act "correctly." Even if the player knows it's "wrong" because it's "following the corruption's influence," he starts to weigh the game aspect; can he afford the taint? Is it going to really be that bad?

Heck, some players revel in the 'dark temptation' story, at least if they really get something out of it. Feeling that the temptation is appealing to more than just something they're informed their character is experiencing helps bring the choice home. "Your character is really mad and wants to hurt this guy" when the player has little reason to do so or, even when he does but knows it's a bad idea, is not terribly tempting. "Do it for a FATE point" or "Do it and it will recharge your magical resources" or something similar, though...and it's tempting.


The WORST way to model it is to say, "there's no mechanical reward, but it's in character, so you should totally do it." That's right up there with "be evil for the sake of being evil."

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-06, 12:23 PM
Allow me to barf some thoughts on this matter:

Rules for Social Interaction are really only needed in mechanics-first systems.

To explain myself, there are systems built around Mechanics causing Fiction and those built around Fiction causing Mechanics.

D&D is the former.
Powered by the Apocalypse systems are the latter.

In D&D one of the common interactions is:
"The room has two bookshelves and some chairs."
"I roll a Search check." *success*
"You find a secret door. As you open it, a zombie crawls out and attacks you, reeking of death and old blood."

In this situation, we have an establishing shot that leads to someone making a Mechanics decision -rolling a search check- which causes story things to happen. This sort of interaction is the bread and butter of D&D.

In, say, Apocalypse World, a similar interaction would be:
"You walk into Dremmer's shack. It's rusted all to hell and he has a dusty rug on the ground by his old mattress."
"I know this bastard has my guns around here. I'm gonna search the shack."
"Cool. What does that look like? Is it angry, throwing crap around and making a ruckus or are you trying to be discreet?"
"Screw Dremmer. I'm ripping up his rug, throwing his mattress. Dremmer be damned."
"Okay, roll +hard for me."
"Ok." *Success*
"Cool. When you chuck some of his stuff, you break one of the floorboards, revealing a hidden space. It reeks of death and old blood."

In the latter exchange, the specific actions of the character and the situation (the Fiction) determined what kind of roll and what sorts of things could happen.

Apocalypse World and its inclusion of letting big tough guys be intimidating based on being big and tough lets pretty much everyone have social success. (It's not hard to figure out that holding a combat knife in Shazza's face and demanding he give you his stuff or you'll slice him open like a watermelon might get you a desired result because you're a big scary tower of muscle and rage. No smooth talking required.)

It's fiction-first approach and flexible roll system mean that it doesn't really need much of a dedicated "social system" or even "Combat system." The system for battles is 100% optional. And it rewards you for trying unique strategies. Social interaction is just as likely to merit the same amount of XP as combat would.

In D&D your reward comes from killing things. Gold and XP come from killing things and taking their stuff. That's why so many things in d&d are measured by combat effectiveness. CR for monsters are based on how hard they are to Kill. All of the mechanics are built around combat, and the fiction is built around those mechanics.

Mechanics cause the fiction in D&D.
That's not a bad thing, it's just how it works.

So to do a Mechanics > Fiction system with deep social elements, you will need deep mechanics.

For Fiction > Mechanics, don't need particularly deep mechanics for anything. Just sufficient mechanics to support many kinds of fiction.


As for why people like them...
Because they do.

Apocalypse World doesn't really have deep combat. One of my regular players just...didn't like that. He wanted deep combat mechanics. So he stopped playing it with us. He still plays other systems with us, though.

If you want to understand why people want deep social mechanics, ask yourself why you like deep combat mechanics. It's probably the same kinds of reasons.

Quertus
2016-01-06, 12:31 PM
Ok, so I can see how having a reward system in place could help rp a flaw I don't understand, or am for some reason avoiding. Although why I would take such a flaw is confusing.

But, do these systems reward when you roleplay the flaw without promoting? When the alcoholic's player says he misses the meeting because he is passed out? When the vampire's player informs the GM that he drains someone for the lols? When the tainted character gets mad and punches someone, seemingly at random?

Or, from my examples, when the party's primary damage dealer flees unexpectedly the first time (and every time thereafter) the party encounters something truly freaky? Or every time my tactically inept signature character makes a decidedly sub-optimal tactical decision?

To continue this line of inquiry, would my signature character earn a fate point every time his verbosity and inaccessible language resulted in increased difficulty for himself or the party? Would he instead lose a fate point every time the opposite were true, and such tendencies proved situationally advantageous?

And, do these systems tend to produce characters with minor character quirks that are beneath the level of the reward system (my signature character likes sea food, bouncy balls, entertaining children, and the color blue; dislikes fungus, druids, modern music, and most chronomancers), or, because they are beneath the level of the reward system, do such pieces of the character's personality tend to be ignored?

obryn
2016-01-06, 02:13 PM
But, do these systems reward when you roleplay the flaw without promoting?
Yes, as long as it causes complications. That's what the Fate Point economy is all about.
...
To continue this line of inquiry, would my signature character earn a fate point every time his verbosity and inaccessible language resulted in increased difficulty for himself or the party? Would he instead lose a fate point every time the opposite were true, and such tendencies proved situationally advantageous?[/quote]
On the contrary, the very best Aspects in Fate are double-edged swords. You can invoke your Aspect of 'overwhelming verbosity' any time it would be advantageous to get yourself a reroll or +2, spending a Fate Point in the process. Or when it would be a complication, the GM (or you yourself!) can invoke it to create complications, giving you a Fate Point.


And, do these systems tend to produce characters with minor character quirks that are beneath the level of the reward system (my signature character likes sea food, bouncy balls, entertaining children, and the color blue; dislikes fungus, druids, modern music, and most chronomancers), or, because they are beneath the level of the reward system, do such pieces of the character's personality tend to be ignored?
They aren't mechanized in the same kind of way, no.

Jormengand
2016-01-06, 02:29 PM
In, say, Apocalypse World, a similar interaction would be:
"You walk into Dremmer's shack. It's rusted all to hell and he has a dusty rug on the ground by his old mattress."
"I know this bastard has my guns around here. I'm gonna search the shack."
"Cool. What does that look like? Is it angry, throwing crap around and making a ruckus or are you trying to be discreet?"
"Screw Dremmer. I'm ripping up his rug, throwing his mattress. Dremmer be damned."
"Okay, roll +hard a strength check for me."
"Ok." *Success*
"Cool. When you chuck some of his stuff, you break one of the floorboards, revealing a hidden space. It reeks of death and old blood."

I see precisely no reason why essentially the same interactions couldn't take place in D20 modern. Care to share?

Segev
2016-01-06, 03:27 PM
I'm not a FATE advocate; something about the system just never "clicked" with me. But the concept of giving rewards for complications is the heart of good design for character flaws.

There certainly are players who will choose to have their characters be inconvenienced or even severely disadvantaged by making poor choices, for no reward at all. However, while it's likely fun for them, it still falls into a hard-baked "well, do I decide it's a problem THIS time?" sort of emotionally-divorced decision.

I'm not going to claim that rewards for self-detrimental choices inherently add an emotional link, but they do make it so that you're not doing the equivalent of playing chess and choosing to purposefully sacrifice your Queen to no advantage "because she's in love with the enemy knight and doesn't expect that he'll capture her."

By having the reward structure there, it tempts even those players who feel that the "game" aspect is important enough that deliberately choosing "wrong" isn't as painful nor annoying. It also empowers the "good RPer" player, because playing as he's wont to do actually lets his character have oomph when he, the player, feels he SHOULD, later on, rather than merely weakening the character overall.

And finally, it makes the munchkin an accomplice in his own character flaws coming to the fore, rather than a player of a character with a wide variety of low-impact character flaws that will never come up in order to maximize his points pool for always-useful mechanical abilities.

Arbane
2016-01-06, 03:31 PM
I see precisely no reason why essentially the same interactions couldn't take place in D20 modern. Care to share?

"Roll search. How many skill points did you have, again?"

Segev
2016-01-06, 03:33 PM
"Roll search. How many skill points did you have, again?"

Again, I'm not sure how that's any different than "roll +hard."

The fluff interactions could be identical. After asking how the search is performed, the DM asks for a search roll. Then describes finding the hidden hidey-hole.

Airk
2016-01-06, 05:13 PM
Again, I'm not sure how that's any different than "roll +hard."

The fluff interactions could be identical. After asking how the search is performed, the DM asks for a search roll. Then describes finding the hidden hidey-hole.

The meaningful difference in this case is that that example is a terrible example of Apocalypse World. In fact, it's so bad that it's actually invalid AW play. There are only certain situations in which you pick up dice in AW, and "searching a room" is NOT one of them, regardless of how you are doing it. Because AW is not a task resolution system. There is no "search check" or "perception check".

I think the original example was supposed to be an example of the "seize by force" move, but I don't really think it's a good example at all, since using that move implies an opponent. So if you're trying to take someone's gun away, you might be seizing by force. Rummaging someone's room, no matter how chaotically, is not seizing by force.

Either way, this is a tangent that has very little to do with the point of this thread.

To add some fuel to the original topic:
How often have you (or your players, if you GM) done the "safe but boring" thing? As in, taken the option that actually wasn't any fun to play out, but which guaranteed success with minimum loss of hitpoints? Those are exactly the sorts of situations that games with roleplaying incentive systems eliminate. So there's your "place where a game without these rules fails" case.

Segev
2016-01-06, 05:46 PM
How often have you (or your players, if you GM) done the "safe but boring" thing? As in, taken the option that actually wasn't any fun to play out, but which guaranteed success with minimum loss of hitpoints? Those are exactly the sorts of situations that games with roleplaying incentive systems eliminate. So there's your "place where a game without these rules fails" case.

Ah, the reason Exalted has Stunts.

"I want to swing down on the curtain to cut the villain with my sword as I pass!" "Alright, that'll be an Athletics roll to avoid falling and losing your attack, and you're going to be at a penalty to hit due to no footing." "...um, I guess I'll just take a move action to go down the steps and stab him, then." "Alright, go ahead."

Versus...

"I want to swing down on the curtain to cut the villain with my sword as I pass!" "Okay! Make the attack with a bonus of two dice for the stunt!"

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-06, 07:41 PM
I see precisely no reason why essentially the same interactions couldn't take place in D20 modern. Care to share?

Because D20 modern doesn't care about your methodology for searching, only your Search skill. The Fiction has less to say than the Mechanics do.

You CAN play D&D in a fiction-first style, but the system won't help you at all. It's built under the assumption that you'll do mechanics first. (You don't usually describe your attack, just roll for it and see how much damage it does with a bit of embellishment after.)

Apocalypse World is built on the fiction>mechanics method. In fact there is an explicit rule that you can't say things like "I'm gonna roll for Go Aggro." If you do, the GM has to respond with, "Ok, but what do you actually DO?" (It's actual RAW.)

It's POSSIBLE to do either system in either direction. Just like it's possible to play a Western campaign in d&d...it's just not what the system was built for.

Jormengand
2016-01-06, 07:47 PM
Because D20 modern doesn't care about your methodology for searching, only your Search skill.

Yes it does. Want to search in the locked cupboard? That's an open lock. Want to search for valuables? That's an appraise. Want to tear the place to pieces? That's a strength. Also, the result of the roll depends on how you did it - if you're tearing the place up, it's gonna be torn up.

NichG
2016-01-06, 08:34 PM
It sounds like fiction first has the danger of turning into a form of Go Fish, if it can lead to different levels of success depending on what roll is requested.

Imagine if the character had very good ability for a calm, careful search but very bad ability for a destructive search. The player would then be incentivized to try to give the impression of always being calm and careful, even when their character isn't feeling that way - because otherwise they risk the GM calling for the worse roll.

Better, as Airk said, not to roll here at all.

Airk
2016-01-06, 08:51 PM
Ah, the reason Exalted has Stunts.

"I want to swing down on the curtain to cut the villain with my sword as I pass!" "Alright, that'll be an Athletics roll to avoid falling and losing your attack, and you're going to be at a penalty to hit due to no footing." "...um, I guess I'll just take a move action to go down the steps and stab him, then." "Alright, go ahead."

Versus...

"I want to swing down on the curtain to cut the villain with my sword as I pass!" "Okay! Make the attack with a bonus of two dice for the stunt!"

Sortof, but stunts are basically just a "fix" for combat, and that's far from the only place this happens - I've seen games where entire plans that took up entire SESSIONS were done in a manner that was basically no fun, because that was the safest option. A well implemented reward system can fix this problem at all levels of the game.


It sounds like fiction first has the danger of turning into a form of Go Fish, if it can lead to different levels of success depending on what roll is requested.

Er, working as intended? Doing different things has different effects, right?



Imagine if the character had very good ability for a calm, careful search but very bad ability for a destructive search. The player would then be incentivized to try to give the impression of always being calm and careful, even when their character isn't feeling that way - because otherwise they risk the GM calling for the worse roll.

And presumably, you have a very careful character here. OR you have a character who gets a benefit for NOT being careful:

Player: Yeah, Thompson could totally take this place apart and find the gun, but he's really pissed off right now, and one of the traits is "Terrible Temper" so screw that, he's going to trash the place.
GM: Well, you didn't find what you were looking for, but take a <reward> for playing that trait.


Better, as Airk said, not to roll here at all.

I'm not really a big fan of "roll to find things" overall, because I think it tends to be a waste of time in most games unless the thing is "Some random treasure stuff" because the game is always more interesting if the thing is found. Still, whether you should roll depends on the type of game you are going for.

Chauncymancer
2016-01-06, 09:56 PM
Segev - to play devil's advocate - what if a player is horrible at tactics? Should the game compensate them because their character is an amazing tactician? Should the game somehow automatically have his character move to flanks - choose the correct maneuvers against his foes etc.?

This will depend, of course, on the game. But if the game is Dungeons and Dragons, Shadowrun, GURPS at the recommended resolution instead of the high granularity, anything by FFG, etc. then the game already does.
I am a bad martial artist. Two of my fellow players are good martial artists. Our DM is a veteran. Combat in real life does not work at all like combat in role playing games. It is a toy model that strips all but the grossest tactics out of the situation. If you had to be actually good at tactics to play fights in 4E DnD, then my character would die all the time, and unless you're a soldier, cop, or martial artist your character would probably die all the time too.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-06, 11:02 PM
There are still varying definitions floating around, so I'll just give my thoughts on all of them.

Roleplaying = character traits

As others have brought up, playing your character is about deciding what you want to accomplish and how you will try to do so. In this paradigm, you role-play every time you take an action, or more accurately, you role-play in the decisions about what actions to take. Why a defined structure here? After all, we're all experienced decision-makers, certainly we can judge from the game inputs we have what our characters would/should do. The difference is just in how the player perceives their true goal: is the player supposed to make decisions based on what their character would want in that situation, or what their character would do in that story? Are you, as the player, filling the role of "character's conscience/judgment/brain" or "character's writer?" Should you focus on accomplishing the goals your character has (the internal goal), or producing a compelling story (the external goal)?

If the game decides you want a compelling story, an external orientation, where the players are the writers of their characters' stories as much or more than they are their characters' minds, then you may want structure to help nudge the decisions being made towards something "interesting." This will result in what at least appears to be sub-optimal choices for the characters, probably compensated with meta-game benefits, be they Fate Points or XP. It's ultimately a crutch for players who otherwise would not run from truly freaky baddies, or never give in to some temptation like greed or vengeance when it wasn't objectively the best thing for the group's goals. The actions the characters take will match up with their traits and motivations, because the meta-game motivation of "winning," however that is defined, is served by doing so.

I used to love this idea, and thought it would be great fun. But then I played Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, which is an extremely fun game and does this perfectly. But shortly, the role-playing all felt hollow to me. I wasn't connected to my character, so I didn't much care what he did or said, I was just trying to be clever with his dialogue and to win. I learned that what I really want from role-play is the internal product, the melding of player and character motivation, where the game inputs to me are just what they are to him, where there is no screen between him and me, and where I feel the pressures and temptations on him on a visceral level. When I do that, I care what he says and does, because those aren't his goals, they're mine. I would rather not have a crutch, even if I might make decisions somewhat differently for it.

Not everyone's like that; this is just my preference. I'm a good enough writer/role-player that I can exhibit my character's motivations and traits without endangering the party (by choosing motivations and traits that aren't likely to do so) and without needing a mechanical nudge. That being said, organic, in-character tensions like Segev's Vampire example is the kind of structure I would welcome. If my character's motivation is about paying off a huge debt to Habba the Jutt, but the bandit NPC that risked her neck to help us out that one time is suddenly ill and needs an expensive magical treatment, that's the kind of structure I would love; you can have either this or this, not because the game arbitrarily says so for drama's sake, but because it naturally flows from the surrounding mechanics.

It's a lot harder to make stuff like that, but to me the payoff is worth it.

Role-playing = social interaction

Here you really need structure. For largely the reasons others have already mentioned; it allows non-social people to play social characters, it gives social characters a time to shine, and it allows social characters to fairly and neutrally impact the world the way combat characters do, or more accurately, in ways combat characters do not. The virtues of having a combat system here are similarly virtues of having a social system. Of course, having a good combat and/or social system that actually delivers what you want with a minimum of fuss is a bit trickier, but at a conceptual level, yes, you want structure here.


To explain myself, there are systems built around Mechanics causing Fiction and those built around Fiction causing Mechanics.

D&D is the former.
Powered by the Apocalypse systems are the latter.

In D&D one of the common interactions is:
"The room has two bookshelves and some chairs."
"I roll a Search check." *success*
"You find a secret door. As you open it, a zombie crawls out and attacks you, reeking of death and old blood."

In this situation, we have an establishing shot that leads to someone making a Mechanics decision -rolling a search check- which causes story things to happen. This sort of interaction is the bread and butter of D&D.

In, say, Apocalypse World, a similar interaction would be:
"You walk into Dremmer's shack. It's rusted all to hell and he has a dusty rug on the ground by his old mattress."
"I know this bastard has my guns around here. I'm gonna search the shack."
"Cool. What does that look like? Is it angry, throwing crap around and making a ruckus or are you trying to be discreet?"
"Screw Dremmer. I'm ripping up his rug, throwing his mattress. Dremmer be damned."
"Okay, roll +hard for me."
"Ok." *Success*
"Cool. When you chuck some of his stuff, you break one of the floorboards, revealing a hidden space. It reeks of death and old blood."

In the latter exchange, the specific actions of the character and the situation (the Fiction) determined what kind of roll and what sorts of things could happen.

Apocalypse World and its inclusion of letting big tough guys be intimidating based on being big and tough lets pretty much everyone have social success. (It's not hard to figure out that holding a combat knife in Shazza's face and demanding he give you his stuff or you'll slice him open like a watermelon might get you a desired result because you're a big scary tower of muscle and rage. No smooth talking required.)

It's fiction-first approach and flexible roll system mean that it doesn't really need much of a dedicated "social system" or even "Combat system." The system for battles is 100% optional. And it rewards you for trying unique strategies. Social interaction is just as likely to merit the same amount of XP as combat would.

In D&D your reward comes from killing things. Gold and XP come from killing things and taking their stuff. That's why so many things in d&d are measured by combat effectiveness. CR for monsters are based on how hard they are to Kill. All of the mechanics are built around combat, and the fiction is built around those mechanics.

Mechanics cause the fiction in D&D.
That's not a bad thing, it's just how it works.

So to do a Mechanics > Fiction system with deep social elements, you will need deep mechanics.

For Fiction > Mechanics, don't need particularly deep mechanics for anything. Just sufficient mechanics to support many kinds of fiction.

Someone had a little too much PbtA Kool-Aid.

The truth is there is a constant back-and-forth between mechanics and fiction in all games, and each table will have their own unique balance or rhythm. This is true for AW as well as D&D.

What you are describing as "fiction first" is just narrative mechanics. AW makes a big to-do about making everyone tie the mechanics to certain in-universe realities because the rules are narrative rules, and so they cannot be used unless they are properly tied to some magic words coming from somebody's mouth. In AW, the player describes what they're doing until the GM knows which Move they're talking about, and then applies the rules for that move. The thing is, D&D isn't different; it just shortens the first step by allowing you to use the name of Moves. The difference in your example is just that AW parses different kinds of searching where D&D doesn't, because D&D uses a binary task-resolution system and leaves the DM free to impose consequences appropriate to the fiction in a way that AW does not.

I have no idea what mechanical effect the destructive search you described would have in AW (did it just indicate a different procedure for the check, or would there be some other consequence?), but in D&D the search roll just tells you if you found what you were looking for or not; the consequences of how you did so (e.g. carefully so as not to leave a trace or destructively to send a message) would be up to the DM and would flow naturally from your description. If you're playing without descriptions, without describing how you do the task, you're doing it wrong in either game. D&D was not "meant" to be played by sitting around conversing only in rules language; the game didn't even have skills to begin with, and you were expected to describe everything narratively in minute detail. Stapling on skill checks did not obviate the method, it just created a neutral resolution system that didn't rely on luck or reading the DM's mind. It's not there to replace all consequences with a simple binary yes/no. The DM has to know how you search in order to adjudicate the consequences, as opposed to merely the result, which the die itself can supply.

(All that being said, I don't think anyone should be rolling for search checks. If you're unhurried, you just search until you find what you're looking for or until "you're pretty sure there's nothing to find here," no roll needed. Stop wasting time doing boring things and get on with the interesting stuff.)


Sortof, but stunts are basically just a "fix" for combat, and that's far from the only place this happens - I've seen games where entire plans that took up entire SESSIONS were done in a manner that was basically no fun, because that was the safest option. A well implemented reward system can fix this problem at all levels of the game.

Only by alienating the players from their characters' motivations, though. There are other ways around this (better pacing by the DM, less lethality for error, etc.) that don't take the characters away from the players. If the players are playing very conservative, then that is what their characters are, and unless one of them was supposed to be "rash" or something, a character trait incentive system wouldn't change much, anyway.


Er, working as intended? Doing different things has different effects, right?

? Didn't you just say taking it the safe way was boring? I mean, if there are different ways to do things that are meaningfully different, one way is probably going to be safer or otherwise more desirable than the others. Doing different things should have different effects, I agree, but it seems like rewarding them for taking less-advantageous (but more "interesting") options kind of defeats the purpose of those differences. If, OTOH, differences mean choosing between two consequences that each could make for further complications, then there is no safe way in the first place. Either way, you shouldn't need to reward certain choices just to see them happen at all; if that's the case, maybe the choice just shouldn't be incentivized because it's just bad?

Segev
2016-01-06, 11:40 PM
Personally, I find that when the mechanics don't punish me for making decisions appropriate to the character, I have more fun. I am more invested in the character because I feel the same sort of "hard choice" decisions he does. The reason that the optimal choice without the reward-for-bad-choices mechanics is optimal hasn't gone away. So now there's a tug-of-war between one choice and another for me, as a player of a game choosing a move, as well as for my character.

I also don't think stunts are a "crutch." They're a way to turn off the disincentive to play cool scenes out in cool ways, because they explicitly say that doing something in a cool way is BETTER than doing it the boring way. The examples I gave were meant to highlight this, demonstrating that the "brash" player, as another poster termed it, is nothing but punished for trying to be cool and exciting; he is in every way less effective than the guy who just says "I take a move action and attack." Ultimately, the PLAYER should not be punished with eternal inability to impact the game for playing a character with flaws. That's what "reward" mechanics do: they let you have other tools to keep such a character viable without playing him in an utterly game-but-not-RP way.

goto124
2016-01-06, 11:46 PM
I've been thinking of trying out a 'flaws are rewarded' system, but I'm constantly fearing that the rewards I get for playing out flaws will be overshadowed by the troubles that spring from playing out the flaw.

How many Fate points does it take to cover the mistake of angering an organization, leading to a downward spiral where people get increasingly pissed off?

I've made mistakes before... I'm still haunted by how easily the mistakes could've been avoided, and yet I made the mistakes that makes the entire game meaningless. And that's when I'm not purposefully trying to invoke flaws!

Quertus
2016-01-06, 11:59 PM
Yes, as long as it causes complications. That's what the Fate Point economy is all about.
...
They aren't mechanized in the same kind of way, no.

I'm liking most of what I am hearing, both in terms of player control of their character, and the ways the system encourages role-playing. I do still fear it encourages the "bright colors" of role-playing, while discouraging the "subtle shades" of role-playing. By giving a reward for the mechanized things (big flaws), you effectively tell people the non mechanized portions of RP (everything else) isn't worth doing. So I'm not sure if I'd rather have that system, no system, or white wolf's end of session did-I-RP XP - "yes, I did: remember when <my signature character> ordered sea food at the restaurant, and entertained the children by juggling bouncy balls behind his back?". But any of them sound like they could be fun to me.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 12:30 AM
"I want to swing down on the curtain to cut the villain with my sword as I pass!" "Okay! Make the attack with a bonus of two dice for the stunt!"

Why should that be beneficial? That... kinda reminds me of a 1930's Errol Flynn sort of thing - though I don't think even he ever did that sort of thing in combat. *shrug* Not my cup of tea. I like to think of my adventurers as professionals... medieval navy seals. I don't see a navy seal swinging down the curtains.

Florian
2016-01-07, 08:23 AM
I've been thinking of trying out a 'flaws are rewarded' system, but I'm constantly fearing that the rewards I get for playing out flaws will be overshadowed by the troubles that spring from playing out the flaw.

How many Fate points does it take to cover the mistake of angering an organization, leading to a downward spiral where people get increasingly pissed off?

I've made mistakes before... I'm still haunted by how easily the mistakes could've been avoided, and yet I made the mistakes that makes the entire game meaningless. And that's when I'm not purposefully trying to invoke flaws!

First off, accept that "Roleplaying" is an empty phrase and an empty word without any further meaning or connotation. A Diablo-style hack&slash is as much a roleplaying experience as your most involving Ars Magicka chronicle.

Under that main category fall three very different "main thrust directions" that will define what everything else could mean:
- Simulation (Setting, Genre, Actions & Consequences)
- Storytelling (Campaigns, Dragonlance, Adventure Paths.)
- Storygaming (Stuff like Fate Core or PbtA, Ars Magicka)

Now what a "flaw" is and if it can "enhance" the story will strictly depend on which of this three modes you are actually playing, as your question here clearly shows.

"Simulation" compares anything you are, have or do against a benchmark, a "simulated reality". Anything that lowers your virtual results is a flaw, everything that raises it is a boon. A "flaw" here really is a drawback that you want to avoid as you´re just punished for having it.

"Storytelling" can actually have the Storyteller work with or against a characters flaw, depending on the specific gaming group/table.

"Storygaming" is what we´re talking about here, as the GM takes a back seat and works with what the player provide. A "Flaw" here is just something to god on from, nothing else.

goto124
2016-01-07, 08:33 AM
Seems that people tend to want some combination between "Simulation" and "Storygaming". There appears to be a popular view that "Simulation" adds an important thing called immersion to the game.

Florian
2016-01-07, 08:59 AM
Seems that people tend to want some combination between "Simulation" and "Storygaming". There appears to be a popular view that "Simulation" adds an important thing called immersion to the game.

The real dichotomy here is "Creator" or "Consumer" and that also affects what place the so-called Game Master has.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-07, 10:29 AM
Yes it does. Want to search in the locked cupboard? That's an open lock. Want to search for valuables? That's an appraise. Want to tear the place to pieces? That's a strength. Also, the result of the roll depends on how you did it - if you're tearing the place up, it's gonna be torn up.

But those are distinctly different TASKS not different METHODS.


Opening a locked cabinet has nothing to do with searching a room.

Appraisal is, in the vast majorty of D&D based systems, a skill for finding the value of a known object. You don't go appraising for gems in a dungeon. You go searching for gems. And even if it did, the task is no longer "find something specific" it's "find something valuable" which will have different returns not because its a different method, but because it is a different task entirely.

Tearing the place apart for the hell of it is not the same as searching in a destructive panic.

Different tasks DO have different rolls in D20, Mechanics-first systems.

Different methods usually don't.

Is there any other method for appriasing a gem other than just selling it in that system? Probably not.

In Powered by the Apocalypse systems, thats just a roll +Sharp, but... likely your character will know how much Barter an item is usually worth and go based on that. It's a superfluous, not necessary skill in PbtA systems. So I guess I should correct myself:
In PbtA systems, that's not even a roll unless your class gives you a move for it.


Why should that be beneficial? That... kinda reminds me of a 1930's Errol Flynn sort of thing - though I don't think even he ever did that sort of thing in combat. *shrug* Not my cup of tea. I like to think of my adventurers as professionals... medieval navy seals. I don't see a navy seal swinging down the curtains.

Then....don't play your character like that?

Airk
2016-01-07, 10:34 AM
Only by alienating the players from their characters' motivations, though. There are other ways around this (better pacing by the DM, less lethality for error, etc.) that don't take the characters away from the players. If the players are playing very conservative, then that is what their characters are, and unless one of them was supposed to be "rash" or something, a character trait incentive system wouldn't change much, anyway.

No, that's backwards. By allowing all options to be reasonably acceptable, you allow the players to CHOOSE based on their characters motivations, rather than on what the "game optimal" choice is.




? Didn't you just say taking it the safe way was boring?

These two things are unrelated. If someone wants to rip apart a room in a fit of rage, it should produce different results than subtly rummaging it. Period.


I mean, if there are different ways to do things that are meaningfully different, one way is probably going to be safer or otherwise more desirable than the others.

See above.


Doing different things should have different effects, I agree, but it seems like rewarding them for taking less-advantageous (but more "interesting") options kind of defeats the purpose of those differences.

Nope; There is a meaningful difference between "I find all the things" and "I don't find all the things, but I get some other compensation."



If, OTOH, differences mean choosing between two consequences that each could make for further complications, then there is no safe way in the first place.

Again, your thinking is way too far inside the box. The choice isn't "Safe vs safe" or "unsafe vs unsafe" but "safe vs unsafe but with additional rewards".


Either way, you shouldn't need to reward certain choices just to see them happen at all; if that's the case, maybe the choice just shouldn't be incentivized because it's just bad?

But bad choices are often more FUN than good choices. But people will often choose the "not fun" choice because they're concerned that they will be punished for not choosing it.

Let's put this another way: Games that DON'T do this PUNISH players for non-optimal choices. Games that introduce additional reward systems for sub-optimal choices attempt to balance the scales.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-07, 10:55 AM
Under that main category fall three very different "main thrust directions" that will define what everything else could mean:
- Simulation (Setting, Genre, Actions & Consequences)
- Storytelling (Campaigns, Dragonlance, Adventure Paths.)
- Storygaming (Stuff like Fate Core or PbtA, Ars Magicka)

"Storygaming" is what we´re talking about here, as the GM takes a back seat and works with what the player provide. A "Flaw" here is just something to god on from, nothing else.

For the record, mechanical Flaws aren't a thing in PbtA systems, usually. (I'm sure there's an exception out there somewhere, but I've never seen it.)

PbtA operates purely on Fiction causes Mechanics. It doesn't have roleplay mechanics beyond that.

The one big rule that helps establish that is:
"If you're gonna do it, DO IT."
(Inb4 shia lebouf)
Basically, you have to describe WHAT you're doing, and the move you should roll comes out of that. The moves are clear enough that there's pretty much never any debate about it, and only occasional clarification questions.

To give an example:

"I tell Dremmer that if he doesn't get out of the bar right now, I'm going to shoot his pecker off."
"Nice. Are you bluffing?"
"Hell no."
"Cool. That sounds like youre Going Aggro. Roll +Hard."

Or

"Nice. Are you bluffing?"
"Yeah. My gun isn't even loaded right now."
"Okay. So that's a Seduce or Manipulate. Roll +Hot."

Because the consequences of these rolls are different. A success on Go Aggro means they either cave, or suck it up and take the punishment.

Seduce or Manipulate, they do it, with a condition. (On a full success, staying true to it is optional and won't bring backlash. Less than that and you'd better make good on your promises.)

I think there's a weird belief that simulationist MUST mean "Rules for every possible thing and tables upon tables."
I consider Apocalypse World to be pretty dang simulationist. It just goes through the fiction and mechanics in the opposite direction from d20 systems. The fiction calls upon the mechanics for support, as opposed to the mechanics calling upon the fiction for context.

The one thing Apocalypse World doesn't do so well is Fictional Positioning. For example, finding a key on the floor will be harder in a dark room than a well-lit one. Apocalypse World has ways of doing it, but it's not great at it. (Every system has flaws.)

D&D is good at fictional positioning, though it's a little clunky if you go by tables rather than winging it.

Neither system is strictly BETTER, which seems to be the vibe people get. I still play both. They're just very different EXPERIENCES.

neonchameleon
2016-01-07, 11:26 AM
You should ask neonchameleon for his Fate vs. GURPS breakdown of an 'Alcoholism' flaw. It's pretty illustrative.



Let me get that for you. (www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?328753-Why-have-dissociated-mechanics-returned&p=6007890&viewfull=1#post6007890)

Thanks :D


Give rewards for behaving "correctly," and the player is tempted OOC as well as the character IC to act "correctly." Even if the player knows it's "wrong" because it's "following the corruption's influence," he starts to weigh the game aspect; can he afford the taint? Is it going to really be that bad?

Heck, some players revel in the 'dark temptation' story, at least if they really get something out of it. Feeling that the temptation is appealing to more than just something they're informed their character is experiencing helps bring the choice home. "Your character is really mad and wants to hurt this guy" when the player has little reason to do so or, even when he does but knows it's a bad idea, is not terribly tempting. "Do it for a FATE point" or "Do it and it will recharge your magical resources" or something similar, though...and it's tempting.


The WORST way to model it is to say, "there's no mechanical reward, but it's in character, so you should totally do it." That's right up there with "be evil for the sake of being evil."

Always. Indeed I'd say the main point of Fate and where it works best is that it's a fairly basic skill system that encourages every player to set up their own temptation system for their character's flaws, no matter what those flaws might be. Other than encouraging larger than life characters with heroic and entertaining flaws it's a fairly basic skills-based system.


Ok, so I can see how having a reward system in place could help rp a flaw I don't understand, or am for some reason avoiding. Although why I would take such a flaw is confusing.

Because it's interesting. And because the Guardians of the Galaxy can be more fun to play than navy SEALs if you're in the right mood.


But, do these systems reward when you roleplay the flaw without promoting? When the alcoholic's player says he misses the meeting because he is passed out? When the vampire's player informs the GM that he drains someone for the lols? When the tainted character gets mad and punches someone, seemingly at random?

It depends. Cortex+ always gives the reward (and makes you more of an author while Fate is more actor stance). Fate it's only if something significantly goes wrong because of it - you fish for rewards rather than control them but the rewards are bigger.


And, do these systems tend to produce characters with minor character quirks that are beneath the level of the reward system

IME yes, in part due to players going for the larger spectacle. That if you're going as flamboyant as Jack Sparrow you're going to go for the minor stuff as well. But this is correlation and implication rather than direct causation.


Why should that be beneficial? That... kinda reminds me of a 1930's Errol Flynn sort of thing - though I don't think even he ever did that sort of thing in combat. *shrug* Not my cup of tea. I like to think of my adventurers as professionals... medieval navy seals. I don't see a navy seal swinging down the curtains.

That depends what you want to play. For oD&D to put it simply it shouldn't. If you want to play Eroll Flynn, Jackie Chan, or even a crack commando unit sent to prison for a crime they didn't commit you shouldn't be fighting your tactical instincts all the way to not play an ordinary crack commando unit. Instead playing like Jackie Chan should work.

(Almost any of Jackie Chan's characters work really well in Fate by the way).


First off, accept that "Roleplaying" is an empty phrase and an empty word without any further meaning or connotation. A Diablo-style hack&slash is as much a roleplaying experience as your most involving Ars Magicka chronicle.

Under that main category fall three very different "main thrust directions" that will define what everything else could mean:
- Simulation (Setting, Genre, Actions & Consequences)
- Storytelling (Campaigns, Dragonlance, Adventure Paths.)
- Storygaming (Stuff like Fate Core or PbtA, Ars Magicka)

Now what a "flaw" is and if it can "enhance" the story will strictly depend on which of this three modes you are actually playing, as your question here clearly shows.

For the record, ignore IAmNotTrevor's example - it's seriously unusual play. Using your definitions Apocalypse World is an excellent no-myth Sim game with built in setting genre, actions, and consequences. There's no benefit for flaw system to speak of.


"Storytelling" can actually have the Storyteller work with or against a characters flaw, depending on the specific gaming group/table.

"Storygaming" is what we´re talking about here, as the GM takes a back seat and works with what the player provide. A "Flaw" here is just something to god on from, nothing else.

Fate by the way I'd have called Storytelling done right. Flaws cut both ways. Storygaming is things like Cortex Plus (e.g. Marvel Heroic Roleplaying) where the costs and rewards of the flaw in question are under the control of the player. Or something GMless like Fiasco or Montsegur 1244.

But then Storygaming was originally used for My Life With Master where the consequence rules didn't change, but it was impossible to have a campaign because the game changed the situation irretrievably in a way that at the end of an arc not even the stats were relevant any more.

And ironically under your definitions, Apocalypse World manages to combine Storygaming worldbuilding with a Sim game.



Edit:

For the record, mechanical Flaws aren't a thing in PbtA systems, usually. (I'm sure there's an exception out there somewhere, but I've never seen it.)

PbtA operates purely on Fiction causes Mechanics. It doesn't have roleplay mechanics beyond that.

The one big rule that helps establish that is:
"If you're gonna do it, DO IT."
(Inb4 shia lebouf)
Basically, you have to describe WHAT you're doing, and the move you should roll comes out of that. The moves are clear enough that there's pretty much never any debate about it, and only occasional clarification questions.

To give an example:

"I tell Dremmer that if he doesn't get out of the bar right now, I'm going to shoot his pecker off."
"Nice. Are you bluffing?"
"Hell no."
"Cool. That sounds like youre Going Aggro. Roll +Hard."

Or

"Nice. Are you bluffing?"
"Yeah. My gun isn't even loaded right now."
"Okay. So that's a Seduce or Manipulate. Roll +Hot."

Because the consequences of these rolls are different. A success on Go Aggro means they either cave, or suck it up and take the punishment.

As MC (GM) I'd rule this very differently.

"I tell Dremmer that if he doesn't get out of the bar right now, I'm going to shoot his pecker off."
"Nice. Cool. That sounds like youre Going Aggro. Roll +Hard."
[Roll - 10+]
"Dremmer tells you that you're only aiming at his pecker because you don't have balls of your own and swaggers towards you." (Mechanically Dremmer chooses to suck it up) "What do you do?"

At this point if the player chooses to pull the trigger Dremmer gets his pecker blown off, no further roll necessary. It's only at this point we find out whether the PC was bluffing. But Dremmer didn't have to swagger forward - he could instead have backed down (social skills are not mind control).

On a 7-9 on a Go Aggro check Dremmer could have tried various other things like de-escalating "Hey man, this isn't worth that", hands flat, spread, and nowhere near his own gun. Or just retreating rather than giving way. And if the PC actually wanted to blow Dremmer's **** off, they'd need to roll a Seize by Force check against Dremmer (meaning they'd probably get hurt too).

Frozen_Feet
2016-01-07, 11:41 AM
Let's put this another way: Games that DON'T do this PUNISH players for non-optimal choices. Games that introduce additional reward systems for sub-optimal choices attempt to balance the scales.

This way of thinking ia bull****. One option being worse than another is not the same as being punished.

Also, it is ALREADY balanced - non-optimal choices are funnier and cooler, remember?

That's the reward right there. Giving mechanical fun/cool points for it would tip the scales too much in the other direction. :smalltongue:

neonchameleon
2016-01-07, 11:53 AM
This way of thinking ia bull****. One option being worse than another is not the same as being punished.

Also, it is ALREADY balanced - non-optimal choices are funnier and cooler, remember?

That's the reward right there. Giving mechanical fun/cool points for it would tip the scales too much in the other direction. :smalltongue:

Dying is neither funny nor cool. It is also punishing in the most obvious way possible.

To put it simply if I try to play something based on Jackie Chan's The Drunken Master in AD&D or 3.X I'm playing a liability for the party, punishing me and punishing everyone else for having to take up the slack. If I try to play them in Fate then it's probably going to work well. Even a non-drunken master Monk is punishing the party and the player (even moreso if I use the AD&D 1e Monk than if I try to use one of the 3.X Monks) and that despite the fact that the game presents it as a supposedly supported option.

Segev
2016-01-07, 11:54 AM
In general, I don't think "rewards for flaws causing problems" - which is what I think is meant when people say "big events" involving flaws - leads to characters only "going big," nor to players or characters ignoring the finer quirks. Rather, the finer quirks don't tend to actually cause problems, so anybody interested in playing them will do so without compunction.

If you want to play an alcoholic in a game where alcoholism never actually causes problems, it a) isn't a flaw, and b) is something you'll do without ever having the system punish you for it, even tacitly (by having other, more boring or out of character options be blatantly more optimal).

Similarly, if you're playing in a "rewards for big problems caused by flaws" game, you still will play "the little things" unless you didn't want to really play the flaw at all. And in the latter case, you probably wouldn't play the big things without the rewards, either.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 12:01 PM
To put it simply if I try to play something based on Jackie Chan's The Drunken Master in AD&D or 3.X I'm playing a liability for the party, punishing me and punishing everyone else for having to take up the slack.

In one of the two Jackie Chan Drunken Master movies - he didn't even get drunk when he fought. He just used drunken style kung fu - which just uses weird movements and doesn't require you to actually drink at all.

In the other Drunken Master movie - Jackie Chan became a much better fighter when he drank - not a penalty at all. In 3.X you would just need mechanics to represent that. (Admittedly - the 3.5 Drunken Master prestige class was weak-sauce - but that's a balance issue - not a core mechanics one. Pathfinder's Drunken Master monk archetype is pretty freakin' sweet though. I have one in PFS.)

Frozen_Feet
2016-01-07, 12:04 PM
Dying is neither funny nor cool. It is also punishing in the most obvious way possible.

Says you. I play Old School games like LotFP, and I've never had shortage of players who do the dumb thing or engineer their own deaths. Why? Because they find that funny and cool.

And they have no trouble living with the fact that in the eyes of the system, what they do is non-optimal. Playing optimally is not the victory condition, playing their characters is.

Offering cool points for such behaviour can get the stick-in-the-muds who want to play optimally engage in superficially similar behaviour - but NOT because they actually find those things cool or fun or fitting of the genre. You just made those behaviours the new optimal by doubling down on the rewards. :smalltongue:

Segev
2016-01-07, 12:10 PM
Offering cool points for such behaviour can get the stick-in-the-muds who want to play optimally engage in superficially similar behaviour - but NOT because they actually find those things cool or fun or fitting of the genre. You just made those behaviours the new optimal by doubling down on the rewards. :smalltongue:

I'm not a stick-in-the-mud. I just like playing effective characters. I also like playing up my flaws as well as my advantages. But if my flaws drag me down in ways my advantages do not compensate for (as is the case with a "pure character flaw" that leads only to difficulties), I find myself feeling like a chess player who deliberately trades his Queen to protect a Pawn because "she was secretly in love with that Pawn."

I also find myself more immersed if I share, to some degree, my character's temptation towards acting in accordance with his flaws. Indulging in bad habits, breaking out in anger, etc. I don't expect it to always be the MOST optimal choice, but I appreciate it at least being close enough that it's not a hideously stupid thing to do as a player.

neonchameleon
2016-01-07, 12:16 PM
In one of the two Jackie Chan Drunken Master movies - he didn't even get drunk when he fought. He just used drunken style kung fu - which just uses weird movements and doesn't require you to actually drink at all.

In the other Drunken Master movie - Jackie Chan became a much better fighter when he drank - not a penalty at all. In 3.X you would just need mechanics to represent that. (Admittedly - the 3.5 Drunken Master prestige class was weak-sauce - but that's a balance issue - not a core mechanics one. Pathfinder's Drunken Master monk archetype is pretty freakin' sweet though. I have one in PFS.)

In short you need mechanics to pull off a specific schtick - D&D 3.5 does this through a tailored prestige class. (I was thinking of the one where he became a better fighter when he drank).


Says you. I play Old School games like LotFP, and I've never had shortage of players who do the dumb thing or engineer their own deaths. Why? Because they find that funny and cool.

Guess what? Not everyone does.

And you're playing old school games like LotFP where death is expected and a major part of the game. That's a minority taste (not that everything isn't).


Offering cool points for such behaviour can get the stick-in-the-muds who want to play optimally engage in superficially similar behaviour - but NOT because they actually find those things cool or fun or fitting of the genre. You just made those behaviours the new optimal by doubling down on the rewards. :smalltongue:

Not so. What it does unless you've overdone things is gets the people who could go different ways to go for what they think is the cooler option rather than just for success.

Frozen_Feet
2016-01-07, 12:24 PM
I find myself feeling like a chess player who deliberately trades his Queen to protect a Pawn because "she was secretly in love with that Pawn."
But that's the difference between playing Chess and playing a role. In the latter case, there are supposed to be priorities, sometimes irrational ones, that are on the same level or higher as winning the game. To a Chess player, sacrificing a Queen for such reasons is indeed stupid; to a roleplayer, it's par for the course.

The problem isn't "being disadvantages breaks your immersion"; it's actually that you weren't immersed in the first place. You weren't feeling any of the love towards the Pawn that would make the Queen's actions feel sensical to you.

The solution is to stop playing Chess, not to have the Queen's sacrifice promote the Pawn.

neonchameleon
2016-01-07, 12:53 PM
The solution is to stop playing Chess, not to have the Queen's sacrifice promote the Pawn.

And that is why people prefer Fate to Legends of the Flame Princess. In GURPS charging crossbowmen is tantamount to suicide. In D&D a crossbow bolt can't kill you. Viable tactics are a consequence of the game rules and that ties in with worldbuilding.

The reason you weren't immersed is because you wanted a cinematic universe that was differently cinematic to that of old school D&D. You wanted the universe of Raiders of the Lost Ark, not that of Saving Private Ryan.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-07, 01:15 PM
As MC (GM) I'd rule this very differently.

"I tell Dremmer that if he doesn't get out of the bar right now, I'm going to shoot his pecker off."
"Nice. Cool. That sounds like youre Going Aggro. Roll +Hard."
[Roll - 10+]
"Dremmer tells you that you're only aiming at his pecker because you don't have balls of your own and swaggers towards you." (Mechanically Dremmer chooses to suck it up) "What do you do?"

At this point if the player chooses to pull the trigger Dremmer gets his pecker blown off, no further roll necessary. It's only at this point we find out whether the PC was bluffing. But Dremmer didn't have to swagger forward - he could instead have backed down (social skills are not mind control).

On a 7-9 on a Go Aggro check Dremmer could have tried various other things like de-escalating "Hey man, this isn't worth that", hands flat, spread, and nowhere near his own gun. Or just retreating rather than giving way. And if the PC actually wanted to blow Dremmer's **** off, they'd need to roll a Seize by Force check against Dremmer (meaning they'd probably get hurt too).

Here's my reasoning for the clarification:
If the character IS bluffing, and dremmer responds how he does, then this is what happens:

Player rolls to go aggro.
Gets a SUCCESS.
Fails to get any sort of successful outcome if Dremmer sucks it up.
(Because the player doesn't shoot, so Dremmer doesn't do anything the player wants. The whole reason he's being belligerent is because he's saying No.)

Meaning that the success has been nullified.
And it is RAW that a success needs to be a success.
Even 7-9 are, fundamentally, successes by RAW. In this situation, if they're bluffing, it is BETTER for the character to get a 7-9 than a 10+.

So better to make it a seduce/manipulate roll so that a success there is still a success.

Segev
2016-01-07, 01:38 PM
But that's the difference between playing Chess and playing a role. In the latter case, there are supposed to be priorities, sometimes irrational ones, that are on the same level or higher as winning the game. To a Chess player, sacrificing a Queen for such reasons is indeed stupid; to a roleplayer, it's par for the course.

The problem isn't "being disadvantages breaks your immersion"; it's actually that you weren't immersed in the first place. You weren't feeling any of the love towards the Pawn that would make the Queen's actions feel sensical to you.

The solution is to stop playing Chess, not to have the Queen's sacrifice promote the Pawn.

Ah, but my horny but not particularly pervy teenaged rogue has conflicting goals: on the one hand, he wants to do his job and get the loot out of this palace, which requires that he thoroughly scout and do so quickly so his allies can get in safely and undetected. On the other, that hot babe is stripping down for her bath, and if he stays just a little longer, he could watch her do it. He knows, intellectually, it's a bad idea. He knows it's not RIGHT. But it's TEMPTING. He is (or at least should be, according to his character as I've designed him) tempted to take just a little longer to watch. Maybe to even move to a more precarious position to get a better view. Hormones fighting with both good intentions and his more profitable goals.

However, I, the player, am not so tempted. I, the player, have the goals of "have fun with the game," "succeed at my part of the mission," "don't detract from the fun of my fellow players," and "play my character right." How strongly is my rogue tempted? The mechanics could force a simple willpower-type check to see if he can prioritize properly. But even if he fails that, how badly does he fail? How much must I make him act on something that tempts me, personally, very little because I won't get the same...hormonal satisfaction...he does from indulging in voyeurism, when I will get comparable satisfaction should he succeed at his mission? I also wouldn't share his hormonal frustration at not having seen more, but would share in his moral satisfaction at having resisted the improper urge.

Perhaps if I were a better, more worthy roleplayer, I would be able to fully imagine that I was this teen who is fighting his lustful urges, and to feel the temptation as strongly as he despite the fact that it's in my imagination either way (whereas he's choosing between imagination and actually seeing something).

But if there's a reward - even one that merely narrows the gap of optimality - for indulging in the lad's lust, I now do have something which tantalizes me beyond "it's what my character would want to do." That gives me some measure against which to weigh the satisfaction of resisting and not complicating matters, of succeeding. Obviously, the greater the reward, the more tempting it is, as my satisfaction can be gleened from that. And there's an opportunity cost associated with resisting the "obviously bad" choice.

Before, all I had to do was convince myself that this time, my hormonal but relatively moral youth of a character would IC resist, because this is just too important AND it's wrong. Now, I have to convince myself of this and give up whatever rewards there might be. I have reason beyond "character integrity" (which has a lot of leeway) to actually play my character as having this weakness, without feeling like I'm playing badly at the expense of my fellow gamers and my own satisfactory accomplishment of goals.

I don't know what I'd choose; it'd depend on the character and the rewards offered. But a GM saying "Move to the edge for a better view for a Hero Point" gives me an idea of how tempted my character is. Moreover, he can keep offering them for longer "stays" or greater risks. Combined with checks for skill and such, my rogue might just be delayed as he gets into a good position, or he might really screw up and fall into view of others. Turning it, potentially, into an entirely different kind of encounter if he has to deal with the bathing beauty directly while trying to keep from having guards descend upon him.

It's really a matter of making it so that taking potentially interesting, in-character options isn't blatantly, painfully stupid from the perspective of the player, who doesn't GET the visceral satisfactions that the characters are tempted by.

It's always more engaging when the PLAYER chooses to give into temptation along with the character, for a similar sense of immediate satisfaction.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-07, 08:26 PM
I also don't think stunts are a "crutch." They're a way to turn off the disincentive to play cool scenes out in cool ways, because they explicitly say that doing something in a cool way is BETTER than doing it the boring way. The examples I gave were meant to highlight this, demonstrating that the "brash" player, as another poster termed it, is nothing but punished for trying to be cool and exciting; he is in every way less effective than the guy who just says "I take a move action and attack." Ultimately, the PLAYER should not be punished with eternal inability to impact the game for playing a character with flaws. That's what "reward" mechanics do: they let you have other tools to keep such a character viable without playing him in an utterly game-but-not-RP way.[/

It's a crutch for the game designer; instead of making cool stuff actually better, they made the safe stuff better, and have to use the kludge of meta-game currencies to motivate players to make their characters do cool things instead. If the game were better designed/engineered, then the optimal thing to do would also be the genre appropriate and cool thing to do. The system shouldn't fight you when you're trying to do genre appropriate stuff. The question is only "what genre is this game, really?" If the game is telling you to play it safe, you're playing fantasy commandos, not Errol Flynn. Throwing meta-game currencies into it to convert is poor game design.


No, that's backwards. By allowing all options to be reasonably acceptable, you allow the players to CHOOSE based on their characters motivations, rather than on what the "game optimal" choice is.

As I said, this is alienating the character motivations from the player; the character is supposed to feel the tension between their flaw and the optimal thing to do, and if the player knows that they're both roughly equally beneficial, then the player will never experience that tension because it's not really a flaw. They're writing for their character as an author, but not experiencing their world.


These two things are unrelated. If someone wants to rip apart a room in a fit of rage, it should produce different results than subtly rummaging it. Period.

Yeah, one way is safe and the other is less safe: subtly rummaging through it is unlikely to be detected while still finding what you're looking for, tearing it apart in rage is going to leave evidence.


Again, your thinking is way too far inside the box. The choice isn't "Safe vs safe" or "unsafe vs unsafe" but "safe vs unsafe but with additional rewards".

So, safe vs. another flavor of safe? You're mitigating the cost of otherwise inferior options, that's all you're doing. You can call it what you want, but it's bringing two utility values closer together, which just makes the choice more arbitrary. Role-playing shouldn't mean arbitrarily behaving a certain way because your char sheet says so, even if the game has a mechanical kludge that evens out all the consequences and makes it "easier" to do so. If the safe option truly is less fun, maybe the game is designed poorly for your group's preferences?


But bad choices are often more FUN than good choices. But people will often choose the "not fun" choice because they're concerned that they will be punished for not choosing it.

Let's put this another way: Games that DON'T do this PUNISH players for non-optimal choices. Games that introduce additional reward systems for sub-optimal choices attempt to balance the scales.

Yes, and in doing so take away all the heft of decisions, which is the entirety of role-playing. If the "not fun" choices are consistently better options, the game was clearly not designed to cater to your play preferences, and this mechanical kludge of meta-game incentives is only saving the genre by hollowing out the role-playing decisions, making them less meaningful because they have smaller consequences.


To put it simply if I try to play something based on Jackie Chan's The Drunken Master in AD&D or 3.X I'm playing a liability for the party, punishing me and punishing everyone else for having to take up the slack.

Why? Are there even rules for getting drunk in D&D? The Monk classes don't care how you describe your attacks, people even totally re-skin or re-fluff abilities or whole classes all the time.


If I try to play them in Fate then it's probably going to work well. Even a non-drunken master Monk is punishing the party and the player (even moreso if I use the AD&D 1e Monk than if I try to use one of the 3.X Monks) and that despite the fact that the game presents it as a supposedly supported option.

That is, of course, a problem with the design of the game and the individual class; trap options are not OK. Which is why the Tome Monk exists, or many other homebrew Monk fixes. Some groups don't care about optimization, others do. If your group cares about optimization, then yeah, you're going to have to role-play around that. That's not such a bad fate, actually.


I'm not a stick-in-the-mud. I just like playing effective characters. I also like playing up my flaws as well as my advantages. But if my flaws drag me down in ways my advantages do not compensate for (as is the case with a "pure character flaw" that leads only to difficulties), I find myself feeling like a chess player who deliberately trades his Queen to protect a Pawn because "she was secretly in love with that Pawn."

Maybe you shouldn't take that flaw if you want to be effective all the time? I mean, otherwise, it's not really a flaw, is it? It just seems like you keep insisting on fighting the system.


I also find myself more immersed if I share, to some degree, my character's temptation towards acting in accordance with his flaws. Indulging in bad habits, breaking out in anger, etc. I don't expect it to always be the MOST optimal choice, but I appreciate it at least being close enough that it's not a hideously stupid thing to do as a player.

If they're not actually that consequential, then they're not flaws. They're just a skinner box for characterization. You're not actually sharing the character's temptation, you're experiencing a completely different "temptation" that actually makes the "flawed" behavior a rational decision. And there's still an optimal choice either way, meta-game bennies just make it easier to role-play by reducing the actual consequences of your flaws. You're still making sub-optimal choices either way, and either your group is OK with that or they're not.


Ah, but my horny but not particularly pervy teenaged rogue has conflicting goals: on the one hand, he wants to do his job and get the loot out of this palace, which requires that he thoroughly scout and do so quickly so his allies can get in safely and undetected. On the other, that hot babe is stripping down for her bath, and if he stays just a little longer, he could watch her do it. He knows, intellectually, it's a bad idea. He knows it's not RIGHT. But it's TEMPTING. He is (or at least should be, according to his character as I've designed him) tempted to take just a little longer to watch. Maybe to even move to a more precarious position to get a better view. Hormones fighting with both good intentions and his more profitable goals.

This is kind of a lame temptation in the first place. Either he's under time pressure and stopping to watch would somehow be a problem, in which case any non-dysfunctional teenager can hunker down and focus (and only a huge meta-game benefit would convince you to do otherwise, which would be silly), or he's really not under that much time pressure and the consequences for stopping to watch aren't that big.


But if there's a reward - even one that merely narrows the gap of optimality - for indulging in the lad's lust, I now do have something which tantalizes me beyond "it's what my character would want to do." That gives me some measure against which to weigh the satisfaction of resisting and not complicating matters, of succeeding. Obviously, the greater the reward, the more tempting it is, as my satisfaction can be gleened from that. And there's an opportunity cost associated with resisting the "obviously bad" choice.

But, as you admit, there's still an optimal choice, and you're considering ignoring it. There's an opportunity cost associated with resisting the obviously bad choice without the meta-game inducement, as well, it's just too small for you. But if it comes to analyzing opportunity cost, then there's an optimal choice and a sub-optimal one, and you're saying at some point you might choose the sub-optimal one because playing true to your character has some value to you, just not enough on its own to justify a bad choice. There's nothing wrong with that, but the difference here is that others value playing true to character differently, and would in fact get less value out of playing true to character if the consequences for it were always so mitigated in the meta-game. Groups need to work out what kind of game they actually want to play, whether they are OK with other players making sub-optimal decisions for RP purposes or not; a meta-game kludge is no replacement for playing the right kind of game with the right kind of group, because it hollows out the RP moments for those who value that higher than effectiveness.


It's really a matter of making it so that taking potentially interesting, in-character options isn't blatantly, painfully stupid from the perspective of the player, who doesn't GET the visceral satisfactions that the characters are tempted by.

It's always more engaging when the PLAYER chooses to give into temptation along with the character, for a similar sense of immediate satisfaction.

I agree with all this, but my conclusion is that it requires flaws and temptations that are well done and apply to the player as much as to the character, not divorcing the two and having them experience two different things.

For instance, I would be much more amenable to the kind of flaw described above if there was some kind of "Stress" condition track, and sexual pursuits decreased Stress. Because those are both understood by the player and the character in the same way. It's not a meta-game kludge, it's an intuitive internal struggle. The role-playing isn't hollow and the decisions aren't arbitrary. Of course such a thing kind of re-interprets the idea of flaws into not character weaknesses, but simply different decision-making priorities under different conditions, which is realistic and all, but not necessarily good fodder for adventure games.

Segev
2016-01-07, 08:55 PM
I would be much more amenable to the kind of flaw described above if there was some kind of "Stress" condition track, and sexual pursuits decreased Stress. Because those are both understood by the player and the character in the same way. It's not a meta-game kludge, it's an intuitive internal struggle. The role-playing isn't hollow and the decisions aren't arbitrary. Of course such a thing kind of re-interprets the idea of flaws into not character weaknesses, but simply different decision-making priorities under different conditions, which is realistic and all, but not necessarily good fodder for adventure games.

Actually, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. "Fate points" and "hero points" are, indeed, a clumsy first effort at more refined, better-designed systems.

But discussing things in the abstract makes it hard to tie these things together easily for examples, so I applaud yours for being both on point and detailed.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 09:54 PM
For instance, I would be much more amenable to the kind of flaw described above if there was some kind of "Stress" condition track, and sexual pursuits decreased Stress. Because those are both understood by the player and the character in the same way. It's not a meta-game kludge, it's an intuitive internal struggle. The role-playing isn't hollow and the decisions aren't arbitrary. Of course such a thing kind of re-interprets the idea of flaws into not character weaknesses, but simply different decision-making priorities under different conditions, which is realistic and all, but not necessarily good fodder for adventure games.


This could be interesting if it was a core part of the system. (I think that a similar thing was mentioned above with the Vampire the Masquerade blood pool) But if it were just tacked onto a system it would feel awkward & probably break KISS. Actually - I saw a game on Kickstarter which was all based upon such emotion tracks a couple months back called Headspace. It sounded interesting, though I ended up not funding it because it was only being printed B&W and the art was rather bad. (I think it was one of those RPGs intended for one-shots which I'm generally not a big fan of either.) Interesting premise though - and it did fund.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-07, 11:27 PM
This could be interesting if it was a core part of the system. (I think that a similar thing was mentioned above with the Vampire the Masquerade blood pool) But if it were just tacked onto a system it would feel awkward & probably break KISS. Actually - I saw a game on Kickstarter which was all based upon such emotion tracks a couple months back called Headspace. It sounded interesting, though I ended up not funding it because it was only being printed B&W and the art was rather bad. (I think it was one of those RPGs intended for one-shots which I'm generally not a big fan of either.) Interesting premise though - and it did fund.

Yeah, I also thought that this would only work if it was somehow tied into the system, and that would only make sense if it was one of the themes you really wanted to explore with the game. I don't know if it would ever fit in a popcorn adventure game.

goto124
2016-01-08, 01:46 AM
Well, in a popcorn adventure game the players aren't interested on having 'flaws' anyway. Forcing such players to include 'flaws' wouldn't lead to anything good.

It does bring up the argument of "well if the players actually want to play flaws no mechanical benefits would be required because the players would feel that the difficulty that comes out of flaws are the reward in and of itself".

I'm not speaking for everyone. Heck, I'm probably speaking only for myself. Nevertheless, here's my thought process.

Sometimes I see a flaw that looks interesting to play. But then when I play it, things just don't work out. The flaws bring out difficulties, not unexpected, but it doesn't feel fun. I don't feel "oh heh I'm playing true to character wheee!". Instead I feel "oh I played out a flaw, bad stuff happens and people are angry... I could've avoided all of these if I didn't actively decide to play a flaw... I'll just go lie on a bed and cry".

I think I'm overly melodramatic?

NichG
2016-01-08, 05:32 AM
I do think its an important point that a good roleplaying experience can't really be built from the point of view of what happens in-game. It must involve how the player experiences playing the character. So just ensuring that what happens in the game is consistent with what is on the character sheets does not actually do any good in itself. That is to say, 'playing the character correctly' shouldn't be the end goal, even if for some people it might benefit to use it as a means.

In terms of things like rewarding flaws/etc, I do think it fixates too much on 'flaws = RP', which doesn't seem that productive to me. That said, if we compare to other systems which use overrides to enforce 'playing the character correctly', incentivization is a massive improvement in immersion since it actually tries to help the player's decision making come into alignment with the character's, even if it does so with mismatched objectives. That said, I certainly think the idea of doing better than that is interesting and worth trying to construct, but I don't know that I've seen an example yet that wasn't just a fine-tuning of incentivization to bring fluff and crunch into alignment (which is in general useful for increasing immersion).

So, for those saying that incentivization is a kludge, what is the better way to assist a player to experience what their character experiences as much as possible?

goto124
2016-01-08, 07:45 AM
So, for those saying that incentivization is a kludge, what is the better way to assist a player to experience what their character experiences as much as possible?


If the game were better designed/engineered, then the optimal thing to do would also be the genre appropriate and cool thing to do.

If the safe option truly is less fun, maybe the game is designed poorly for your group's preferences? If the "not fun" choices are consistently better options, the game was clearly not designed to cater to your play preferences

For instance, I would be much more amenable to the kind of flaw described above if there was some kind of "Stress" condition track, and sexual pursuits decreased Stress. Because those are both understood by the player and the character in the same way. It's not a meta-game kludge, it's an intuitive internal struggle.

Something like this, maybe? A "Stress" mechanic that gives you benefits for giving in to prescribed "flaws", such that addictions in-game are also kind of addictive out-of-game? Where you have to balance between actually doing things and getting your fix?

Florian
2016-01-08, 09:09 AM
@Goto124:

Please do me the favor and be a bit more concrete on what you do think a "flaw" is.
As far as I can see it, "flaws" fall under two very distinctive categories, depending on what you actually do, "Simulation" or "Story-Mode".
"Honest" as a "flaw" affects the "Story-Mode" but is inconsequential for "Simulation". Vice versa with "Asthma".

NichG
2016-01-08, 09:24 AM
Something like this, maybe? A "Stress" mechanic that gives you benefits for giving in to prescribed "flaws", such that addictions in-game are also kind of addictive out-of-game? Where you have to balance between actually doing things and getting your fix?

As far as I can tell, that's just as much an incentivization mechanic as the abstract ones. The difference is just the degree to which the crunch has been aligned with the fluff.

Quertus
2016-01-08, 09:26 AM
Well, in a popcorn adventure game the players aren't interested on having 'flaws' anyway. Forcing such players to include 'flaws' wouldn't lead to anything good.

Popcorn adventure games are the source of many of my favorite characters, and "tactically inept" (like my signature character) is about as flawed as it comes in those games. But forcing x points of y value flaws on characters? No, I'd rebel.


. Because it's interesting. And because the Guardians of the Galaxy can be more fun to play than navy SEALs if you're in the right mood.

I don't understand your response. To clarify my position, I was saying I don't understand why someone would take a flaw that they don't understand / don't know how to rp, or a flaw that they were constantly avoiding.

Although I don't like that direction. Replace "flaw" with "personality trait", and that's even more what I meant, if not what I said. Why are the words roleplay and flaw so linked? :smallannoyed:

Florian
2016-01-08, 10:08 AM
I don't understand your response. To clarify my position, I was saying I don't understand why someone would take a flaw that they don't understand / don't know how to rp, or a flaw that they were constantly avoiding.

Although I don't like that direction. Replace "flaw" with "personality trait", and that's even more what I meant, if not what I said. Why are the words roleplay and flaw so linked? :smallannoyed:

You know, I find "Guardians of the Galaxy" to be a great example for what we talk about here. You´re right as there should not be any difference between "flaw" and "personality trait" and that is the raw stuff that should drive the ongoing story and reward you by centering on it.

goto124
2016-01-08, 10:35 AM
Why are the words roleplay and flaw so linked? :smallannoyed:

I'll give this a shot, because I feel that you're somehow right, but I'm not sure why.

Let's take a game with no roleplay. Lots of those out there, especially in video games. Let's use Call of Duty as an example.

How do players act in Call of Duty? They do whatever (they think) are the smartest & most optimal things to do. They won't go "it's more optimal to shoot this woman, but I won't shoot because my character doesn't shoot women". They may perform non-optimal actions because the players themselves believe the non-optimal actions are optimal, but they will not intentionally may perform non-optimal actions.

That's why people treat roleplay as about purposefully performing non-optimal actions, where 'flaws' define when, how, what sort of non-optimal actions would be purposefully performed throughout the game.

There is a form of roleplay that doesn't involve purposeful non-optimal actions (sometimes derisively called "self-gimping"), where the player just describes the actions of the character and has said character talk in a certain manner. Now where was I going again?

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-08, 10:39 AM
As a potentially interesting thing to consider:

Burning Wheel uses a point-based character building system akin to Shadowrun.

In BW, flaws COST points, rather than giving you points. The reason why is that every time you succumb to your flaw in a way that causes you trouble, you get Artha, the BW equivalent of Karma or XP. So having characters with flaws makes it easy to get xp.
The system is relatively high lethality, so being totally inept is also a bad idea.
I think this actually encourages a mixed style of play. Especially since the flaws are pretty light mechanically, since BW is another fiction > mechanics system. So if your flaw is Drunkard, the only rule regarding it is "If being a drunkard gets you in trouble, then you get XP."

But the edge to that is, if you haven't used a flaw for a while, it disappears. The GM and Party can vote to basically say "But you rarely drink. You're not a drunkard anymore" And BAM. source of xp lost.

Another thing to note is that they aren't called Flaws in that system. They're just Traits, bundled in with the positive ones. And you can even pick up traits based on racial stereotypes and stuff that may or may not be true to the character, but confirming those stereotypes in a way that causes trouble gives you xp. (And avoiding that eventually scrubs the trait away entirely.)

I honestly think Burning Wheel's Trait system is a great one. And really any fiction-first system will be great for more character-focused roleplay.


On the side of Apocalypse World, typically the reward for doing stupid things is getting to roll a highlighted stat and get XP. Even better if it's your primary stat.

For instance, there's a class called the Gunlugger. The gunlugger's highest stat is Hard.
This means the Gunlugger is good at being a violent, buff, scary, shooty bat-outta-hell. It is basically their entire schtick. (Or maybe they're cool, calm, collected, but tough as nails and will shoot you dead as soon as look at you. Still Hard. Same thing, different paintjob.)

Anything that involves you being THAT is rewarding to you, even when non-optimal from a pure tactical perspective. And, btw, Apocalypse World never assumes the characters adventure together or even like eachother, and this is known to the players from the start. Nobody forces them to get along. Which is awesome, imo. So screw the other haters. They can handle themselves.

(And since Apocalypse World campaigns are short and explosive, pvp rarely causes butthurt.)

So yeah, these systems exist and have simplified but effective incentives.
Mechanics aren't the only way to incentivize.

Segev
2016-01-08, 11:18 AM
"Reward for playing flaw" is just one aspect, really, of a broader philosophy in game design: reward the kind of game-play choices which contribute to the "feel" desired in the game. If you want swashbuckling action, your mechanics should enable and reward those kinds of activities being performed by characters. If you want corruption to creep up on characters, the mechanics should simulate for the PLAYER the kinds of temptations that the CHARACTER feels, so that the player becomes an accomplice in corrupting his own character and feels the same sort of satisfactions and concerns as his character.

"Rewards" for corruption can be things like "here, have this extra bonus, it's just a little corruption" or even "your corruption will give you a bonus for free if you do the action in THIS fashion."

The deeper into the core of the game's key subsystems you embed such mechanics, the more rich they can be. Vampires requiring blood points to use supernatural powers means that acting more like a bloodthirsty monster gives you more power. Faster decay but larger pools means there's more urge to feed heavily, as a decay rate means you can't just sit on it, but a high maximum means you can gorge and gorge and gorge and have it serve a practical purpose.

A stress/inspiration mechanic might allow the teenaged rogue to have to choose heightened stress in exchange for staying "true to the mission," or give him an option to develop a crush which, indulged, inspires him to possibly do better even as the mission goes on...but now at the added risk of being caught peeping or simply running out of time. And that hook, of course, can set deeply if the cute girl he saw shows up later...and again, options for increased performance vs. higher risks in other ways as his young heartstrings (and other urges) are tugged one way or another and his choices inspire or stress him.

These things are even rather simulationist as well as gamist; emotions play a significant role in our ability to perform in stressful situations, as well as in our motivation and dedication. Though it's often played up to comic levels, how many times do you see a guy (or girl) with a crush suddenly become a dynamo of activity when it might help them impress, attract, or please the object of that crush, even if they'd been uninterested in whatever activity they're doing before? The kiss John receives from Tiger Lily in the 2006 Peter Pan movie gives him superhuman strength; mothers have been known to suddenly lift cars up in order to save their children.

And, even though it's entirely sub-optimal in life choices, men (and women) have squandered opportunities and even ruined their careers over sex they KNEW was coming at the cost of doing what they SHOULD be doing (or was something they simply should not do due to breaking other commitments). And people who've resisted short-term urges have still been distracted and poor performers as they struggle with themselves.

Mechanics that simulate that actually help characters be more accurate game constructs; it's very easy in most games to declare that your character lives in the cheapest accommodations, seeks no entertainments that cost him anything, and dedicates himself to hours upon hours of hard, tedious work...because the player isn't experiencing it and these are optimal uses of character time and resources. Sure, you can say that that's "not playing the character," but what if it is? There are human beings in real life that are such dedicated and active people in constructive pursuits that they never seem to stop...and they're often highly successful, far beyond "normal" people. Playing such a person is clearly the optimal choice...especially if there's nothing incentivizing anything else beyond disapproval coming from role-playing police.

neonchameleon
2016-01-08, 11:43 AM
It's a crutch for the game designer; instead of making cool stuff actually better, they made the safe stuff better, and have to use the kludge of meta-game currencies to motivate players to make their characters do cool things instead. If the game were better designed/engineered, then the optimal thing to do would also be the genre appropriate and cool thing to do. The system shouldn't fight you when you're trying to do genre appropriate stuff. The question is only "what genre is this game, really?" If the game is telling you to play it safe, you're playing fantasy commandos, not Errol Flynn. Throwing meta-game currencies into it to convert is poor game design.

That's insight 1. But Errol Flynn game design is simple. You just need to design using effects based design so stunting costs nothing and what matters is your objective. You want to swing from the chandelier and kick them with two feet in the stomach? No worse than running your sword through them. Throw in Feng Shui's/4e's 1hp mooks and you're done. Errol Flynn is basically showing off, and you can make that easy by not having them roll.

What's hard is Guardians of the Galaxy "12% of a plan" game design.


As I said, this is alienating the character motivations from the player; the character is supposed to feel the tension between their flaw and the optimal thing to do, and if the player knows that they're both roughly equally beneficial, then the player will never experience that tension because it's not really a flaw. They're writing for their character as an author, but not experiencing their world.

This can happen if you overcorrect - but it normally takes overcorrection. To use two case studies:

Tony Stark is an arrogant bastard - who might in the abstract know his arrogance is a flaw, but on the ground he just thinks he is right and has the right. To not have you seeing Tony Stark's arrogance as the right thing to do but doing it anyway is to write your character as the author. To properly behave like the arrogant jackass Tony Stark is, you need to be able to defend the idea that behaving that way is a good decision. Otherwise you are writing the character but not actually experiencing their world.

Nathan Ford (Leverage) is a high functioning alcoholic. He's high functioning so he can still do his thing while drunk (or so he thinks and is normally right), and the alcohol helps steady his nerves and helps him handle stress. If the alcohol doesn't actually give any sort of help then the player will never experience the tension required and to write Nathan Ford as an alcoholic you're writing for the character as an author, but not experiencing their world.

Now it is possible to overcorrect, but every time you make a character follow a flaw despite 100% knowing it is a bad decision and with no actual mechanical reason for you to do so you are writing the character as an author. How much correction to use is an interesting question (for example Fate uses less correction than Marvel Heroic Roleplaying).


So, safe vs. another flavor of safe? You're mitigating the cost of otherwise inferior options, that's all you're doing.

You're making things that in the abstract would be a bad idea into something that looks good for the character.


Role-playing shouldn't mean arbitrarily behaving a certain way because your char sheet says so, even if the game has a mechanical kludge that evens out all the consequences and makes it "easier" to do so.

Indeed. This is what a decent flaws system tries to fix. You want flawed characters to arbitrarily behave a certain way in defiance of all good sense because that's what the character concept says to do and while the player knows it's a bad decision for that character. We want flawed characters to behave a certain way because from their perspective it seems like a good idea at the time. Far less arbitrary.

And a good system for setting up flawed characters (like Fate) lets the players work out how the flaws are handled.


If the safe option truly is less fun, maybe the game is designed poorly for your group's preferences?

Which is why we use games where the sensible option is the one that aligns with the way the character works, like Fate.


Yes, and in doing so take away all the heft of decisions, which is the entirety of role-playing.

We are aligning the heft of decisions with the way the character sees the world. You want the heft of decisions to be the way an author sees the world.


If they're not actually that consequential, then they're not flaws.

But they are consequential. A Fate character's flaws are going to land them in a world of trouble. They are going to land them in a scene-setting world of trouble.


They're just a skinner box for characterization. You're not actually sharing the character's temptation, you're experiencing a completely different "temptation" that actually makes the "flawed" behavior a rational decision.

Indeed. To the character what they do is sensible - just as almost everyone is the hero of their own story. To a lot of alcoholics under stress having a drink seems like a sensible thing to do. To Tony Stark behaving like an unmitigated jackass is just being himself and perfectly sensible and normal.

You seem to be saying that having people behave in ways that they see as sensible that are strategically bad makes them unrealistic. Rather than that it aligns things with how they see the world.


Groups need to work out what kind of game they actually want to play, whether they are OK with other players making sub-optimal decisions for RP purposes or not; a meta-game kludge is no replacement for playing the right kind of game with the right kind of group, because it hollows out the RP moments for those who value that higher than effectiveness.

Whereas you want to impose the flaws from the top down and give the player an omniscient viewpoint rather than have them match the character's decision making tree. The decisions being made by the player for the character are arbitrary.


I agree with all this, but my conclusion is that it requires flaws and temptations that are well done and apply to the player as much as to the character, not divorcing the two and having them experience two different things.

For instance, I would be much more amenable to the kind of flaw described above if there was some kind of "Stress" condition track, and sexual pursuits decreased Stress. Because those are both understood by the player and the character in the same way. It's not a meta-game kludge, it's an intuitive internal struggle.

And Fate lets you do that. Because it's rules light you can decide how things associate if you want them to. If your metacurrency relates to Stress, fatigue, or Quintessence/Mana/Magical Power and you want to set your Fate character up that way then you can do so - you set up the association through the aspects how you think fits your character.

Or you can decide it's not a worry because you don't need to know how every little detail works any more than exact positionings


Sometimes I see a flaw that looks interesting to play. But then when I play it, things just don't work out. The flaws bring out difficulties, not unexpected, but it doesn't feel fun. I don't feel "oh heh I'm playing true to character wheee!". Instead I feel "oh I played out a flaw, bad stuff happens and people are angry... I could've avoided all of these if I didn't actively decide to play a flaw... I'll just go lie on a bed and cry".

I think I'm overly melodramatic?

I think that you're trying to play with flaws in the teeth of a game that doesn't want you to have them. Therefore you are having to author them - and the game and the group both for good reasons are things you need to fight.

A game like Fate (or here's where I'd really recommend Cortex+ because the GM doesn't have to worry much) would be much more to your tastes. Much more melodrama.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-08, 12:01 PM
Indeed. To the character what they do is sensible - just as almost everyone is the hero of their own story. To a lot of alcoholics under stress having a drink seems like a sensible thing to do. To Tony Stark behaving like an unmitigated jackass is just being himself and perfectly sensible and normal.

Except - with in game mechanical benefits for giving into your flaw - it might ACTUALLY BE the sensible thing to do. Which... sort of defeats of the idea of it being a flaw.

Segev
2016-01-08, 12:12 PM
Except - with in game mechanical benefits for giving into your flaw - it might ACTUALLY BE the sensible thing to do. Which... sort of defeats of the idea of it being a flaw.

It might be...but it still comes at consequences. It's sensible for the short game. Or it's sensible enough to do, but still costs you something to pursue it. Or it's a gamble (such as risking a peep causing you to fall into her bathhouse and ruin your stealth mission, but possibly gaining a morale boost to the rest of the mission if you succeed and thus increasing odds elsewhere). Or any number of things. The idea is to provide the player with a sense of opportunity cost between the decisions, so that the player feels something like what the character does. Rather than the player simply realizing it's a bad idea and having to choose between a good move and a bad one.

neonchameleon
2016-01-08, 12:19 PM
I don't understand your response. To clarify my position, I was saying I don't understand why someone would take a flaw that they don't understand / don't know how to rp, or a flaw that they were constantly avoiding.

Although I don't like that direction. Replace "flaw" with "personality trait", and that's even more what I meant, if not what I said. Why are the words roleplay and flaw so linked? :smallannoyed:

Flaw and RP are linked for two reasons. The first is the tendency to play flawless Gary Stus - and the first pushback against that is the grimderp full'o'flaws characters. The second is that if something isn't a flaw it isn't generally an RP problem. And flaws can be things that mess up the rest of the party.


Except - with in game mechanical benefits for giving into your flaw - it might ACTUALLY BE the sensible thing to do. Which... sort of defeats of the idea of it being a flaw.

That depends how it works. In Marvel Heroic with invoking the flaw under the control of the player it probably is actually the mechanically sensible thing to do. And you get the MCU Tony Stark behaving like an arrogant jackass as mechanically the right thing to do. Is it a flaw even so? You'd have to ask Ultron that. Or anyone who'd dealt with Ultron (or Stark for that matter).

In Fate a common use is that you get a bit of a power up in exchange for being framed into a scene exploiting your weakness. "Mark, the drunkard has a bit too much to drink and comes round thrown out onto the street with someone trying to steal his boots. Damn his luck." Being a drunkard is a serious problem. It leads somewhere interesting and doesn't feel like the character is being picked on as they can actually refuse the scene framing. Being a drunkard is a definite flaw that leads to trouble even if it gives the fate point that feels good.

NichG
2016-01-08, 12:39 PM
It doesn't really matter if someone plays a Gary-Stu so long as they can get something out of the experience.

Actually, 'what does the world look like to someone who has lived their entire life as a Gary-Stu' is an interesting RP challenge if you take it seriously, since most people will not have that in their life experiences.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 02:32 PM
It doesn't really matter if someone plays a Gary-Stu so long as they can get something out of the experience.

Actually, 'what does the world look like to someone who has lived their entire life as a Gary-Stu' is an interesting RP challenge if you take it seriously, since most people will not have that in their life experiences.

I don't think that's possible in most games, since it's not really possible to have the story revolve around your character. You can make a character who is as special a snowflake as possible, but the plot is still not going to bend itself to your character. It's possible in the case of a DMPC, but not (in most cases) possible for PCs.

Itsjustsoup.com
2016-01-08, 03:37 PM
I have a Rowdy, hooligan-y base of players who are pent up dudes.

They only respond to violence, threats, and incentive.

I've beaten all the random violence out of them I can - 12-20 characters later, they're not so randomly violent anymore.

I've got work to do on the hooliganism, but so far its manageable/fun and plot stirring. So I let it go.

But the role-playing. The role playing.

It wasn't until I created my own chart of xp rewards and points for playing in character, figuring things out, being heroic, etc that the table started to actually CHANGE.

When everybody got the XP at the end of the first game but One guy got 700 more XP that the others, and when asked why I replied "because he played his character as he described him and he came up with good ideas and tried to save your lives by sacrificing himself"

Everybody at the table look at each other wide eyed, realizing they could ACT and THINK themselves to the next level.

Next week, cue the thinking and heroics and playing in character.

Oh they're still hooligans, but they're Role Playing Hooligans.

NichG
2016-01-08, 10:15 PM
I don't think that's possible in most games, since it's not really possible to have the story revolve around your character. You can make a character who is as special a snowflake as possible, but the plot is still not going to bend itself to your character. It's possible in the case of a DMPC, but not (in most cases) possible for PCs.

As an RP exercise though, you have to imagine that for this person's entire life up till now, the plot did revolve around them, and then explore how they deal with the loss of their subconscious dramatic editing powers.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 10:36 PM
As an RP exercise though, you have to imagine that for this person's entire life up till now, the plot did revolve around them, and then explore how they deal with the loss of their subconscious dramatic editing powers.

That's pretty much the plot of Emma... Actually in that particular sort of genre that sort of thing is fairly common. That would be really interesting, especially because it's not an archetype that's often visited in fantasy or science fiction. The most important thing would be figuring out if the Mary Sueness was a real trait, or was something the character distorted perception to fit.

NichG
2016-01-08, 11:57 PM
That's pretty much the plot of Emma... Actually in that particular sort of genre that sort of thing is fairly common. That would be really interesting, especially because it's not an archetype that's often visited in fantasy or science fiction. The most important thing would be figuring out if the Mary Sueness was a real trait, or was something the character distorted perception to fit.

For fantasy, I could see it being done pretty easily since there's often a 'chosen one' conceit operating in fantasy worlds. So something has to happen to all those former 'chosen ones' who have completed their associated prophecies, and now have anywhere from 50 to 500 years left in their lives to sit around and reminisce. Fallen/reincarnated deities would be another example. And of course royalty-in-exile is a pretty standard trope.

For sci-fi it feels less common. How about something like, if you had a setting where just recently AI and biological <-> AI conversion have been developed. You could play someone who was the foremost, pre-eminent (biological) AI researcher who personally had a hand in creating the modern world of AIs, but is now living in a world where just about anyone can buy the latest intelligence, insight, and knowledge upgrades, so that his brilliance is no longer unique nor exclusive to him. He's still known for his historical contribution, but the AI society has moved very far past what once made him special in terms of raw ability and potential. Someone whose Gary-Stu-ness disabled itself. Mechanically the support for this would be I suppose that you could use the same pool of points to purchase abilities or to purchase reputation. This player would in effect be sacrificing raw ability for having a higher starting reputation.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-09, 12:32 AM
For fantasy, I could see it being done pretty easily since there's often a 'chosen one' conceit operating in fantasy worlds.

I think that there was a smidge of that in Rokka: Braves of the Six Flowers - though that certainly wasn't the show's focus.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-09, 10:11 PM
As far as I can tell, that's just as much an incentivization mechanic as the abstract ones. The difference is just the degree to which the crunch has been aligned with the fluff.

All game mechanics are incentivization mechanics. The difference is this isn't a "characterization" or "role-playing" mechanic, this is a stress mechanic. At some point it becomes tied in with the fluff and the themes of the game that it tips the scale over to "non-kludge."


That's insight 1. But Errol Flynn game design is simple. You just need to design using effects based design so stunting costs nothing and what matters is your objective. You want to swing from the chandelier and kick them with two feet in the stomach? No worse than running your sword through them. Throw in Feng Shui's/4e's 1hp mooks and you're done. Errol Flynn is basically showing off, and you can make that easy by not having them roll.

What's hard is Guardians of the Galaxy "12% of a plan" game design.

Not sure what you mean by "12% of a plan" game design, could you elaborate? I get the reference, I'm just not sure what part of that we're trying to design for.


Indeed. This is what a decent flaws system tries to fix. You want flawed characters to arbitrarily behave a certain way in defiance of all good sense because that's what the character concept says to do and while the player knows it's a bad decision for that character. We want flawed characters to behave a certain way because from their perspective it seems like a good idea at the time. Far less arbitrary.

And a good system for setting up flawed characters (like Fate) lets the players work out how the flaws are handled.

That is not my position. Characters making bad decisions in defiance of all good sense is holding the Idiot Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) (TVTropes warning). In fact, what I want is what you say you want; characters to be able to defend their choices. Meta-game rewards for acting on flaws doesn't allow them to do so. It allows the player to defend making their character hold the Idiot Ball, but it doesn't allow Tony Stark or Nathan Ford to explain themselves in-universe. If Nathan Ford is going to be able to say, "I drink because it steadies my nerves," it needs to actually do that (even if it also has other consequences sometimes), not just give him an extra bit of luck in the universe to be expended on unrelated tasks.


You seem to be saying that having people behave in ways that they see as sensible that are strategically bad makes them unrealistic. Rather than that it aligns things with how they see the world.

"Being a drunkard" is not sensible, nor is taking risks to be a peeping tom on a sensitive mission.

The "flaws" I will role-play are not things that will debilitate my character or prevent them from getting the job done. Whether it's a religious character who refuses to stand by while prisoners are tortured or executed, or a knight who is in love with the princess and refuses to take actions that will harm the royal family, or a thief who steals more than his fair share to clear a debt with a dangerous crime lord, I role-play traits that don't necessitate my holding the Idiot Ball to be "interesting."


And Fate lets you do that. Because it's rules light you can decide how things associate if you want them to. If your metacurrency relates to Stress, fatigue, or Quintessence/Mana/Magical Power and you want to set your Fate character up that way then you can do so - you set up the association through the aspects how you think fits your character.

Or you can decide it's not a worry because you don't need to know how every little detail works any more than exact positionings.

I can make up justifications for actions in any game. It's called role-playing. Fate compels do not model relieving stress or drinking to steady nerves, not well enough for me, at least. It is a mechanical kludge that produces surface-level characterization and, IME, leads to Idiot Ball scenarios (not every time, but without a very disciplined group, yes, eventually). It's a role-playing crutch, and like all crutches, it's better than nothing, but there also comes a time when you (and, importantly, your group) don't need it anymore, you can role-play just fine without it, are more flexible, and waste less time doing so, which makes for a better experience, IMO.

Obviously, YMMV.

NichG
2016-01-09, 11:16 PM
All game mechanics are incentivization mechanics. The difference is this isn't a "characterization" or "role-playing" mechanic, this is a stress mechanic. At some point it becomes tied in with the fluff and the themes of the game that it tips the scale over to "non-kludge."


Well, it's all of those, because the goal is still to produce behavior from the character that normally would be suboptimal from an outsider point of view. It's just doing better at hiding that under the rug by making it optimal from the point of view of all decisions made by the character. Which is an improvement, sure.

But, can we think of mechanics which change how the player feels without changing what the character does? Those would be roleplay mechanics without being incentivization mechanics.

For example, take the experience of bravery. It comes down to feeling fear, but being able to act despite it. If you don't feel the fear, it isn't bravery. If you don't act the same as you would in the absence of fear, it also isn't bravery.

Add to that the complication that the player who we want to experience bravery may themselves not be brave, but we want to overcome that if possible.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-09, 11:46 PM
Well, it's all of those, because the goal is still to produce behavior from the character that normally would be suboptimal from an outsider point of view. It's just doing better at hiding that under the rug by making it optimal from the point of view of all decisions made by the character. Which is an improvement, sure.

I guess we have to decide which point of view we care about. I've been assuming the character's POV is what matters, and so the goal is to make the player's (otherwise outside) perspective actually match the character's. When you say outsider point of view, whose perspective do you mean? The player's?


But, can we think of mechanics which change how the player feels without changing what the character does? Those would be roleplay mechanics without being incentivization mechanics.

For example, take the experience of bravery. It comes down to feeling fear, but being able to act despite it. If you don't feel the fear, it isn't bravery. If you don't act the same as you would in the absence of fear, it also isn't bravery.

Add to that the complication that the player who we want to experience bravery may themselves not be brave, but we want to overcome that if possible.

It seems like that would require first knowing the "resting emotional state" of the player, and then engineering something from there. If they're not invested in anything their character cares about, you simply won't be able to instill fear, and thus can't hope to get to bravery. If they are invested in their character's cares, then they should feel fear when those things are threatened. As far as the next step, getting to bravery, I don't know if we even understand human bravery enough to make such an attempt. The most we can probably do is make them feel empowered, but that's actually removing the fear. So I certainly don't know how to do this.

Also, I'm not entirely sure I agree that a game mechanic that manipulates the player but not the fiction would really be a role play mechanic. The fundamental assumption of role-playing is that you project yourself into your character; you imagine what they feel, what they experience, and respond as they would. The character's fear should be an emergent aspect of the fiction; they are, after all, being attacked by monsters that can kill them with a few lucky hits. The player, ideally, is sufficiently invested in the character to act with an eye towards self-preservation, but removed enough to act with the character's bravery and try to win the fight relying on skill, which the player understands through the game abstraction, but the character would understand from experience.

If the character's experience is not filtering up to the player, then there's little you can do within the role-playing paradigm to manipulate that. You can impose real world consequences on in-game events, like playing quarters when your character gets hit, I suppose, but that is, to put it mildly, a little dissociated.

NichG
2016-01-10, 12:40 AM
I guess we have to decide which point of view we care about. I've been assuming the character's POV is what matters, and so the goal is to make the player's (otherwise outside) perspective actually match the character's. When you say outsider point of view, whose perspective do you mean? The player's?

For example, if I am already a hormonal teenager, it may be optimal from my point of view to peep if that helps me deal with my hormonal state and gain better decision-making stability in exchange for taking a risk. It wouldn't be optimal for Nathan Ford to peek, so Nathan Ford doesn't peek (but instead drinks), while the hormonal teenager peeks (but doesn't drink), and both can give an in-character justification for why they did what they did.

But as a player at that table, I know that the guy playing a hormonal teenager made a decision to play a hormonal teenager instead of playing Nathan Ford or, say, a Navy SEAL. That's what I mean by the outside perspective. Most of the time that won't matter, but where it can matter is if a player has tension between 'I want to explore this idea' and 'I don't like the mechanics of how the system is incentivizing me to do it'. E.g. 'I want to explore being a recovering alcoholic, but the hormonal teenager gets much better mechanics, so I guess I'll be a hormonal teenager instead'. More generally, its another small wedge that can lodge between the player's reasoning and their character's reasoning. The player is empowered to make choices that the character can't make, even if it's just at character generation or advancement points.



It seems like that would require first knowing the "resting emotional state" of the player, and then engineering something from there. If they're not invested in anything their character cares about, you simply won't be able to instill fear, and thus can't hope to get to bravery. If they are invested in their character's cares, then they should feel fear when those things are threatened. As far as the next step, getting to bravery, I don't know if we even understand human bravery enough to make such an attempt. The most we can probably do is make them feel empowered, but that's actually removing the fear. So I certainly don't know how to do this.

Also, I'm not entirely sure I agree that a game mechanic that manipulates the player but not the fiction would really be a role play mechanic. The fundamental assumption of role-playing is that you project yourself into your character; you imagine what they feel, what they experience, and respond as they would. The character's fear should be an emergent aspect of the fiction; they are, after all, being attacked by monsters that can kill them with a few lucky hits. The player, ideally, is sufficiently invested in the character to act with an eye towards self-preservation, but removed enough to act with the character's bravery and try to win the fight relying on skill, which the player understands through the game abstraction, but the character would understand from experience.

If the character's experience is not filtering up to the player, then there's little you can do within the role-playing paradigm to manipulate that. You can impose real world consequences on in-game events, like playing quarters when your character gets hit, I suppose, but that is, to put it mildly, a little dissociated.

Well, its a hard problem. So given that, if we can come up with a partial solution that has the issue of being dissociated, it might be easier to start there and fix that dissociation rather than discard and keep looking.

For example, one example of inducing fear in the player specifically is when you have things in a game which can inflict permanent incurable penalties on the character. Mechanics like XP drain and permanent stat loss tend to get a lot of caution from players when used sparingly and in the context of a game which is normally more episodic, for a variety of reasons we can understand. One is that they break many of the the usual contracts of the game - that players' mutual ability to be involved in the game is sacrosanct regardless of what choices you make in-character, that there's a sort of status-quo around which game events happen, etc. Another is that there's a real risk that a mistake taken in a short time period can have a strong impact on the player's enjoyment of the game for many sessions to come. Also, the idea that your character is going to forever be less than what they could have been tends to hit hard for a lot of players. Obviously this has a lot of flaws - such mechanics are almost universally reviled - but its still useful as an example of how something can be done.

So that's one mechanism to induce fear. It's also not even that dissociated, since being permanently injured is something that most characters would logically fear as well.

The question is then, how would we create the tension between that fear and acting despite it? In real humans, I guess one hypothesis is that you can know that by failing to act, you are guaranteed to lose something more important to you than what you risk losing by acting. So the fear of failing to act is greater than the fear of acting, and in that case some people are paralyzed because of the depressant aspects of fear, whereas other people in that situation would end up getting an adrenaline spike from fight or flight instinct and use that to decide in favor of action. That's probably not a very good understanding of human bravery, but it might be good enough to learn if it feels fake when encoded in the form of RPG mechanics.

To try to build mechanics around this, I think the primary thing I'd do would be to try to make the consequences of inaction more immediate, and to have a mechanism which puts greater decision power in the hands of those who have acted least. Normally the instinct as a GM would be to focus gameplay on the people who are staying and fighting, because that's where the action is. But it might be effective to actually focus gameplay on the people who are vacillating or retreating, creating the impression that the fate of the others is still up in the air and, more importantly, directly hinges on actions yet taken by the characters who gave in to fear. To make that explicit, there could be party-wide penalties associated with characters giving into fear, so one character running or hanging back during a fight really does make the other characters less able to succeed beyond just removing whatever that one character could have contributed. So that distances the stimulus that induced inaction, but it brings the possible consequences closer, so that the player can experience more strongly the fear that 'by not fighting, I've doomed them' and things like that. This obviously doesn't fully cover my stated design goal earlier of something which changes what the player experiences without changing what the character does, but perhaps knowing that the rules really will put more weight on those who flee over those who stay and fight can do that as the player becomes accustomed to the game.

Another thing we could look at is how gambling addiction works. When behavior is constantly penalized at a low level, but sporadically and randomly rewarded at a high level, that behavior becomes strongly positively reinforced in people (even more so than a consistent level of reward would give). So if the player has rational doubts about the wisdom of a course of action, but has experienced the system randomly rewarding acting in a way to spite that rational doubt, it might be possible to induce a strong desire in the player themselves to take the brazen action despite knowing that its objectively a bad idea. This is potentially pretty dissociated, but it could be fixable. The bigger issue is, this probably doesn't actually feel like real bravery.

neonchameleon
2016-01-10, 09:16 AM
All game mechanics are incentivization mechanics. The difference is this isn't a "characterization" or "role-playing" mechanic, this is a stress mechanic. At some point it becomes tied in with the fluff and the themes of the game that it tips the scale over to "non-kludge."

Any stress mechanics in any RPG are a kludge. So are most other RPG mechanics. Stress doesn't work that way - neither does combat.


Not sure what you mean by "12% of a plan" game design, could you elaborate? I get the reference, I'm just not sure what part of that we're trying to design for.

Characters who undercut themselves and each other. Characters who say they have a plan when they in fact only have 12% of a plan. Characters who don't trust each other and when they come up with plans send people out for false legs just because it will be funny - or call up the big bad to tell them where they are. The sort of characters likely to shoot themselves in the foot.


That is not my position. Characters making bad decisions in defiance of all good sense is holding the Idiot Ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall) (TVTropes warning).

Aaggghhh! TV Tropes half-baked critical analysis. Almost every single classic tragedy is, by your definition an idiot ball situation. Once you've defined Breaking Bad and House of Cards into Idiot Ball shows (and how many stupid decisions fuelled by ambition do Underwood or Walter White make? By your definition above they cary idiot balls) then you're saying that the idiot ball is part of good storytelling, including almost every major tragedy up to and including MacBeth.

To be any use at all the


In fact, what I want is what you say you want; characters to be able to defend their choices.

There's a fundamental difference in what you want and what I want. It's the difference between what you think and what you feel.

You want someone sitting in an abstract author's perspective to be able to audit the character's play and say "Yes, that was why it was defensible". No emotional connection to the character at all, no sitting in the character's shoes. Just cold blooded abstract decision making at a purely intellectual level from the perspective of authoring the character's actions.

I want someone actually roleplaying the character to feel at least part of what the character feels. There are very few people who can not say hand on heart that they don't know that taking drugs is bad for them, mmm'kay. But it feels good and they get a hit and a high. They get something they want. It doesn't matter how the high for the player works. What matters is that the player's emotional resonances in getting a high mirror those of the character.

You want players who are authoring their characters from the top down to be able to justify things. I want them to feel the right things and we can sort out the justifications later.


It allows the player to defend making their character hold the Idiot Ball, but it doesn't allow Tony Stark or Nathan Ford to explain themselves in-universe. If Nathan Ford is going to be able to say, "I drink because it steadies my nerves," it needs to actually do that

OK. So in your universe every justification that someone makes up to justify their actions needs to actually be true. If the medaeval equivalent of Nate Ford were to have said "I drink because it balances my humours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism), giving me enough phlegm to counteract the black bile in my system" (or a shortened version of the above) he might genuinely believe it. But in your understanding in order for him to even be able to say that then the Humours theory must not only be true but must be mechanically represented. I consider this ridiculous.

Nate Ford drinks because drinking makes him feel good. Simple as that. He's also not entirely wrong when he says it helps him cope with stress. When someone feels good then events that would stress them feel less overwhelming. (If you've ever been under stress you'll know this is true).

When the player tries for a Fate Point by having Nate Ford drink it's like buying a lottery scratchcard. It feels good with a potential reward of a Fate Point. When Nate Ford has a drink he feels good so the stress doesn't feel so overwhelming. When the player fishes for a Fate Point they feel good just as Nate Ford does.

And you don't need nonsense about "This game must have stress tracks for Nate to even offer that as a justification" to do that.


"Being a drunkard" is not sensible, nor is taking risks to be a peeping tom on a sensitive mission.

But people do and they are. We know from the Snowden revelations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M) the NSA is full of peeping toms. And there are lots of drunkards. Under your structure you can't play these people.


The "flaws" I will role-play are not things that will debilitate my character or prevent them from getting the job done.

In short you can't play a lot of very interesting characters. Right. I'm going to go a step further. You don't play characters with flaws. You play ones with quirks. Quirks that never get in the way of getting the job done. Flaws are things that actually get in the way.

As you're unwilling to play flawed characters and you call any character with an actual flaw that matters an idiot-ball character I now get why you are declaring Fate Points to be a crutch. They enable you to play characters that you personally refuse to play while preventing playing such characters from being anti-social.

If you don't want to RP genuinely flawed characters then our mileage definitely does vary. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play competent characters who don't have issues that get in the way. But it means that you avoid the problem Fate Points mitigate. No wonder you don't find them useful.

Faily
2016-01-10, 09:18 AM
I'm very much in the boat that good roleplay is not nescessarily tied to the system. I've had amazing roleplay experiences in D&D, but rather mediocre (or atrocious ones) in roleplaying games that are "geared towards enforcing roleplay", such as Dogs in the Vineyard (recieves the Atrocious-reward).

In my experience, the best game system I've encountered that successfully encourages stronger roleplay via mechanics is Ars Magica. The Flaws you choose at Character Creation can be General, Personality, Hermetic (for Magic-characters) and Story. Story Flaws exist for the purpose of creating story! It's much more interesting to explain the backstory of how someone got a True Love or an Enemy, than it is to, say, Bad Eyesight. Story Flaws also exist for the Troupe (the group) to create new stories, to move the saga along in a meaningful direction that the PCs are personally vested in.

In my experience, many games that are built around strong roleplay-mechanics tend to enforce less interesting roleplay, because players might feel more locked in with how they are supposed to play. Whereas in comparison, I've found that games that are a bit looser in that department (Ars Magica) or have no mechanic around it (D&D) encourage people to let loose a bit more and have fun immersing themselves in a character.

As for rewarding XP for good roleplay; while I feel it is a nice thing to do with a decent group, I wouldn't do it with all the groups I play with, as it would seriously penalize those who aren't that interested in getting deeply involved in the roleplay-aspect (but prefer a lighter touch) or just aren't very good at it. I've also experienced that it tends to favor characters that are more flamboyant or note-worthy, while someone playing a shy character will be overlooked for such a bonus.

Again, all in my experience. People are quite welcome to enjoy games like Dogs in the Vineyard and Burning Wheel, but I find them pretty bad as Role-Playing games. :smallwink:

neonchameleon
2016-01-10, 09:52 AM
I'm very much in the boat that good roleplay is not nescessarily tied to the system. I've had amazing roleplay experiences in D&D, but rather mediocre (or atrocious ones) in roleplaying games that are "geared towards enforcing roleplay", such as Dogs in the Vineyard (recieves the Atrocious-reward).

Dogs in the Vineyard is fascinating because it is basically a game about one thing. "In this murky moral world how far are you willing to go in defence of what you believe is right? Are you willing to shed blood or even to kill? Are you willing to be hurt or even to die?" It's one great big game of chicken and this can be awesome or it can be terrible. It will never be mediocre. (And IMO should never be used for a campaign).


In my experience, many games that are built around strong roleplay-mechanics tend to enforce less interesting roleplay, because players might feel more locked in with how they are supposed to play. Whereas in comparison, I've found that games that are a bit looser in that department (Ars Magica) or have no mechanic around it (D&D) encourage people to let loose a bit more and have fun immersing themselves in a character.

It depends how it's done. Ars Magica is IMO one of the best games for encouraging roleplay that was published before 2003, and is the best game of its style. I'd rather go for, as mentioned, something Fate-like where the freeform aspects tied to the setting have most of the Ars Magica advantages (Spirit of the Century even had the other PCs endowing the aspects on you and a shared backstory). And most pre-2003 RPGs (and many post-2003) are very heavy handed, which is worse than useless.

And I'm with you on XP for RP other than as a jump-start reward system.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-10, 09:16 PM
Characters who undercut themselves and each other. Characters who say they have a plan when they in fact only have 12% of a plan. Characters who don't trust each other and when they come up with plans send people out for false legs just because it will be funny - or call up the big bad to tell them where they are. The sort of characters likely to shoot themselves in the foot.

I think I see our problem here. This kind of character interactions are extremely difficult to deal with in role-playing games that resemble anything like the classic paradigm, where the party is expected to face challenges together. It absolutely strains against doing anything like, say, D&D.


Aaggghhh! TV Tropes half-baked critical analysis. Almost every single classic tragedy is, by your definition an idiot ball situation. Once you've defined Breaking Bad and House of Cards into Idiot Ball shows (and how many stupid decisions fuelled by ambition do Underwood or Walter White make? By your definition above they cary idiot balls) then you're saying that the idiot ball is part of good storytelling, including almost every major tragedy up to and including MacBeth.

The definition of a classic tragedy is that the tragic hero's actions were all reasonable, that their downfall was inevitable but unforeseeable from their perspective. That is, by definition, not an Idiot Ball scenario. It is supposed to evoke pity in the audience, not scorn.

Now, a Shakespearian tragedy is not a classical tragedy, in that the errors of judgment are sometimes just straight up weaknesses of character, i.e. someone acting unreasonably to make the story interesting. Which I think more or less fits MacBeth. MacBeth isn't a true "Idiot Ball" scenario, because while his initial murder of the king goes against his character up to that point, it's ultimately Lady MacBeth egging him on that makes him do it, and that is proper characterization for her. After that it's all more ambition and paranoia. His character is just weird; it's not the tale of a noble intent gone wrong, as Aristotle defines the classical tragedy. It's just watching a trainwreck in slow motion. It's a flawed character endlessly indulging his flaws, exhibiting few, if any, redeeming qualities.

I've honestly never encountered someone that wanted to run MacBeth in a role-playing game before. But my take on it is that single-author fiction can get away with a lot more because it can explore the impact of those flaws on the world, no matter what the consequences, since there's no one else you have to consider. Multi-author play, OTOH, is much more restricted in how significant one character's flaws can be, because everyone else in the group also has a vote, and would probably prefer not to have their characters murdered and the game derailed to explore MacBeth's madness and yet another round of misinterpreted prophecy word games. The tension of role-playing games should primarily be external; it's the tale of a group of characters overcoming environmental and antagonist adversity to achieve a goal, not a tale of a bunch of individuals overcoming internal conflicts in order to work together. I mean, you could make a game like that, and I think Robin Laws' Hillfolk is supposed to be sort of like that, but most RPGs, including Fate, are not designed to tell stories fundamentally driven by flaws. (They may be occasionally impacted by flaws, but that's not where the underlying momentum of the story comes from).


I want someone actually roleplaying the character to feel at least part of what the character feels. There are very few people who can not say hand on heart that they don't know that taking drugs is bad for them, mmm'kay. But it feels good and they get a hit and a high. They get something they want. It doesn't matter how the high for the player works.

Your protestations to the contrary, I agree with you, but for the bolded sentence. When I play the game, it matters to me. I want to see the world through my character's eyes, to actually feel what he feels, not just feel something whenever he feels something. Mechanics can inform that, but for a lot of things, I'm going to have to just feel it because I'm acting, like fear when a loved one is threatened, or a sense of obligation to a lord, or the ambition to regain a stolen throne. Now maybe some of these have mechanics that actually justify that choice, as well, but a meta-game mechanic is only tied to these emotions in the loosest sense of the word.


OK. So in your universe every justification that someone makes up to justify their actions needs to actually be true. If the medaeval equivalent of Nate Ford were to have said "I drink because it balances my humours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humorism), giving me enough phlegm to counteract the black bile in my system" (or a shortened version of the above) he might genuinely believe it. But in your understanding in order for him to even be able to say that then the Humours theory must not only be true but must be mechanically represented. I consider this ridiculous.

If this is reciprocating somewhere where I've so brazenly and repeatedly misrepresented your position, I apologize.

In my understanding, the character's sense impressions should correlate to the change in the game state the player is intellectually aware of through the abstraction. It's not about the in-universe explanation of why a given effect is produced (and nothing I said indicated that was the case), it's that the character is accurately (or at least reasonably) identifying cause and effect. If Ford says it calms his nerves, then it should decrease Stress or give him a nerves-related buff or whatever. If, OTOH, Ford says it gives him confidence and makes him feel invincible, it should give him social and damage-soaking bonuses. If, no matter what he says, all it actually does is give him XP or a Fate point, then he is simply wrong about the effect it's having on him. Then he is just believing arbitrary things.

Now, if you just want to play a drunk that gets no benefit from it, that's cool, go ahead and do so, so long as your group is cool with whatever fallout that may have. Role-playing doesn't require a mechanic. But when it is going to be mechanically-based, the character and player should understand the relationship between cause and effect the same way.


But people do and they are. We know from the Snowden revelations (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M) the NSA is full of peeping toms. And there are lots of drunkards. Under your structure you can't play these people.

You can play them, but you shouldn't expect the game to make doing so a tactically beneficial move, because in real life, they are also not tactically beneficial moves. Those NSA analysts do not get Fate points to spend later on Analysis checks. Those behaviors are also not particularly interesting or important in the context of group-based adventure games, which necessarily operate on different dynamics than solo author fiction.


In short you can't play a lot of very interesting characters. Right. I'm going to go a step further. You don't play characters with flaws. You play ones with quirks. Quirks that never get in the way of getting the job done. Flaws are things that actually get in the way.

No, they don't get in the way. Look, in Fate, you can compel your own Aspects for a Fate point, or you can receive a Fate point for allowing someone else to compel it. But you also have the option of paying 1 Fate point to ignore the compel. So, unless you're out of Fate points, you retain the ability to always get the job done when you think it actually matters. The only time you would take a Fate point for a complicating compel is when you don't think it will prevent you from ultimately succeeding. Now, maybe you're wrong about what the ultimate fallout is, but at the point that you're making the decision, you at least believe it won't ultimately prevent you from achieving your overall goal.

And if you don't perform the calculus that way, if you accept compels even though you think there's a high likelihood that it'll end in death or disaster (which is obviously not worth the Fate point you got out of it), or if you reject even non-consequential compels because you don't like the characterization it represents, then you are ignoring the mechanic anyway.

This exact same RP calculus is at work without Fate points: if you are struck by an opportunity to role-play, and you don't think it will prevent your ultimate success, you'll probably act on that opportunity because it's fun. If, OTOH, you think "Hmm, naked ladies are literally the tits, but the fate of the world kind of rests on me getting back within 12 minutes, so I'm going to pull myself together and not endanger the mission," then you reject the compel, as it were, and as an added bonus have an opportunity for character growth, where you set one priority over another (and the system charges you nothing for this). Neither of those priorities is mechanically represented; how much your character feels about the world not ending and how much he cares about seeing tits both exist entirely within the player's imagination. At best, the player wants to save the world because winning is fun, but role-playing is also fun, so you're not being asked to imagine one benefit when another benefit is somehow more "real."

In short, Fate points in Fate do not all of a sudden make flaws consequential. If your flaws have an impact in Fate it's because you are choosing to role-play them that way (or choosing to accept compels that make you role-play them that way). And you can do that same thing without Fate points, if your group is OK with that.

The reason I don't play MacBeth characters is because I don't have a regular playing group these days and end up playing with strangers of varying levels of tolerance for flaws that are going to burden their characters. I do give characters flaws that are unlikely to debilitate the mission; I have played womanizers and arrogant *******s and even drunks, but that comes up mostly in characterization, not in making bad decisions for the lolz. Because while I may find the drunk being hammered through his watch "interesting," (actually, I don't, but whatever) most of my fellow players appreciate me not making him do so. I have played in groups where that was not the case, but you have to cater your role-playing to the group and to the game. Do you seriously disagree with this? And are you seriously arguing that a traditional party-based adventure game can really do MacBeth?


As you're unwilling to play flawed characters and you call any character with an actual flaw that matters an idiot-ball character I now get why you are declaring Fate Points to be a crutch. They enable you to play characters that you personally refuse to play while preventing playing such characters from being anti-social.

If you don't want to RP genuinely flawed characters then our mileage definitely does vary. There's nothing wrong with wanting to play competent characters who don't have issues that get in the way. But it means that you avoid the problem Fate Points mitigate. No wonder you don't find them useful.

Are you done with the polemic yet? I mean, I could just as easily say "And you just want to write solo author fiction at the game table which Fate points makes a non-anti-social option!" but it is neither true nor useful.

Fate Points do not mitigate a problem; they grease the role-playing wheels, yes, but once they're greased, there's no reason to cling to them if you have a good group that wants to role-play more significant flaws. Because you're still making the exact same kinds of calculus about your character's differing priorities with or without them, once you've done it a few times and have a good feeling for your character's instincts and values.

If your group wants to sit down and play Fate, they are perfectly capable of playing all the flaws without using Fate points, if they want to, and it will proceed largely unchanged. Have you never been into a character enough that you can just feel their instincts? Does Fate really add more depth to the experience than that?

As I've said, I find the haggling over Fate points a distraction; it pulls me right out of my character's instincts and values and has me consider something else that they are unaware of which will form the basis for their character decision. It just rubs me the wrong way, and I prefer when I can immerse myself in the fiction and my character, and I will play the flaws and quirks that won't burden other players more than they are willing to bear. When I have a good group, yes, I will and have played characters that make decisions that were tactically questionable, and I didn't need a Fate point to make it worth it. One character died doing something like that, and I really enjoyed it, because right up to his death I was plugged into that character, fighting for what he thought was right.

But if you feel differently, if Fate points don't break your immersion the way they do mine, then fine, that's great. Just don't think that I have some stunted view of role-playing or of storytelling because I consider them a crutch.

NichG
2016-01-10, 09:43 PM
'Should' statements about topic bother me when it comes to game design, because it tends to pin one to the traditional and miss potential. However, I can't help but agree that Macbeth or even classical tragedy sound like pretty awful gaming. I wouldn't hesitate to call many of those things idiot ball situations - just because they're classics doesn't make them immune to having sloppy writing. If anything, that kind of thing gets more common the further back you go, since audiences wouldn't have been saturated on it through high volume entertainment media.

goto124
2016-01-10, 11:23 PM
in Fate, you can compel your own Aspects for a Fate point. But you also have the option of paying 1 Fate point to ignore the compel. Unless you're out of Fate points, you retain the ability to always get the job done when you think it actually matters.

The only time you would take a Fate point for a complicating compel is when you don't think it will prevent you from ultimately succeeding. Now, maybe you're wrong about what the ultimate fallout is, but at the point that you're making the decision, you at least believe it won't ultimately prevent you from achieving your overall goal.

This exact same RP calculus is at work without Fate points: if you are struck by an opportunity to role-play, and you don't think it will prevent your ultimate success, you'll probably act on that opportunity because it's fun.

If, OTOH, you think "Hmm, naked ladies are literally the tits, but the fate of the world kind of rests on me getting back within 12 minutes," then you reject the compel, as it were, and as an added bonus have an opportunity for character growth, where you set one priority over another (and the system charges you nothing for this).

Neither of those priorities is mechanically represented; how much your characters feel about the world not ending and how much they care about seeing tits both exist entirely within the player's imagination.

At best, the player wants to save the world because winning is fun, but role-playing is also fun, so you're not being asked to imagine one benefit when another benefit is somehow more "real."

The last paragraph is the whole point of role-playing games. Role-playing games are both role-playing and games (herp derp).

In this case, the challenge lies in achieving the balance between 'fun roleplay' and 'fun winning', to give in to your compels just enough that in critical times, you can ignore those compels or even twist the compels into something that helps, not harms.

Let us focus on this phrase: "maybe you're wrong about what the ultimate fallout is". Personally (I suspect I'm the only one who actually feels this way, but how should I know if I don't speak up?), I've had the fear that even the smallest roleplay things could lead to unintended consequences that don't appear until it's too late. For example, if my womanizer behavior offend a lady, she'll refuse to help out during a time of distress. Heck, any situation where my character interacts with an authority figure. And what if, after I kick down a homeless man, he runs into me doing something illegal and rats me out to the police? Just examples, but all sorts of things could happen and the DM will just say "it's realistic, actions have consequences".

Maybe, in roleplaying games, the whole point is to earn fate points by giving in to compels, then solve the problems that come up by using the fate points you earned. Why do I feel so depressed just typing this?

CharonsHelper
2016-01-11, 12:05 AM
Once you've defined Breaking Bad and House of Cards into Idiot Ball shows

Breaking Bad IS an Idiot Ball show. The entire premise is a science teacher getting angry at the world because he got cancer and thinks it's okay/smart to start making meth. That's pretty dang stupid.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-11, 12:21 AM
If anything, that kind of thing gets more common the further back you go, since audiences wouldn't have been saturated on it through high volume entertainment media.

Many times - they weren't sloppy at the time. We roll our eyes at some 'tropes' - but if you go back far enough you get to see the characters who STARTED the tropes. Basically - they were such awesome characters that writers have been stealing that idea ever since.

Two VERY different examples - with different results.

1. Romeo & Juliet. The basic premise of star-crossed lovers from opposing factions has been done a bazillion times at this point. However - Shakespeare's wasn't copying - it just was. And frankly - the premise still holds up - it just needs to be shaken with various backdrops. (1950's gang dance-fighting anyone? ;P)

2. Dracula. I'm talking the original movie version - cape/fangs/tight hair etc. At this point - it's been so over-used that the only recent thing I know of using it is a children's comedy. However - in the original movie - there were literally cases of women in theaters fainting in fear. At the time it wasn't a trope - it was just freakin' scary!

Edit: And that Dracula didn't sparkle!

NichG
2016-01-11, 05:40 AM
Many times - they weren't sloppy at the time. We roll our eyes at some 'tropes' - but if you go back far enough you get to see the characters who STARTED the tropes. Basically - they were such awesome characters that writers have been stealing that idea ever since.

The reason its sloppy isn't that it's copying, it's that by making the characters be stupid when dramatically convenient you don't have to come up with a logical reason for them to actually act that way. You don't have to worry so much about making things make sense, because you can just excuse it as the character being overwhelmed by emotion or some other thing. That's why the trope is specifically an idiot 'ball' - its a state of idiocy that exists only when its needed to serve the overarching drama. It's similar to deus ex machina.

The thing is, if you don't have a ton of media to compare with, its easy to just say 'oh, that's what stories are like'. It's when you see a large variety of things that it becomes really clear when some things make more overt use of it than others. Use of the idiot ball trope doesn't make it un-enjoyable, but if you see that good stories can be told without it then it makes the stories that do need to use it to force the drama to happen seem a lot less impressive.

neonchameleon
2016-01-11, 08:15 AM
I think I see our problem here. This kind of character interactions are extremely difficult to deal with in role-playing games that resemble anything like the classic paradigm, where the party is expected to face challenges together. It absolutely strains against doing anything like, say, D&D.

And this is the whole problem and what your entire argument appears to boil down to. "I like slightly devolved D&D in which everything is PvE therefore that is the only way you should play tabletop RPGs." You're even going so far as to exclude "a game of personal horror" from your definition of RPGs by saying that the focus should not be on the characters flaws. In other words you're excluding Vampire: the Masquerade and the rest of the White Wolf games from RPGs.

To me saying that an approach strains at doing anything like D&D as a direct criticism is about as restrictive as "All plays should be classical tragedies" or "All comics should be superhero comics". An utterly ridiculous statement. There is nothing at all wrong with the D&D PvE model - it makes for a great game (especially when the tension is ratcheted up). But the attempt at genre policing the medium for conformance to type leads to games as deformed as the poor purebred dogs you sometimes see at dog shows.

The game designed by Arneson, developed by Gygax (and preferably written by Mentzer or in the Rules Cyclopaedia) is awesome. But it should not be used to police the boundaries of the medium the way you appear to be trying to do any more than Casablanca (or any other great film) should be used to police the boundaries of film as a medium. Especially as a "Game of personal horror" is notably both within the genre and in the 90s especially was about as popular as D&D despite the fact that it was at a technical level badly done.

So you don't like RPGs about the characters' flaws. What of it? I don't like thrash metal - which means that (a) I don't own any, (b) I don't want it as background music when given a vote, and (c) I do not have an informed opinion about what makes for good thrash metal - so I leave those conversations alone. I don't try to deny that thrash metal exists or is a worthwhile goal (although if someone could tell me why I'd possibly be interested).

Fate by the way is as close to a generic game as I'm aware of. And it's one where if you want to drive much of the game off the characters' Trouble aspects then that works - and it also works if you drive the game by means of external obstacles. (You also can't actually self-compel; you're merely able to suggest compels to the GM who may accept them). It's not one laser-targeted at the characters' flaws (for that try Monsterhearts, Better Angels, or My Life With Master) and it's not one designed for PvP (try Monsterhearts, Smallville, or Hillfolk).

And the biggest issue in multi-author play with flawed characters isn't the issue of multiple authors. It's the issue of the expected length of campaign. If you look at most modern tragic RPGs, whether flaw driven or regarding RPing against unwinnable odds (such as Grey Ranks or Montsegur 1244) they are designed to last a small handful of sessions - half a dozen at the most, and frequently only one. Having your character die in such a situation to one of the other PCs isn't the big thing that it is in a multi-year D&D campaign.


Your protestations to the contrary, I agree with you, but for the bolded sentence. When I play the game, it matters to me. I want to see the world through my character's eyes, to actually feel what he feels, not just feel something whenever he feels something. Mechanics can inform that, but for a lot of things, I'm going to have to just feel it because I'm acting, like fear when a loved one is threatened, or a sense of obligation to a lord, or the ambition to regain a stolen throne. Now maybe some of these have mechanics that actually justify that choice, as well, but a meta-game mechanic is only tied to these emotions in the loosest sense of the word.

Which means it's a lot more tied to those emotions than nothing at all as long as the timing is right. There are two differences we have here.

The first is that the mechanics you find immersive are the ones you know well enough to internalise and so don't have to think about. There are some mechanics more naturally internalisable than others - but it's mostly experience and practice.

The second is for you angle matters, for me distance does. Having the Fate Point - or even the chance of the Fate Point gives you a closer feeling than not doing one, and therefore it's easier to bridge the gap.


In my understanding, the character's sense impressions should correlate to the change in the game state the player is intellectually aware of through the abstraction. It's not about the in-universe explanation of why a given effect is produced (and nothing I said indicated that was the case),

And the character's sense and impressions correlate to "Drinking makes me more able to handle things" - with the game state changing by the player sometimes getting fate points which, guess what, make them more able to handle things because you can and do spend them to handle things in high stakes situations.

With your revised statement, Fate is doing exactly what you now claim you want. It might be at the wrong level of zoom but it is doing exactly what you want. I'd therefore assumed that you wanted the stress track because that is literally the only difference between what you now say you want and what Fate actually gives you, meaning that my assumption was that it was important.


This exact same RP calculus is at work without Fate points: if you are struck by an opportunity to role-play, and you don't think it will prevent your ultimate success, you'll probably act on that opportunity because it's fun.

No it isn't. Or rather it is if and only if my flaws are in fact "flaws" that have no meaningful effect.

In D&D if I act out a flaw I am necessarily undermining the effectiveness of the party and that's automatically antisocial as it sabotages the group and therefore a problem. In Fate I am gambling. Am I going to need to spend the Fate point dealing with the compel? Am I going to find somehting useful? I don't know. A Fate Point is a pretty big benefit, therefore there's a lot more I can do without being outright anti-social and undermining the party.


If, OTOH, you think "Hmm, naked ladies are literally the tits, but the fate of the world kind of rests on me getting back within 12 minutes, so I'm going to pull myself together and not endanger the mission," then you reject the compel, as it were, and as an added bonus have an opportunity for character growth, where you set one priority over another (and the system charges you nothing for this).

You have an opportunity for a hollowed-out version of character growth where the only reason that you were remotely tempted is because from a top down author position you've decided you ought to be.


In short, Fate points in Fate do not all of a sudden make flaws consequential.

No. What they do is prevent them from being anti-social to the other players at the table if you are playing as a team game. If I follow a flaw with no mechanical benefit I am selfishly weakening the team's chance of success to have my own fun. If I get a Fate Point I'm gambling slightly and might actively increase the team's chance of success because I come into the showdown with an extra Fate Point.


The reason I don't play MacBeth characters is because

is because you play D&D. And it's a bad match. In e.g. a game of Fiasco (awesome game although only a borderline RPG) a MacBeth type character is far more expected than a classic D&D Hero.


Because while I may find the drunk being hammered through his watch "interesting," (actually, I don't, but whatever) most of my fellow players appreciate me not making him do so.

This is because it by default sabotages their chance of success and therefore a large aspect of their fun. In Fate it doesn't so much so it's not an anti-social move. (It's not the one I'd choose to make either).


I have played in groups where that was not the case, but you have to cater your role-playing to the group and to the game. Do you seriously disagree with this? And are you seriously arguing that a traditional party-based adventure game can really do MacBeth?

No. I am arguing that a traditional party-based adventure game is one small subset of what RPGs are. That tabletop RPGs are a bigger subset of RPGs. And that social mechanics are generally used either to widen traditional party-based adventure games in such a way that doing Guardians of the Galaxy isn't completely anti-social (even if Gamora turned up for a serious game and Peter could have gone either way), or to take tabletop RPGs into terrain that isn't restricted to the traditional party-based adventure game.

Fiasco can certainly do MacBeth. Although it is pushing the bounds of tabletop RPGs pretty hard.


Does Fate really add more depth to the experience than that?

Asked and answered. It gives emotional kicks in the right places.


As I've said, I find the haggling over Fate points a distraction

I've never really had a haggling experience. You can't self-compel. You can merely say "This might be cool" if you want to. And you can say "My character wouldn't do that and is determined against it", spending a Fate Point.


it pulls me right out of my character's instincts and values and has me consider something else that they are unaware of which will form the basis for their character decision.

Like hit points? (Hit points aren't injury in the slightest - you don't get slowed or hurt from them). You're saying that's silly? That's because you've internalised them.

Immersion is a factor of what you have internalised and every game has things that break immersion until you are used to them. Some rules are easier than others (and looking things up in the rulebook is always an immersion killer IME) but most things are just practice.


Breaking Bad IS an Idiot Ball show. The entire premise is a science teacher getting angry at the world because he got cancer and thinks it's okay/smart to start making meth. That's pretty dang stupid.

Breaking Bad is something on my mind I'm part way through. And no it's not an idiot ball show - it's a show where he makes one idiot decision and everything else I've seen him do is justifiable even as he spirals downwards. He backs himself into corners.

And is making meth even a bad decision for him? He's got two years to live, no money, and no way to afford treatment or see his family is looked after - when he dies he's succeeded at that. It's certainly not a classic idiot ball decision.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-11, 11:59 AM
Breaking Bad is something on my mind I'm part way through. And no it's not an idiot ball show - it's a show where he makes one idiot decision and everything else I've seen him do is justifiable even as he spirals downwards. He backs himself into corners.

No - it's not justifiable. He's able to rationalize it. Two entirely different things. (Though those who rationalize THINK that their decisions are justifiable.)

Stubbazubba
2016-01-11, 01:44 PM
At this point we're just repeating ourselves. I said what I said carefully; in the subset of RPGs that are anything like the classic D&D-like game, you can't have character flaws drive the story. There are certainly RPGs that aren't in that vein, and I nowhere tried to exclude Vampire, et al., from the definition of RPGs. I've just never seen a game that bills itself as "high character drama" actually deliver. With the possible exception of Smallville, where the bulk of the mechanics are about relationships and conflicts between PCs, not fighting enemies. Fiasco is a fun improv game, but I don't think most people consider it a role-playing game.

It's not that I don't like RPGs about character's flaws, it's that I've never seen one that made that work. Fate, MHR, etc., all make them ancillary to the external threats. Frankly, I think good writing requires a lot more effort than what a simple meta-game mechanic can provide, but that's a bit of a different topic.

Quertus
2016-01-11, 01:55 PM
I'm very much in the boat that good roleplay is not nescessarily tied to the system. I've had amazing roleplay experiences in D&D, but rather mediocre (or atrocious ones) in roleplaying games that are "geared towards enforcing roleplay", such as Dogs in the Vineyard (recieves the Atrocious-reward).

As for rewarding XP for good roleplay; while I feel it is a nice thing to do with a decent group, I wouldn't do it with all the groups I play with, as it would seriously penalize those who aren't that interested in getting deeply involved in the roleplay-aspect (but prefer a lighter touch) or just aren't very good at it. I've also experienced that it tends to favor characters that are more flamboyant or note-worthy, while someone playing a shy character will be overlooked for such a bonus.

I agree, in that many of my best rp experiences came from D&D. I think white wolf's WoD system, with end of session xp, could encourage players to think about role-playing their character's personality, quirks, etc - at least if the bar is kept low enough that things like, "I didn't point out X during the conversation, because my character is shy" count. It can also help the other players understand the character - oh, you weren't just being quiet because of a lack of ability to contribute?


The last paragraph is the whole point of role-playing games. Role-playing games are both role-playing and games (herp derp).

In this case, the challenge lies in achieving the balance between 'fun roleplay' and 'fun winning', to give in to your compels just enough that in critical times, you can ignore those compels or even twist the compels into something that helps, not harms.

Let us focus on this phrase: "maybe you're wrong about what the ultimate fallout is". Personally (I suspect I'm the only one who actually feels this way, but how should I know if I don't speak up?), I've had the fear that even the smallest roleplay things could lead to unintended consequences that don't appear until it's too late. For example, if my womanizer behavior offend a lady, she'll refuse to help out during a time of distress. Heck, any situation where my character interacts with an authority figure. And what if, after I kick down a homeless man, he runs into me doing something illegal and rats me out to the police? Just examples, but all sorts of things could happen and the DM will just say "it's realistic, actions have consequences".

Maybe, in roleplaying games, the whole point is to earn fate points by giving in to compels, then solve the problems that come up by using the fate points you earned. Why do I feel so depressed just typing this?

A lot of bad GMs only use actions having consequences for bad results. I don't fear my character's actions having bad consequences - that's part of the fun. I don't like when they only have bad consequences, or when they only have unintended consequences without also having intended consequences, or when someone else taking seemingly similar actions gets better consequences. I'm not sure how I feel about actions only having random consequences - where it feels like, every time you take an action, the GM rolls a d1000, and consults a chart, and that's the result. Womanizer? Got a new dog. Interacted with authority figure? Lost job. Kicked homeless man? Became president.

AMFV
2016-01-11, 02:05 PM
No - it's not justifiable. He's able to rationalize it. Two entirely different things. (Though those who rationalize THINK that their decisions are justifiable.)

It is justifiable... He's not expecting to get caught (or to live long enough to get caught). That means that it may not be a stupid decision. If a criminal makes millions, then they're not stupid, or making bad decisions (although arguably poor ones morally). Disadvantages often represent decisions that would be beneficial to the player, but disadvantageous to the group as a whole. Like a Heroin addict shooting up, he wants to do it, he enjoys it, but it's not the best thing for his family. To be fair I'm not always fond of that sort of Fate point type deal in roleplay, but for certain game types it works exceptionally well.

Segev
2016-01-11, 03:04 PM
Here's the thing: Let's say that you want to play a character who has one of the NSA employees' revealed weaknesses. He, in fact, had a drug and porn problem that cost him his job prior to the game. He's involved in it because one of his past cases has come back to haunt him, and now he's even being blackmailed/extorted by a dealer of his particular drug(s).

Objectively, if I want to play out a tale of him overcoming these deficiencies of character to resolve his past problems and get himself back on his feet as his own man, a system which purely punishes him for being exposed to drugs and sex will encourage me to play him like a (mostly successful) cold-turkey quitter of all his vices. It behooves me to keep him away from them entirely, and to always refuse every opportunity to be exposed or to get into position to indulge. In a system where there is no compulsion to indulge, either, it behooves me to have him always refuse, citing whatever moral fortitude or personal revulsion I wish to justify it.

Doing otherwise gives me nothing.

It is purely up to me how "well" he's doing at resisting, and the temptation FOR ME is always to have him be perfect about it. Because the rewards are purely on the side of sticking to it. I feel no reason to let him "give in," knowing the penalties I'll suffer while playing him while he's under the influence and knowing what it will cost in the long run.



On a less "flaw"-laden note, there's little incentive in D&D to get anything but the cheapest food and accommodations, because there are no benefits to "living it up," and no penalties to meeting only the barest minimum standards of living. In fact, there's disincentive to do more than the latter, because every gp spent on frivolous "living well" is a gp that cannot be spent on gear (which will give tangible, often repeating, benefits in game) or to solve problems (such as paying for a needed passage on a boat, or bribing a guard, or the like).

Were I actually living in the world, experiencing what my character does, my will to subsist on lousy food in barely-acceptable accommodations when I could afford tasty, plentiful food with comfortable, luxurious accommodations and conveniences would be tested repeatedly. I know this, because optimal expenditure of my own real-life income would include a lot less eating out, and probably living in a really cheap house with good insulation and far less internet than I pay for (as it's one of my primary entertainment sources and I hate waiting on it).

This goes double for the stereotypical entertainment of ultra-masculine adventurers played by hormonal teens: wenches and sex therewith. Objectively, it's nothing but downside to the player - it often costs gp (which could be spent on more tangible benefits) in the form of dating or out-and-out transaction, and any consequences which might arise are invariably negative (she's a thief; she's a succubus; she gets pregnant and you have to pay for the kid; you're attacked in the midst of it and thus are totally, completely unarmed; she's an assassin...the DM's sadism is the limit).

So playing the asexual paragon of restraint - very counter to the "traditional" stereotype of an adventurer - is objectively optimal.


A game system, therefore, which offers the PLAYER (me) temptations in the form of things which make the game more fun for me (usually by giving me some sort of tangible, in-game benefit) for making my character happier in the short term will encourage me to at least consider activities which are reasonably going to tempt a person who can experience them...but which won't reward the actual decision maker (the player, me) with anything I couldn't get without spending in-game resources or taking in-game risks. (I can imagine a delicious meal as easily if my character doesn't eat it as if he does.)

Something as simple as a "mood meter" which is elevated by more luxurious accommodations, by indulging in better food, romance (or just sex), or by having nicer clothes, and which gave bonuses and penalties based on how high it was, could be influential on a PLAYER's decisions, adequately reflect the motivation of the CHARACTER to indulge, and even be realistic (depending on whether you think happy people are more effective than pessimistic, miserable ones).

Granting "fate points" or other such benefits can work, as well; "Bob is well-satisfied and -rested, and that allows him to better perform his task later in the day by spending the earned fate point."

Faily
2016-01-11, 03:10 PM
Oh, there certainly is an Idiotball in Breaking Bad. It's called the "Public Health Care" and it holds the biggest Idiotball of them all to even allow the concept of Breaking Bad take place. :smallwink:

https://i.imgur.com/JYuFysLl.jpg


Dogs in the Vineyard is fascinating because it is basically a game about one thing. "In this murky moral world how far are you willing to go in defence of what you believe is right? Are you willing to shed blood or even to kill? Are you willing to be hurt or even to die?" It's one great big game of chicken and this can be awesome or it can be terrible. It will never be mediocre. (And IMO should never be used for a campaign).


I can agree it's not mediocre, hence why it recieves my Atrocious-award. :smalltongue: I just found Dogs in the Vineyard to be badly designed and not very well executed, while forcing players to react in the extreme with no middle-grounds. People might have different experiences with it and are certainly allowed to do it, but to me, Dogs in the Vineyard is bad and I'd play almost anything else instead of it.



I agree, in that many of my best rp experiences came from D&D. I think white wolf's WoD system, with end of session xp, could encourage players to think about role-playing their character's personality, quirks, etc - at least if the bar is kept low enough that things like, "I didn't point out X during the conversation, because my character is shy" count. It can also help the other players understand the character - oh, you weren't just being quiet because of a lack of ability to contribute?

That is a good point and in some cases it does work as intended. It's just my experience that not all players want to put as much effort into adding depths to their characters as others, so in those cases I tend to just steer away from rewarding RP, since the most important thing is everyone having fun, wether they are acting out their character to a T or just saying "my character hits the Goblin". :smallsmile:

CharonsHelper
2016-01-11, 03:25 PM
Oh, there certainly is an Idiotball in Breaking Bad. It's called the "Public Health Care" and it holds the biggest Idiotball of them all to even allow the concept of Breaking Bad take place. :smallwink:


Actually - from what I remember (I never really got into the show) it wasn't for his own hospital bills at all. After all - he worked for the gov. - so good insurance benefits are inherent. He wanted to leave his family $ after he was gone.

Segev
2016-01-11, 03:45 PM
Actually - from what I remember (I never really got into the show) it wasn't for his own hospital bills at all. After all - he worked for the gov. - so good insurance benefits are inherent. He wanted to leave his family $ after he was gone.

Regardless of reality, the plot claimed his public school teacher's insurance didn't cover the treatments he needed. (I think it was a matter of the best doctor not being on the plan.)

But this is getting somewhat off-topic.

An "idiot ball" is something that is carried by a character in order to force him to always select the worst possible choices to force the plot into more drama/difficulty. It blinds them to sensible alternatives and makes them foolishly overwrought or dedicated to a dogmatic, simplistic, or stubborn position for no reason other than "because."

Quertus
2016-01-11, 03:55 PM
Here's the thing: Let's say that you want to play a character who has one of the NSA employees' revealed weaknesses. He, in fact, had a drug and porn problem that cost him his job prior to the game. He's involved in it because one of his past cases has come back to haunt him, and now he's even being blackmailed/extorted by a dealer of his particular drug(s).

Objectively, if I want to play out a tale of him overcoming these deficiencies of character to resolve his past problems and get himself back on his feet as his own man, a system which purely punishes him for being exposed to drugs and sex will encourage me to play him like a (mostly successful) cold-turkey quitter of all his vices. It behooves me to keep him away from them entirely, and to always refuse every opportunity to be exposed or to get into position to indulge. In a system where there is no compulsion to indulge, either, it behooves me to have him always refuse, citing whatever moral fortitude or personal revulsion I wish to justify it.

Doing otherwise gives me nothing.

It is purely up to me how "well" he's doing at resisting, and the temptation FOR ME is always to have him be perfect about it. Because the rewards are purely on the side of sticking to it. I feel no reason to let him "give in," knowing the penalties I'll suffer while playing him while he's under the influence and knowing what it will cost in the long run.



On a less "flaw"-laden note, there's little incentive in D&D to get anything but the cheapest food and accommodations, because there are no benefits to "living it up," and no penalties to meeting only the barest minimum standards of living. In fact, there's disincentive to do more than the latter, because every gp spent on frivolous "living well" is a gp that cannot be spent on gear (which will give tangible, often repeating, benefits in game) or to solve problems (such as paying for a needed passage on a boat, or bribing a guard, or the like).

Were I actually living in the world, experiencing what my character does, my will to subsist on lousy food in barely-acceptable accommodations when I could afford tasty, plentiful food with comfortable, luxurious accommodations and conveniences would be tested repeatedly. I know this, because optimal expenditure of my own real-life income would include a lot less eating out, and probably living in a really cheap house with good insulation and far less internet than I pay for (as it's one of my primary entertainment sources and I hate waiting on it).

This goes double for the stereotypical entertainment of ultra-masculine adventurers played by hormonal teens: wenches and sex therewith. Objectively, it's nothing but downside to the player - it often costs gp (which could be spent on more tangible benefits) in the form of dating or out-and-out transaction, and any consequences which might arise are invariably negative (she's a thief; she's a succubus; she gets pregnant and you have to pay for the kid; you're attacked in the midst of it and thus are totally, completely unarmed; she's an assassin...the DM's sadism is the limit).

So playing the asexual paragon of restraint - very counter to the "traditional" stereotype of an adventurer - is objectively optimal.


A game system, therefore, which offers the PLAYER (me) temptations in the form of things which make the game more fun for me (usually by giving me some sort of tangible, in-game benefit) for making my character happier in the short term will encourage me to at least consider activities which are reasonably going to tempt a person who can experience them...but which won't reward the actual decision maker (the player, me) with anything I couldn't get without spending in-game resources or taking in-game risks. (I can imagine a delicious meal as easily if my character doesn't eat it as if he does.)

Something as simple as a "mood meter" which is elevated by more luxurious accommodations, by indulging in better food, romance (or just sex), or by having nicer clothes, and which gave bonuses and penalties based on how high it was, could be influential on a PLAYER's decisions, adequately reflect the motivation of the CHARACTER to indulge, and even be realistic (depending on whether you think happy people are more effective than pessimistic, miserable ones).

Granting "fate points" or other such benefits can work, as well; "Bob is well-satisfied and -rested, and that allows him to better perform his task later in the day by spending the earned fate point."

On the food side of hookers and flapjacks, my signature character habitually orders fine food and wine, despite this being the suboptimal course of action. On the other hand, almost none of my characters will spend significant money on expendable resources, preferring to save up for their next +X item, despite the many comments in these forums about the power of having the right tool at the right time for the job.

Of course, I tend to play rather suboptimally, viewing rp and diversity as more fun than optimized play.


That is a good point and in some cases it does work as intended. It's just my experience that not all players want to put as much effort into adding depths to their characters as others, so in those cases I tend to just steer away from rewarding RP, since the most important thing is everyone having fun, wether they are acting out their character to a T or just saying "my character hits the Goblin". :smallsmile:

So... Definitely agree with you on the whole everyone having fun is the important part... But... If some people don't want to put as much effort into making their characters optimized killing machines, do you also stop rewarding combat?

And now I start to ramble...

Role-playing is something I find rewarding for its own sake - I don't need the system to reward me for doing it; it's why I play rpgs instead of only playing pure war games.

What is the purpose of rewards in an rpg? Treasure is an incentive to adventure, plus allows the character to grow to be able to face new challenges (as the 3.x expected wealth by level chart made explicit). XP is also an incentive to adventure, although usually an OOC one / an incentive for the players, not the character. XP represents character growth in an increase of skills and powers. Rewarding XP for role-playing makes sense, but giving a character a cool new magic item because they role played well doesn't, right?

And, to throw another idea out there, mutants and masterminds rewards you every time you choose to make your hero's life more complicated: if you decide that a missed shot is going to make something collapse onto innocent bystanders, or that the car you are taking cover behind catches fire, you get a hero point. Is this more or less disruptive to immersion than the ways to earn a fate point?

EDIT: I always thought of earning hero points as immersive in the system, and a way to get player buy-in for bad things happening, which would likely be viewed as poor GMing in most other systems. I haven't played fate, but there seems to be debate as to whether fate points help or hinder role-playing. So I'm trying to relate it to something I have played, to see if that makes any sense.

Segev
2016-01-11, 04:04 PM
Hey, if you can have fun playing an objectively weaker, less capable character than the guy who "spends wisely" and thus can afford the better, cooler toys faster than you can, more power to you. If you truly do get a rush of satisfaction from your PC spending more in-game resources on things which only let you say, "My PC was more comfortable/satisfied/happy for this time period," great.

I don't. I can imagine my PC enjoying a hot, scented bath surrounded by the finest literature and music and enjoying the most pleasant of physical comforts whether I spend IC gp on it or not. It doesn't hurt me any for my PC to sleep on a hard cot with just enough blankets not to suffer fatigue penalties the next day.

And I probably will spend some resources on comforts for my character...but only when it doesn't cost me something that will help me better enjoy playing the character during the on-screen action. I'll happily use a free prestidigitation for creature comforts, or an unseen servant that I didn't have a better use for to play valet. But only if I didn't have a better use for the spell slot in the first place.

I would actively be frustrated that my choice to play my character in-character - and seeking a more comfortable night's lodgings, for example, at a greater gp cost - made it so that I couldn't afford a piece of equipment that I wanted, or was stymied by lack of funds when plot called for them.

I like it when my character's drives are not something I, as player, have a choice to ignore and will suffer nothing but a mild "I'm a bad role-player" bit a guilt over doing so. Since I'm actually quite good at justifying things, I like it even more when the incentive to do something I know is objectively sub-optimal in a long-term sense actually has enough reason to do it that I can gauge a bit of the PC's inner struggle between the temptation of a hot bath and more delicious meal vs. having that new spell he's been saving up for all the sooner.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-11, 04:34 PM
And I probably will spend some resources on comforts for my character...but only when it doesn't cost me something that will help me better enjoy playing the character during the on-screen action. I'll happily use a free prestidigitation for creature comforts, or an unseen servant that I didn't have a better use for to play valet. But only if I didn't have a better use for the spell slot in the first place.

I would actively be frustrated that my choice to play my character in-character - and seeking a more comfortable night's lodgings, for example, at a greater gp cost - made it so that I couldn't afford a piece of equipment that I wanted, or was stymied by lack of funds when plot called for them.

That sort of thing is one of the arguments I've heard for getting rid of magic treasure entirely in 3.5/Pathfinder and changing it to 'moxie' or some other term.

Basically - just treat wealth-by-level as a separate pool of class abilities - instead of 'gold' it's the 'moxie' you have.

I haven't actually played it - but it sounds interesting if you want to play D&D/Pathfinder without wanting to worry about hording all your gold for better gear, allowing you to spend it on creature comforts - and possibly a stronghold to live in.

Florian
2016-01-11, 04:50 PM
That sort of thing is one of the arguments I've heard for getting rid of magic treasure entirely in 3.5/Pathfinder and changing it to 'moxie' or some other term.

Basically - just treat wealth-by-level as a separate pool of class abilities - instead of 'gold' it's the 'moxie' you have.

I haven't actually played it - but it sounds interesting if you want to play D&D/Pathfinder without wanting to worry about hording all your gold for better gear, allowing you to spend it on creature comforts - and possibly a stronghold to live in.

If you go deeper into the details, that is actually now what that particular stuff is about.

Focus on how a character interacts with the story and/or challenge here. Who does react? The player that knows what special or item to use for solving the challenge or the character as has he/she/it been played and developed so far.

In an expanded sense, it is the main difference between being a participant in a game (that leads to a story) and being an co-autor of a story been developed.

The final end result, in a sense, is the same, there is plot, story and development. The min point of action where the actually happens is different.

Segev
2016-01-11, 05:28 PM
See, I'd rather have the creature comforts and other indulgences do something to make me, the player, feel that the choice is really a choice. It's tempting for a reason, not just because I kind-of imagine it might be. Just how tempting? That's based on my perceived value of the two options. But there's something to show me what it means to my character, in the mechanics, for both options, rather than only for one.

I find divorcing magic items et al from gp to be a poor solution; all that does is change the resources I'm using and give me less reason to care, IC, about "gold pieces" or whatever currency the game world runs on. Yeah, sure, I'll buy a nice room if I have the otherwise-useless money, but the money just isn't all that interesting nor motivating, so all it's done is move the consideration from "do I spend money on a mechanically-empty bit of fluff or not" to "do I bother doing this mission which offers money as a reward or not?" The money SHOULD be tempting, if sufficient, but it won't be compared to the other quest which actually offers a "real" reward.

Florian
2016-01-11, 06:02 PM
See, I'd rather have the creature comforts and other indulgences do something to make me, the player, feel that the choice is really a choice. It's tempting for a reason, not just because I kind-of imagine it might be. Just how tempting? That's based on my perceived value of the two options. But there's something to show me what it means to my character, in the mechanics, for both options, rather than only for one.

I find divorcing magic items et al from gp to be a poor solution; all that does is change the resources I'm using and give me less reason to care, IC, about "gold pieces" or whatever currency the game world runs on. Yeah, sure, I'll buy a nice room if I have the otherwise-useless money, but the money just isn't all that interesting nor motivating, so all it's done is move the consideration from "do I spend money on a mechanically-empty bit of fluff or not" to "do I bother doing this mission which offers money as a reward or not?" The money SHOULD be tempting, if sufficient, but it won't be compared to the other quest which actually offers a "real" reward.

You´re talking about having choices and then the satisfaction of having made the right choice. That gives you, the player, a positive emotional feedback at having been "right".
Do think about that.

goto124
2016-01-11, 09:45 PM
I don't. I can imagine my PC enjoying a hot, scented bath surrounded by the finest literature and music and enjoying the most pleasant of physical comforts whether I spend IC gp on it or not. It doesn't hurt me any for my PC to sleep on a hard cot with just enough blankets not to suffer fatigue penalties the next day.

It's how I myself feels as well. Sure, I could imagine my character to be uncomfortable sleeping on a hard cot, but it's not much different from imagining it to be a really soft and thick bed instead. Because I'm not the one who's literally sleeping on the hard cot.

If you want me to spend extra gold to get a better bed, it'll have to be worth it in a few ways:
1) I'll have to actually sleep in it for more than a single night. Adventurers travel, you know? Better make it a portable bed.
2) I'll need to have more than enough gold, aka not worrying about being able to afford food, water, lodging, arrows, magic weapons, bribing guards, etc.
3) Some recognition of my bed being nicer. May not even have to be a mechanical reward - could be as simple as a party member asking "you've got such a soft bed, could I take a turn on there? Pretty please?".

One reason I don't roleplay in computer games: I don't get recognised for my efforts. All the NPCs react the same whether I wear a boring but highest-level suit of armor, or a fancy fashionable outfit that gives no stats. There's no point to playing a flaw when all it does is get me pummeled.

In a roleplaying game, there're other players who can react to the things I do. There's the GM who can change the world and the NPCs to react similarly, in a natural and fun way. As long as the consequences are largely positive (where negative consequences aren't far-reaching), I can have fun with roleplay.

Point 3 lets the player feel the same thing the character feels when doing an unoptimal thing. In this case, it's not mechanics that are used to recreate the feeling. Instead, the other people sitting at the table enrich the player's experience, just by reacting in a non-overly-jerkish way.

Friends are what make games fun.

NichG
2016-01-11, 11:26 PM
Along those lines, mechanics are a thing which can remind people to react.

Segev
2016-01-12, 10:20 AM
You´re talking about having choices and then the satisfaction of having made the right choice. That gives you, the player, a positive emotional feedback at having been "right".
Do think about that.

I have, and addressed it, unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you're trying to get across, here.

If the only reward for making the game harder for me to enjoy success in is satisfaction that I'm not a power-gaming munchkin because I wasted resources on nothing (or on active detriments), mechanically, then it's not satisfying. It feels like I, the player, am being punished for trying to play "in character." It encourages me to seek to reconcile "don't be a munchkin/be a good role-player" with "enjoy succeeding at in-game tasks" by optimizing my characterization. That is, always choosing a character with optimal personality traits, which make him frugal, self-controlled, and without vice or other flaws, and who plays any flaws he may have had to gain some sort of extra character-building resource as things he avoids the way a recovering alcoholic avoids exposure to alcohol.

When you have an optimal character personality, it encourages people to play that personality. When you punish players for having characters who suffer their flaws, it encourages players to try their best to avoid and ignore them (leading to "recovering alcoholics" rather than "drunkard" characters).



I am unsure if FATE handles it this way, but I know some systems with FATE-point like things allow that resource to be spent to briefly give the player of the character narrative powers on par with a GM. Let's examine our hormonal teenaged rogue who is tempted by the sexy girl stripping down for her bath when he SHOULD be avoiding detection and scouting out the place for his team to be able to enter in less than an hour. If his player "takes a point" and allows the rogue to be distracted for a bit, and maybe takes another one for putting his rogue out on a limb "for a better view" and then flubs the balance check, he could wind up landing in the girl's bath with her.

At this point, he might SPEND a point to ask the DM to have the girl decide she could handle him herself - whether because she's a femme fatale or for any other reason - or he might spend one to ask the GM to set this up as a possible romantic subplot (whether he winds up having the guards called on him or not right away). Maybe he waits until later, after he's been caught and is in trouble, and spends that point on "romantic subplot" with a request that the girl might actually put herself in a position to be talked into helping him escape.

Now, obviously, a player and GM don't have to have mechanics for this. It could be worked out by the two of them as the GM tries to tempt the player into having the hormonal teen waste time: "Wouldn't it be cool if your character got caught 'cause he was peeping, but it led to he and the girl having a sexual-tension-laden romantic subplot?" he might offer, and if the player accepted, the kid would get caught but the assurance that this would lead to some more interesting positive plot events (and more complications, undoubtedly, further along) is there. The PLAYER was tempted by the story opportunities, just as the CHARACTER was tempted by the satisfaction of seeing a cute girl's unintentional strip tease.

But mechanics HELP. That's their whole purpose. Literally every mechanic in the game could be replaced by player-and-GM negotiation over success, failure, and consequences to the plot, turning it into a cooperative storytelling game. Mechanics help make decisions about what you can and cannot do, whether or not you can succeed and how well, and, if they're "narrative mechanics" like I discussed above, they tell players and GMs alike how much narrative control players SHOULD have over things outside of their PCs' immediate choices. Like mechanics to determine if the rogue really is stealthy and balanced enough to get out on that limb and watch the girl without being caught, the narrative mechanics give a shared expectation that the player really does have the right to ask for that romantic subplot and for it to go better than a stonewall of "no."

(For good or ill, many GMs' knee-jerk reaction to players asking to change or add elements to the plot that are not "My character does this" is to say, "no," unless it was already in his plans or designs. Narrative mechanics give players a tool to tell the GM, "The game actually expects you to say 'yes' to this." And, at the same time, gives the GM a guideline as to how often to do so, by theoretically balancing it with how often the player has let the plot bite him when he didn't "have" to. It's a mechanical representation of give and take that lets the GM be confident that he's not "playing favorites" with a character or player by letting that player dictate narrative elements solely to his benefit.)

Faily
2016-01-12, 12:30 PM
So... Definitely agree with you on the whole everyone having fun is the important part... But... If some people don't want to put as much effort into making their characters optimized killing machines, do you also stop rewarding combat?


It really depends on what we're playing, but since 3.5/Pathfinder is the most common these days, most of the GMs stick to awarding XP for combat only... even in the groups where some can't optimize themselves out of a wet paper bag. We have an Ars Magica group and an L5R group too, but I'll stick with the D&D/Pathfinder to start with.

I play with a lot of different people, in different groups, and everyone is different and enjoy different aspects of roleplaying.

In one group, almost everyone there has played since AD&D. They will roleplay, a little, from time to time, but most of the focus is on completing quests and doing combat. Some get a bit more into than others, but as a whole, roleplay is *incredibly* light to almost non-existant (some people still play the same "character", even if they've gone through three characters). I've honestly seen more depth in a commercial than I have from the majority of these players. But that's fine; they enjoy getting together and roll dice once in a while as they quest through to treasures and XP. Optimiziation level in this group is horribly skewed, as we have some players (who are among those who have played since AD&D) who still need to be told how Spell DCs work and made a Rogue so bad that the GM felt he had to include some specially tailored loot to make up for the incredibly poorly designed Rogue.
Everyone gets XP for combat and for Quest completion... even if their character is poorly optimized. Because it would be unfair otherwise.

In another group, we have two people who are really good roleplayers and who often get carried away with roleplaying. One is the kind that is very spontaneous and goes along with things on the spot, while the other likes to make very special characters with complicated backgrounds. The third member in that group is more interested in the satisfaction of an optimized one-trick pony, and can from time to time roleplay, but most of the time his roleplaying capabilities are very low.
Everyone gets XP for combat, Quest completion and fulfilling personal goals (since we're going for becoming Gods the hard way from BECMI). Because everyone is there to have fun, though in different ways.

In a third group, everyone is approximately equal in optimization and roleplaying, and the GM did at some point award us for good roleplay. However, we did away with that eventually since we felt it was a bit weird how some things got more rewards than others sometimes, and sometimes people don't really feel up to getting too deep into it (tired, overworked, personal problems, etc) so it was done away with. Everyone gets the same amount of XP now.

In other systems, like Ars Magica, XP isn't awarded based on roleplay (in my experience), but rather the difficulties overcome in an Adventure. You get XP from studying or training, but that is fixed by the rules. Ars Magica has a real slippery slope of awarding more XP than what is recommended, as it can quickly lead to very powerful Magus (have seen this happen).


All in all, I just don't like making differences between people in awarding XP differently. As mentioned above, some people just don't get into roleplay as deeply as others, but still have a good time meeting everyone for a game or even watching others roleplay well, or sometimes people just can't get into it because they have an off-day (have had those myself). I personally find roleplaying in itself to be its own reward, and most GMs are willing to accomodate it. I just don't see the need to provide mechanical benefits to it most of the time, is all I'm saying.

People are of course free to enjoy games differently than me, but I just don't like the games that enforce roleplay more than others. Some days I just want to hit things with my sword and not think too much about how I'm going to talk to the Baron. Other days I want to go full in courtly intrigue (and yes, I have done this many times in D&D and everyone has had a great time, despite lacking mechanics around social combats or roleplay).

In my experience, you usually can't force people to roleplay. Even with a special mechanic-carrot (or XP). It's something that they will approach if they want to, otherwise it becomes something they consider a chore; something you're forcing them to do.

gtwucla
2016-01-15, 12:15 AM
It really depends on what we're playing, but since 3.5/Pathfinder is the most common these days, most of the GMs stick to awarding XP for combat only... even in the groups where some can't optimize themselves out of a wet paper bag. We have an Ars Magica group and an L5R group too, but I'll stick with the D&D/Pathfinder to start with.

I play with a lot of different people, in different groups, and everyone is different and enjoy different aspects of roleplaying.

In one group, almost everyone there has played since AD&D. They will roleplay, a little, from time to time, but most of the focus is on completing quests and doing combat. Some get a bit more into than others, but as a whole, roleplay is *incredibly* light to almost non-existant (some people still play the same "character", even if they've gone through three characters). I've honestly seen more depth in a commercial than I have from the majority of these players. But that's fine; they enjoy getting together and roll dice once in a while as they quest through to treasures and XP. Optimiziation level in this group is horribly skewed, as we have some players (who are among those who have played since AD&D) who still need to be told how Spell DCs work and made a Rogue so bad that the GM felt he had to include some specially tailored loot to make up for the incredibly poorly designed Rogue.
Everyone gets XP for combat and for Quest completion... even if their character is poorly optimized. Because it would be unfair otherwise.

In another group, we have two people who are really good roleplayers and who often get carried away with roleplaying. One is the kind that is very spontaneous and goes along with things on the spot, while the other likes to make very special characters with complicated backgrounds. The third member in that group is more interested in the satisfaction of an optimized one-trick pony, and can from time to time roleplay, but most of the time his roleplaying capabilities are very low.
Everyone gets XP for combat, Quest completion and fulfilling personal goals (since we're going for becoming Gods the hard way from BECMI). Because everyone is there to have fun, though in different ways.

In a third group, everyone is approximately equal in optimization and roleplaying, and the GM did at some point award us for good roleplay. However, we did away with that eventually since we felt it was a bit weird how some things got more rewards than others sometimes, and sometimes people don't really feel up to getting too deep into it (tired, overworked, personal problems, etc) so it was done away with. Everyone gets the same amount of XP now.

In other systems, like Ars Magica, XP isn't awarded based on roleplay (in my experience), but rather the difficulties overcome in an Adventure. You get XP from studying or training, but that is fixed by the rules. Ars Magica has a real slippery slope of awarding more XP than what is recommended, as it can quickly lead to very powerful Magus (have seen this happen).


All in all, I just don't like making differences between people in awarding XP differently. As mentioned above, some people just don't get into roleplay as deeply as others, but still have a good time meeting everyone for a game or even watching others roleplay well, or sometimes people just can't get into it because they have an off-day (have had those myself). I personally find roleplaying in itself to be its own reward, and most GMs are willing to accomodate it. I just don't see the need to provide mechanical benefits to it most of the time, is all I'm saying.

People are of course free to enjoy games differently than me, but I just don't like the games that enforce roleplay more than others. Some days I just want to hit things with my sword and not think too much about how I'm going to talk to the Baron. Other days I want to go full in courtly intrigue (and yes, I have done this many times in D&D and everyone has had a great time, despite lacking mechanics around social combats or roleplay).

In my experience, you usually can't force people to roleplay. Even with a special mechanic-carrot (or XP). It's something that they will approach if they want to, otherwise it becomes something they consider a chore; something you're forcing them to do.

I think this is the beauty of 3.5/Pathfinder that (it seems) few people appreciate. It is a system with layers that are easily pealed back. If you don't want to include something, it is easy to cut it out. For me rpgs are all about the story. I guess I'm on the same page as the OP (is that the right abbreviation, I mean the guy that started the thread). I've tried to play in groups that do very little of anything but combat and I get bored to tears, but it's their prerogative and it works for them. I can simply step out and say, 'ok guys, it was fun, but I've got to move on.' I just want to know the why and how, and solve mysteries. The reward is solving the mysteries. So having a free framework allows for this. If you want to role play there's nothing stopping you. If you don't then you don't have to. If there were structure associated with it, honestly I'd rather play a board game- as someone wise once said, '[so] there is something to Jenga.'

CombatBunny
2016-01-15, 03:23 PM
Please disregard my answer, I didn’t understand the question.

I also agree that there is no need for a structured system for roleplaying. The system can try to guide, enhance and promote roleplay, but structuring how the act of roleplaying (portraying a character) should be done might not be as useful or enriching.


I'm going to answer you with an example.

I currently have a D&D Party, but we as a group like to focus a lot more in roleplaying than combat.

We have done a lot of politics, we have solved mysteries, we have done a lot of investigation and we have gone through a huge number of sessions in which combat hasn’t been part of our stories (because we aren’t interested in that).

Yet we have a PC who is a little 12 year old princess who has an attack that could knock out an ogre with one punch, even when she hasn’t trained or fight during the whole campaign (she choose bard just because it was the closest thing available).

And we have a very diplomatic king that is wise and peaceful, yet he knows spells out of nowhere just because the system is designed to advance in those aspects.

Is D&D system rewarding our table for roleplaying properly? I don’t think so, because the system is forcing us to combat even when we aren’t interested on that. D&D isn’t promoting roleplay in this case; D&D is promoting to kill things to advance aspects in which the system is focused.

JoeJ
2016-01-15, 04:13 PM
In D&D if I act out a flaw I am necessarily undermining the effectiveness of the party and that's automatically antisocial as it sabotages the group and therefore a problem.

That's no longer true for D&D. If you act out a personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw you gain Inspiration, which you can trade for Advantage on an attack roll, ability roll, or saving throw. Or, if you wish, you can give it to another PC for them to use.

Also, the PHB explains that choice of lifestyle can have consequences in terms of vulnerability to crime or disease and ability to make powerful contacts. And since there's no longer an assumption that magic items can be bought, there's less of a requirement to save every last gold piece in order to avoid gimping yourself.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-15, 04:22 PM
Also, the PHB explains that choice of lifestyle can have consequences in terms of vulnerability to crime or disease and ability to make powerful contacts.

It explains it, but it provides no rules or even guidelines on how any of that would work. Would it be advantage on the roll to resist disease, or immunity? A different rate of urban encounters from a random table, or completely living above them? Are new tiers of contacts available to you the more well off you live, or just an advantage on making them? The players have no idea (nor is the DM given any guidelines) how big the effects are, so it's always a gamble. And what if, after the gamble, it turns out your DM has no plans for social contacts or crime or disease? After all, it is a minority of campaigns that deal with such issues (though not an insignificant minority), and those that do tend to focus on them regardless of your quality of life.

Without rules, it's just a suggestion, an idea. There's no actual design there, so it's tough to say that's really part of the game. The suggestion could exist in every edition of D&D and it would change precisely nothing about those games; the DM can always make up rules if he wants.

JoeJ
2016-01-15, 05:24 PM
It explains it, but it provides no rules or even guidelines on how any of that would work. Would it be advantage on the roll to resist disease, or immunity? A different rate of urban encounters from a random table, or completely living above them? Are new tiers of contacts available to you the more well off you live, or just an advantage on making them? The players have no idea (nor is the DM given any guidelines) how big the effects are, so it's always a gamble. And what if, after the gamble, it turns out your DM has no plans for social contacts or crime or disease? After all, it is a minority of campaigns that deal with such issues (though not an insignificant minority), and those that do tend to focus on them regardless of your quality of life.

Without rules, it's just a suggestion, an idea. There's no actual design there, so it's tough to say that's really part of the game. The suggestion could exist in every edition of D&D and it would change precisely nothing about those games; the DM can always make up rules if he wants.

That would depend on where you are: ancient Rome would be different from Waterdeep, which would be different from Sharn or medieval Paris or Sigil or the Rock of Bral. Specific rules would have to be limited to one specific setting, making them less useful in most cases than the general statements found in the PHB.

Talakeal
2016-01-17, 01:31 PM
But the edge to that is, if you haven't used a flaw for a while, it disappears. The GM and Party can vote to basically say "But you rarely drink. You're not a drunkard anymore" And BAM. source of xp lost.


How does that not cause the group to implode with infighting? I know if my party members started stripping my character of abilities I would start coming to the table with a serious chip on my shoulder and looking for a way to get revenge, and I am far from the most vindictive player I know.

Do you at least get the points you spent to purchase the trait back?

Stubbazubba
2016-01-17, 08:10 PM
That would depend on where you are: ancient Rome would be different from Waterdeep, which would be different from Sharn or medieval Paris or Sigil or the Rock of Bral. Specific rules would have to be limited to one specific setting, making them less useful in most cases than the general statements found in the PHB.

This logic applies to all kinds of setting elements, like anything and everything magical, or what kind of metals are available for arms and armor, or what kind of martial disciplines are available (chivalric knights? kung fu monks?), or what kinds of monsters there are, or what kinds of magical items there are; the PHB (or MM or DMG) includes some and excludes others and creates a default setting by those choices, so why does it get a pass on this one when it's something it assumes you will be spending money on?

What actually is in the PHB is actually completely useless because it's inaccurate; spending gp on comforts, by the PHB's own rules, has absolutely zero effect on any of the listed things unless your GM house-rules some effect. It's a role-play thing only.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-17, 09:14 PM
How does that not cause the group to implode with infighting? I know if my party members started stripping my character of abilities I would start coming to the table with a serious chip on my shoulder and looking for a way to get revenge, and I am far from the most vindictive player I know.

Do you at least get the points you spent to purchase the trait back?

Well, it's not really an ability. And you'll pick up seriously 15-20 tags during character creation, and you likely won't even WANT some of them. Some of them are placed upon you, whether you want them or not. Negative racial stereotypes, for example, depending upon the setting. Ie, If you're playing an Irish guy you might get the "Drunk" tag even if your character has never touched firewater in their whole life. It doesn't need to be true, its part of how your character is PERCEIVED, not necessarily what is true.

You can obviously veto it and will pick up more tags over time (just as you lose tags, you can pick them up, too.) So if you lose the drunk tag, start getting drunk constantly. You'll get it back.

Your character's behaviors determine the tag. You can even initiate the conversation about your own tags.

The tags are, again, not abilities. Just a potential source of Artha (xp, karma, fate points, etc). And you will have more than you know what to do with. Losing one would be like a tree losing a leaf: not a big deal.

Talakeal
2016-01-17, 10:00 PM
Well, it's not really an ability. And you'll pick up seriously 15-20 tags during character creation, and you likely won't even WANT some of them. Some of them are placed upon you, whether you want them or not. Negative racial stereotypes, for example, depending upon the setting. Ie, If you're playing an Irish guy you might get the "Drunk" tag even if your character has never touched firewater in their whole life. It doesn't need to be true, its part of how your character is PERCEIVED, not necessarily what is true.

You can obviously veto it and will pick up more tags over time (just as you lose tags, you can pick them up, too.) So if you lose the drunk tag, start getting drunk constantly. You'll get it back.

Your character's behaviors determine the tag. You can even initiate the conversation about your own tags.

The tags are, again, not abilities. Just a potential source of Artha (xp, karma, fate points, etc). And you will have more than you know what to do with. Losing one would be like a tree losing a leaf: not a big deal.

Oh, ok. When you said that flaws cost character points I assumed that having something voted away actually meant your character lost power, essentially spending resources on nothng.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-17, 11:04 PM
Oh, ok. When you said that flaws cost character points I assumed that having something voted away actually meant your character lost power, essentially spending resources on nothng.

Nah. Some come for free, but a lot of them have potentially heavy costs, especially if permanent. (Because you can easily use them to get Artha.)

So being a drunk costs less than being blind, because it's easier to use blindness to cause trouble and gain Artha, and it's practically impossible to get rid of.

You can even buy associations with people that are negative (The Duke hates your family, for instance) and that also costs points because mo' problems = mo' experience.

But to raise SKILLS, you have to use them. (And get a certain number of successes and try different kinds of tests) So for instance if you want to put points in Swordplay, you better start using a Sword. You can't just Artha your way into skill. Artha can help you get the needed successes, but can't directly grant you skill points.

Burning Wheel is hella complicated but works really well. It's like a watch.

I haven't played it as much as I'd like, but I have liked it pretty well. (Character creation takes AGES, though. Seriously. Like 3 hours to do 5 people.)

goto124
2016-01-17, 11:18 PM
But to raise SKILLS, you have to use them. (And get a certain number of successes and try different kinds of tests) So for instance if you want to put points in Swordplay, you better start using a Sword. You can't just Artha your way into skill. Artha can help you get the needed successes, but can't directly grant you skill points.

Wait, what?

The last time I played in such a system, I had to give up because every single little skill required practice, leaving me unable to actually go on adventures.

How is this done in a fun way?

JoeJ
2016-01-17, 11:53 PM
This logic applies to all kinds of setting elements, like anything and everything magical, or what kind of metals are available for arms and armor, or what kind of martial disciplines are available (chivalric knights? kung fu monks?), or what kinds of monsters there are, or what kinds of magical items there are; the PHB (or MM or DMG) includes some and excludes others and creates a default setting by those choices, so why does it get a pass on this one when it's something it assumes you will be spending money on?

The book is of finite length, and not everything needs to be spelled out with detailed rules and tables in order to be useful.


What actually is in the PHB is actually completely useless because it's inaccurate; spending gp on comforts, by the PHB's own rules, has absolutely zero effect on any of the listed things unless your GM house-rules some effect. It's a role-play thing only.

I have no idea what you mean by "inaccurate". Accuracy/inaccuracy isn't relevant to made up elf worlds.

No rule is required here, just a ruling for which the PHB provides suggestions. And of course it's a roleplay thing. It's a roleplaying game.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-18, 12:57 AM
No rule is required here, just a ruling for which the PHB provides suggestions.

If you're going to make this argument, you need to articulate an intelligible principle for why this doesn't apply to everything in the book. What, in your mind, requires a rule, and what only requires a "ruling" (which is just a rule made up by the DM instead of by the book, I presume?)?

As just one example; why are racial ability bonuses and features dictated with a rule instead of merely suggested with a single line of text? After all, certainly Elves and Dwarves and Orcs in different settings would have different cultural traits, different environmental adaptations, etc., so why did the book decide to spell out that all Elves, everywhere, no matter what, receive longsword training, but leave what effect fine accommodations have - which anyone can buy in any setting, anywhere - only hinted at?

JoeJ
2016-01-18, 01:12 AM
If you're going to make this argument, you need to articulate an intelligible principle for why this doesn't apply to everything in the book. What, in your mind, requires a rule, and what only requires a "ruling" (which is just a rule made up by the DM instead of by the book, I presume?)?

Your presumption is incorrect. A ruling is not a rule made up by the DM. A rule applies to a general category of circumstances; a ruling applies to one unique circumstance. "Maintaining a poor lifestyle for more than a week raises the DC to interact socially with anyone of the upper class" would be a rule. "You haven't bathed this week and the duke is known to be pretty fastidious, so you have disadvantage on your roll to persuade him to pick you as his envoy to the hobgoblin empire" is a ruling.


As just one example; why are racial ability bonuses and features dictated with a rule instead of merely suggested with a single line of text? After all, certainly Elves and Dwarves and Orcs in different settings would have different cultural traits, different environmental adaptations, etc., so why did the book decide to spell out that all Elves, everywhere, no matter what, receive longsword training, but leave what effect fine accommodations have - which anyone can buy in any setting, anywhere - only hinted at?

See my previous post about the finite length of the PHB.

Segev
2016-01-18, 01:18 AM
Wait, what?

The last time I played in such a system, I had to give up because every single little skill required practice, leaving me unable to actually go on adventures.

How is this done in a fun way?

Mekton Zeta does this by granting bonus XP to skills you use in-game, so that as you use them you get slightly better. This both can enable you to level up your skills with enough practice, and it can encourage you to spend your normally-granted XP on specific skills that you use regularly because they have a lower cost to "finish" a given rank.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-18, 01:27 AM
Your presumption is incorrect. A ruling is not a rule made up by the DM. A rule applies to a general category of circumstances; a ruling applies to one unique circumstance.

But every circumstance is more or less unique. Rulings are just individual applications of rules, then. They still require a background rule to apply.


"Maintaining a poor lifestyle for more than a week raises the DC to interact socially with anyone of the upper class" would be a rule. "You haven't bathed this week and the duke is known to be pretty fastidious, so you have disadvantage on your roll to persuade him to pick you as his envoy to the hobgoblin empire" is a ruling.

If I went to another noble and tried to be their envoy to the Dragonborn empire, should I expect a different ruling? Or should I expect the same? At what point do consistent individual rulings become a new categorical rule?

Also, that rule is short and clear, it's certainly not so extensive as to threaten the page-count of the PHB.


See my previous post about the finite length of the PHB.

No, that doesn't answer my question. That's a reason for why everything can't be spelled out, but it doesn't answer the question "how do we choose what we need to spell out and what we don't?" Why are some things worthy of full rules and others not?

JoeJ
2016-01-18, 02:00 AM
But every circumstance is more or less unique. Rulings are just individual applications of rules, then. They still require a background rule to apply.



If I went to another noble and tried to be their envoy to the Dragonborn empire, should I expect a different ruling? Or should I expect the same? At what point do consistent individual rulings become a new categorical rule?

The background rule is stated in the PHB, for both squalid and poor lifestyles: "You are beneath the notice of most people."

Of course you should expect a different ruling. Why would you expect a different person with a different priority in mind to react to you the same way? The countess might well believe that an obviously lower class person like you appear to be would be ideal for dealing with those lowly dragonborn.


Also, that rule is short and clear, it's certainly not so extensive as to threaten the page-count of the PHB.

No, that doesn't answer my question. That's a reason for why everything can't be spelled out, but it doesn't answer the question "how do we choose what we need to spell out and what we don't?" Why are some things worthy of full rules and others not?

Then you're asking the wrong person. That's a question for the devs.

goto124
2016-01-18, 02:39 AM
Mekton Zeta does this by granting bonus XP to skills you use in-game, so that as you use them you get slightly better. This both can enable you to level up your skills with enough practice, and it can encourage you to spend your normally-granted XP on specific skills that you use regularly because they have a lower cost to "finish" a given rank.

How do I learn new skills? Do I have to go out of my way to find excuses to 'practice' skills?

Stubbazubba
2016-01-18, 03:40 AM
The background rule is stated in the PHB, for both squalid and poor lifestyles: "You are beneath the notice of most people."

Of course you should expect a different ruling. Why would you expect a different person with a different priority in mind to react to you the same way? The countess might well believe that an obviously lower class person like you appear to be would be ideal for dealing with those lowly dragonborn.

I'd hardly describe that as beneath her notice, then. Either there's a rule and the fine accommodations matter because they give you a benefit (or remove a penalty), or there's no consistency at all, so the fine accommodations do not matter (because sometimes it gives you a benefit, sometimes a penalty, and it is rather difficult to know which it'll be).


Then you're asking the wrong person. That's a question for the devs.

This whole thread is a question for the devs. Every step of the larger conversation and of this particular tangent between you and I has been about questions for the devs, and we are supplying our answers and debating them. I am asking the right person about why you think the effect of fine accommodations vs. poor accommodations is better off as an unfinished suggestion than an actual rule and why racial features are not.

My opinion is that they should both be rules.



(I would first collapse the 7 categories into 5: Destitute, -; Poor, 1 sp; Average, 1 gp; Wealthy, 4 gp; and Aristocratic, 10 gp)
"Lifestyle effects take effect after living a lifestyle for 30 days."
"Most people who live a significantly higher lifestyle than you don't want to listen to what you have to say. When trying to persuade an unfamiliar target whose lifestyle is more than one step above yours, you have disadvantage. On the other hand, living the high life comes with many benefits. If you are Wealthy or Aristocratic, you have advantage when attempting to persuade unfamiliar targets of a lower lifestyle."
"Recuperating: After a number of days based on your lifestyle (Destitute 15, Poor 10, Average 6, Wealthy 3, Aristocratic 1), you can make a [rest as-is]."
"Certain urban areas are more dangerous than others. For every two hours a party with an Average or higher lifestyle character spends in a crime-infested area, roll a die based on the party's highest lifestyle (Average d6, Wealthy d8, Aristocratic d10); on a 6 or higher, roll on the city's crime table."
"For every week spent in a city, each character rolls a die based on their lifestyle (Destitute d4, Poor d6, Average d8, Wealthy d10, Aristocratic d12); on a 1, roll on the city's disease table."



Or something like that. I may not go for tracking diseases or crime, but if I was going to, it'd be something like that.

This gives players a good reason to spend all that gp on lifestyle. As a role-playing aid, that seems more useful than the mere suggestions in the PHB now.

NichG
2016-01-18, 06:46 AM
Rules are best concentrated on areas where planning is needed or desired, because they allow players to assume the outcome of intermediate steps. Elves receiving longsword training is sensible as a rule because it will be used in character generation, which has that kind of unsupervised planning structure to it. So the question is, to what extent (should) character lifestyle choices be included as part of goal-driven planning?

Do you want players to think 'we are going to need to convince the Duke, so let's move into better accommodations this week'? If so, you will need a rule for it so that the players can anticipate the benefit. If not, a ruling may be sufficient.

goto124
2016-01-18, 10:26 AM
Do you want players to think 'we are going to need to convince the Duke, so let's move into better accommodations this week'? If so, you will need a rule for it so that the players can anticipate the benefit. If not, a ruling may be sufficient.

"Move into better accommodations"? That would make more sense if the party was inviting the Duke over to their house for the night (:smallwink:). Otherwise it's closer to "get fancy clothes and a better carriage".

I'm not disagreeing with your main point, though.

Segev
2016-01-18, 12:28 PM
How do I learn new skills? Do I have to go out of my way to find excuses to 'practice' skills?

Finding excuses to use skills is a great way to get some bonus XP towards improving them. And yes, if you attempt a skill you don't have, it can lead to bonus XP towards purchasing it.

But you get new skills by spending XP on them. Whether it's just "free" XP earned for using it in game or it's part of the XP you earn at the end of a session (which can be spent on anything you like) is up to you and your priorities.

JoeJ
2016-01-18, 02:23 PM
What are the effects of different lifestyles? Apart from exposure to disease - which the DMG says (p. 256) should be treated as a plot device - they are all social. Having detailed rules for the effects of lifestyle on social interaction doesn't work if you don't provide similarly detailed rules for any other aspect of social interaction. What good is it to have a rule saying that X gives you +2 on a roll with an undefined DC that may or may not be called for under some vague conditions, if the DM decides to do it that way?

D&D has always taken a "rules-lite" approach to social interaction and roleplaying personality traits, in contrast to the much more detailed rules for spellcasting, exploration, and combat. I don't claim any special insight to what Gygax and Arneson were thinking, but it's likely they assumed that most DMs could handle that part of the game without much guidance, since those are things that the players would have experienced in everyday life. Whether because of agreement with that or simply because of tradition, that pattern has persisted in to the present edition.

Segev
2016-01-18, 03:07 PM
If anything, I would have - particularly for a game that ran with what was one of the earliest paradigms of D&D, that of having a party plus a gaggle of followers, hirelings, henchmen, etc. - lifestyle give bonuses to Leadership and/or other things designed to get you cronies, henchmen, or other minions. People like working for a winner. People like partying. Live it up and share that with your minions and you'll attract more and retain loyalty better. You also present a better image as a leader when you live well and dress well.

And before anybody points out that slovenly hedonists aren't attractive leaders, remember that "lifestyle" is pretty broad; you can have the highest quality, most expensive lifestyle and do it WITH style and class just as easily as you can have it be a hedonistic crawl from one debauchery to another.

NichG
2016-01-18, 04:00 PM
"Move into better accommodations"? That would make more sense if the party was inviting the Duke over to their house for the night (:smallwink:). Otherwise it's closer to "get fancy clothes and a better carriage".

I'm not disagreeing with your main point, though.

Well the rule was (paraphrasing), if you have/are seen to have a lifestyle two tiers lower for 1 week, then you have Disadvantage. So that kind of logic is what the mechanics induce, whether or not it actually makes sense story-wise. That's part of the tradeoff of making an explicit rule - it can often end up being nonsensical in the specific even if it makes sense in the general.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-18, 05:55 PM
Wait, what?

The last time I played in such a system, I had to give up because every single little skill required practice, leaving me unable to actually go on adventures.

How is this done in a fun way?

Well, obviously you start with some skills that are bought with points during character creation.
Post-creation you get them by practice.

It's stuff like "to raise this skill to 2 dice, you need to roll an easy, medium, and hard test and succeed at least once. To raise it to 3 you need 2 easy, 1 medium, and 1 hard test, and at least 2 successes" or whatever. I don't have the book so can't quote it.

But it's not "everyone starts at zero, go practice numbnuts." And since Artha can be used to help you succeed, your flaws and their artha gaining help you to raise skills INDIRECTLY.

That's how it works and is fun. (Then again, fun is subjective. For my wife, vacuuming and doing the grocery shopping are fun. I'm not joking.)

Jormengand
2016-01-18, 06:52 PM
The idea that no-one would buy their character an expensive lifestyle or jewellery just because that's how they imagine their character actually playing makes me kinda sad.

Talakeal
2016-01-18, 06:59 PM
The idea that no-one would buy their character an expensive lifestyle or jewellery just because that's how they imagine their character actually playing makes me kinda sad.

Yes it is.

People are different.

For example, I was looking at dungeon world and I said that I don't like how your class dictates your hair style, and the rest of the group thought I was really weird for even caring about how my character looks.

Faily
2016-01-18, 08:22 PM
Yes it is.

People are different.

For example, I was looking at dungeon world and I said that I don't like how your class dictates your hair style, and the rest of the group thought I was really weird for even caring about how my character looks.

I shall not mention the amount of time I can often use at Character Design in various computer games. :smalleek:

Or the amount of time I spend on choosing cool outfits for my characters...

Stubbazubba
2016-01-18, 09:05 PM
What are the effects of different lifestyles? Apart from exposure to disease - which the DMG says (p. 256) should be treated as a plot device - they are all social. Having detailed rules for the effects of lifestyle on social interaction doesn't work if you don't provide similarly detailed rules for any other aspect of social interaction. What good is it to have a rule saying that X gives you +2 on a roll with an undefined DC that may or may not be called for under some vague conditions, if the DM decides to do it that way?

Yeah, that would be an unfinished rule, too. Obviously, if the player options don't actually interact with a pre-existing system, you have a +2 to nothing. That's only slightly better than a suggestion about how a DM should fiat something; they're both short of actual rules design. The designers need to decide what rules they really want to have, and then cut out nods and suggestions that don't actually mean anything. You're better off having no rule at all for lifestyle than have defined inputs and undefined outputs.


D&D has always taken a "rules-lite" approach to social interaction and roleplaying personality traits, in contrast to the much more detailed rules for spellcasting, exploration, and combat. I don't claim any special insight to what Gygax and Arneson were thinking, but it's likely they assumed that most DMs could handle that part of the game without much guidance, since those are things that the players would have experienced in everyday life. Whether because of agreement with that or simply because of tradition, that pattern has persisted in to the present edition.

Gygax was notoriously anti-role-play, or at least, anti-people-getting-into-character. The game he designed was focused on challenges for the players to figure out, not telling stories. Dungeon crawls didn't require much social interaction, and what little there was was handled as lightly as everything else, because Gygax and Arneson were converting rules from a war game more than they were trying to create new rules for everything. Of course, Gygax and Arneson disagreed on many things; Gygax liked his game a bit of a meat grinder with lots of puzzles you had to solve through attrition (e.g. putting your hand in the hole simply kills you with a Sphere of Annihilation, roll new character, try again). Arneson, OTOH, was more into the adventure game idea. Gygax's way won out because he was the better business man and in charge.

Nevertheless, the game has long had rules for social interaction, though they have taken different forms, and can always be improved. The level of crunch in my slapped-together rules is encumbering for 5e, sure, but it would not be out of place in 3.X. The fact that no edition has had any depth to its social system certainly does not mean it cannot or should not be done.

goto124
2016-01-19, 04:43 AM
The idea that no-one would buy their character an expensive lifestyle or jewellery just because that's how they imagine their character actually playing makes me kinda sad.


I shall not mention the amount of time I can often use at Character Design in various computer games. :smalleek:

Or the amount of time I spend on choosing cool outfits for my characters...

IMHO: In computer games, when I do what Faily does, I don't spend your character's money to get a nice bed or a fancy necklace. Even if I do, it's because my character is so rich I can easily afford to waste money on little frills instead of magic swords. It's not terribly unrealistic behavior to save money when you need it to save the world/whatever else!

Unless you get a "Spendthrift" Flaw or something.

obryn
2016-01-19, 10:14 AM
For example, I was looking at dungeon world and I said that I don't like how your class dictates your hair style, and the rest of the group thought I was really weird for even caring about how my character looks.
You know those are just suggestions, right? :smallbiggrin: They're to jumpstart ideas, not to restrict them. If you want your Fighter to have a Bieber hairstyle, go to town! Beebs the Mighty!

Segev
2016-01-19, 12:14 PM
The idea that no-one would buy their character an expensive lifestyle or jewellery just because that's how they imagine their character actually playing makes me kinda sad.

Whereas the idea that I am punished for buying an expensive lifestyle or jewelry in order to match my character image in my head by having my character be less able to accomplish useful things in the game frustrates me.

This is combatted by having that expensive lifestyle and/or jewelry somehow be useful to the character in ways that make him able to accomplish useful things in the game. Now my aesthetic choice hasn't harmed my ability to play the game.



Imagine, for a moment, that you had to buy your piece in Monopoly with your starting funds. There are the usual pewter pieces, as well as gold pieces with flashy jewels, and a couple of rough-carved wooden ones. These cost different amounts of money.

The pieces have no differing impact on the game, other than having bought the pretty golden dog with the emerald-studded collar means you have $200 less than the guy next to you who bought the pewter cannon.

That's how the "but you should RP your character by spending more money for no in-game advantage, while I RP mine by being frugal and only spending money on in-game advantages" argument feels.

Talakeal
2016-01-19, 03:17 PM
You know those are just suggestions, right? :smallbiggrin: They're to jumpstart ideas, not to restrict them. If you want your Fighter to have a Bieber hairstyle, go to town! Beebs the Mighty!

I don't have the book, the SRD seems to just say "Choose one of these three options".

But yeah, the point is that tastes are different for different players. I am really put off by not being able to choose every facet of my characters appearance, other players don't give it any thought and think its really weird that I care.

Stubbazubba
2016-01-19, 04:24 PM
That's how the "but you should RP your character by spending more money for no in-game advantage, while I RP mine by being frugal and only spending money on in-game advantages" argument feels.

Agreed. The game should try as hard as it can to segregate cosmetic/aesthetic choices from resource pools that go towards the numbers game required to play. They can have separate resource pools, or the cosmetic choices (by which I mean choices that do not impact numbers) should all be resource-less.

Talakeal
2016-01-19, 05:34 PM
Agreed. The game should try as hard as it can to segregate cosmetic/aesthetic choices from resource pools that go towards the numbers game required to play. They can have separate resource pools, or the cosmetic choices (by which I mean choices that do not impact numbers) should all be resource-less.

Does money in 5E really matter? I have heard a lot of people complain that without the ability to buy and sell magic items gold is more less just a cosmetic thing past the first couple of levels.

Elbeyon
2016-01-19, 05:43 PM
Does money in 5E really matter? I have heard a lot of people complain that without the ability to buy and sell magic items gold is more less just a cosmetic thing past the first couple of levels.I'd say money still matters because it's money. It's the thing that can buy a castle and an army. A person can waste it and say it's cosmetic, but it doesn't have to be cosmetic.

Faily
2016-01-19, 05:58 PM
IMHO: In computer games, when I do what Faily does, I don't spend your character's money to get a nice bed or a fancy necklace. Even if I do, it's because my character is so rich I can easily afford to waste money on little frills instead of magic swords. It's not terribly unrealistic behavior to save money when you need it to save the world/whatever else!

Unless you get a "Spendthrift" Flaw or something.

...

I am not going to mention the amount of Credits I have spent in Star Wars: The Old Republic on outfitting my Stronghold with furniture, pictures, decorations, and fully-furnitured suites for my Companions.

Nor how much I've spent on certain outfits because they look cool... or mounts.

I don't even spend money on gear for stats (that's what adventuring is for!), and I've often dropped buying new schematics for Crafting because it's so much more important to get that pair of boots for my Sith Marauder.


In D&D Online, I've farmed certain quests several times for a specific loot-drop. Not because I need it for its abilities, but because it looks cool.





ALRIGHT SO I HAVE AN OBSESSION WITH HOW MY CHARACTERS LOOK!

obryn
2016-01-19, 06:09 PM
Does money in 5E really matter? I have heard a lot of people complain that without the ability to buy and sell magic items gold is more less just a cosmetic thing past the first couple of levels.
Money is money instead of a secondary point-buy XP track you use to buy power-ups. It's good for all the stuff money is normally good for.

neonchameleon
2016-01-19, 07:01 PM
Money is money instead of a secondary point-buy XP track you use to buy power-ups. It's good for all the stuff money is normally good for.

My GM wouldn't let me buy a team of elephants :(

Elbeyon
2016-01-19, 07:08 PM
My GM wouldn't let me buy a team of elephants :(Why not!? They are twice as common as warhorses (half the price). Go with plan B. Pay a bunch of commoners to stack up like an elephant and use them to charge into battle. The land speed is a little lower, but it'd be worth it.

Segev
2016-01-19, 08:08 PM
In MMORPGs (and some cRPGs in general), people often wind up spending boucoup in-game bucks on cosmetics because the economies of such games tend towards having money be a feast-or-famine thing. Either you have so much that you don't know what to do with it, or you are saving up for one of those things that nobody can afford because they're so rare.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-19, 10:17 PM
I don't have the book, the SRD seems to just say "Choose one of these three options".

But yeah, the point is that tastes are different for different players. I am really put off by not being able to choose every facet of my characters appearance, other players don't give it any thought and think its really weird that I care.

To quote the playbook, it says:
"Pick one from each."
AKA
"Ignore if you want to."

And most of what I'm looking at is really vague anyways. For this class I'm looking at it says "Fancy Hair, Wild Hair, Stylish Cap." Which are so vague that they could accomodate most fantasy hairstyles and/or fashions.
What exactly IS a Stylish Cap? Well, it's whatever your character thinks is stylish that is also worn on their head.

It also features "Fancy Clothes, Plain clothes, poor clothes" which encapsulates every kind of clothes. Perhaps not heavy armor, but this class doesn't start with armor, so....

Basically, you're taking it too literally. It's not "Pick one of these three hairstyles" its more like "Which of these best describes what you see in your head? Or just ignore this since it makes 0 mechanical difference and is just to make this part easier for everyone who doesn't care." When I MC, I tend to follow up a "And he has Wild hair" with "What does his wild hair look like, if you don't mind me asking?"

PbtA systems don't give two hoots how you choose your look. It's just a style thing. Ignore and move on. (Like how 99% of players of 3.5 d&d choose to ignore xp penalties for multiclassing, which is actually mechanical and makes a diffefence.)

I've had players straight up ignore the Look section and give me character art. I'm fine with it. Some who struggle with the Fiction-first approach seem to appreciate the section. (Which, by the way, is a small thing in the upper corner that takes up about a single square inch of page space.)

This seems like someone making a mountain out of some unusually grouped grains of dirt, or a complete misinterpretation of how much the Look section matters (it doesn't.)

Talakeal
2016-01-19, 10:36 PM
This seems like someone making a mountain out of some unusually grouped grains of dirt, or a complete misinterpretation of how much the Look section matters (it doesn't.)

I just casually mentioned that it seemed odd while thumbing through the SRD before a gaming session one night. You are the one who wrote a 300 word response to it :smallwink:

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-20, 11:11 AM
I just casually mentioned that it seemed odd while thumbing through the SRD before a gaming session one night. You are the one who wrote a 300 word response to it :smallwink:

"For example, I was looking at dungeon world and I said that I don't like how your class dictates your hair style, and the rest of the group thought I was really weird for even caring about how my character looks."

You didn't point out an oddity. You complained. And kept it going after one response, so I dug into it out of curiosity and debunked the complaint as making something of nothing (on several levels).

You don't get to complain about something and then claim you weren't complaining when the core of your complaint gets BTFO. Get outta here with that crap. That's not being the kind of person Mister Rogers knew you could be.

Talakeal
2016-01-20, 12:15 PM
"For example, I was looking at dungeon world and I said that I don't like how your class dictates your hair style, and the rest of the group thought I was really weird for even caring about how my character looks."

You didn't point out an oddity. You complained. And kept it going after one response, so I dug into it out of curiosity and debunked the complaint as making something of nothing (on several levels).

You don't get to complain about something and then claim you weren't complaining when the core of your complaint gets BTFO. Get outta here with that crap. That's not being the kind of person Mister Rogers knew you could be.

Ok, fine I "complained," but that's not the point.

I was merely pointing out that I don't think I am the one making a mountain out of a molehill. Go back and actually looks at the length and contents of my posts on the subject vs. yours.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-20, 01:51 PM
Ok, fine I "complained," but that's not the point.

I was merely pointing out that I don't think I am the one making a mountain out of a molehill. Go back and actually looks at the length and contents of my posts on the subject vs. yours.

Since when was it a sin to be thorough?
But next time I'm the one who not only complains to their friends, but feels the need to complain about it a second time on a forum when the topic is only vaguely related, I'll be sure to say everyone else who can handle my complaint is making a huge deal out of it while I'm not. Apparently that's ok.

All in all, This discussion is not pertinent to the thread at all and we should call it here rather than spending 75 posts trying to get in the last word.

Perhaps my mountain out of dirt comment was overly exaggerated. Even then, the rest of the post still stands. Let's leave it at that.

Talakeal
2016-01-20, 02:21 PM
Since when was it a sin to be thorough?
But next time I'm the one who not only complains to their friends, but feels the need to complain about it a second time on a forum when the topic is only vaguely related, I'll be sure to say everyone else who can handle my complaint is making a huge deal out of it while I'm not. Apparently that's ok.

All in all, This discussion is not pertinent to the thread at all and we should call it here rather than spending 75 posts trying to get in the last word.

Perhaps my mountain out of dirt comment was overly exaggerated. Even then, the rest of the post still stands. Let's leave it at that.

Its not a sin to be thorough, I just thought it was kind of hypocritical to call someone else out making something out of nothing when you are spending so much effort tearing apart a simple comment.

But let me just say that it was absolutely not my intent to complain about Dungeon World in this thread, I was merely sharing an anecdote that was fresh in my mind to illustrate how cosmetic things matter to some players but not others. If I had wanted to complain about Dungeon World I would have found or created a thread about it in the Other RPGs sub-forum and actually stated my complaints.