It's not my fault, I am just doing what the dice say my character would do! [Archive] - Page 2

ComradeBear

2016-11-21, 11:02 AM

Bonus points for paying attention, and making an example really relevant to me. :smallwink:

Yes, I absolutely do metagame. I not only recognize this fact, I also recognize that one of my flaws as a gamer is that I do not do so as much as I probably should.

But that in no way makes me believe that Metagaming is or should be called role-playing.

I'm gonna just lump this with the point below because they're the same general idea.

So, assuming that my definition of role-playing is one of the Google definitions, perhaps even the first, then I'm not completely wrong to define it as I do.

However, it sounds like I am wrong to consider broader definitions of warrior or role-playing to be wrong. Fair enough. And terribly unfortunate, from a communication standpoint - like how "man" can mean "human" or the subset of that species that has 2 "X" chromosomes, or... however the rainbow community defines it.

So, seemingly, "role-playing" can mean anything done in an RPG, or the subset of that which involves making choices for the character as the character, the latter of which is one of the things I value when playing RPGs. I have a difficult time seeing the value in saying that one plays RPGs to do RPG things, so one would hope that my meaning would still be obvious...

There's multiple reasons why the Stances were postulated. And I'm sure something similar to your grief over the finite number of words in the English Language and existence of multiple definitions per word instead of one per word might have been part of it.
Or at least to dig into the many ways players might approach RPGs in any given moment.

So when you are making a purely metagame decision at the table, you've shifted into Pawn Stance for a moment. Then you might shift into Author Stance when you make a fiction-based reasoning for the action, and then you might shift back into Actor Stance. Later on the GM might ask you to describe what we find Quertus doing after following someone else for a time and you step into Director stance to describe the scene.

Overall, at the end, you would probably describe what you spent your afternoon on as Roleplaying, rather than "Mostly roleplaying, but a few times where I stopped roleplaying for a few minutes to metagame and then went back to roleplaying." Because not only is that wordy and overly specific, but actually communicates what actually happened less accurately. Because metagaming for 6 seconds doesn't make you stop roleplaying. You're just engaging with the GAME part of the Role-Playing Game. And often that's necessary.

I do not require everyone who plays D&D with me to roleplay. I mean, sure, I like fellow roleplayers, but if you sit down to D&D as a pure war gamer, here to play undead Battletech, that's fine with me, too. Not everyone who games with "Quertus" is a Roleplayer.

There might be some who play RPGs purely for the Game part. I don't know that these are common enough to need their own term. Even the purely Game-oriented folks I played with genuinely enjoyed the story and would reminisce not so much on good rolls and good mechanics, but on the fiction-layer outcomes brought about by their builds. They engage with the fiction, too. But they do so differently, in my experience.

Ok, I'm a big fan of rules (for most parts of most games, at least), but there are freeform RPGs with no rules. And in those, my system of role-playing will continue to work just fine.

That's because there are no rules for anything, so nothing unfair comes from giving one person the ability to not be affected by rules.

There are also systems, like, say D&D 3.x, that allow characters to spend resources on social skills / abilities / stats... but then do not allow them to utilize said skills / abilities / stats on other PCs. IMO, good role-playing almost demands that the rules be supplemented with something... and "role-playing", as I define it, seems to fit the bill nicely.

There is no rule in 3.5 that disallows you to use Diplomacy, Intimidate, or other social skills/abilities on PCs. There is simply a stigma against it because D&D's social skills are designed as well as a car with square wheels and like everything else in the system is basically just the brute force method.

Using D&D as the standard for social skills is a bit like using a microwaved burrito as the standard for fine dining.

And you think I haven't? I'm flattered.

And I can confirm from personal experience that there do exist ways of making charismatic characters act in play as more charismatic than their players that doesn't come off as patronizing and hollow.
[/QUOTE]
There is.
Let them roll for it like everyone else does for their successes.

The easiest way I've seen to do this with D&D is that when you try to convince another PC, and you want it to work and they disagree, the person being convinced requests the check.

"You'll need to use Diplomacy to convince me." Etc.

And there you go. You get your agency to be belligerent, they get to use their agency to try to convince you anyways, and the dice figure out the rest. Then you roleplay the results.

It's still not perfect, but it's D&D. It's the best we can do with the materials at hand.

Stepping into the Game part of the Role-Playing Game is ok. Even for social stuff. Because that's still part of the Game. Some people dislike that part of the game, and more power to 'em.

What I will always balk at is the assertion that because I try to keep a level playing field for social interaction between my players and their characters, We no longer count asc roleplayers. Even if our characters are important to the decisions made at the Game level and are never entirely removed. (No more than you stop having Quertus' personality in mind when rolling a spellcraft check or responding to a combat roll against him.)

I find the Seduce/Manipulate skill from Apocalypse World to be a really good option at my table. For an example of its use:
Marathon wants to go home.
Slash wants Marathon to go drinking with the rest of the group, and tries to convince him to come along.
MC: Marathon, are you ok with letting him roll to convince you?
Marathon's player: Ok. Sounds fine by me.
Slash rolls a 10+, so Marathon's player must choose: take 1xp, or still deny the request at the cost of Acting Under Fire. (A move that can potentially introduce negative consequence, but he might still walk out scott-free.)
Marathon chooses to go along and get the XP, but refuses to get drunk and leaves at the first opportunity.
Marathon stayed true to his character, and essentially came up with the reason he went along being that he knew Slash would continue to bother him if he didn't. (An accurate assumption) So he saved himself a future headache.

Had Slash rolled a 7-9, he would have to choose between offering the carrot (xp) or threatening the potential stick (Act Under Fire) but not both. In any case, the other PC can choose as they like.

This might not work for everybody. But it works for my group.

It provides a framework that isn't mind control, and that doesn't require us to step so far away from the characters that they become a non-component. What they want is always on the table, and always a consideration.

I'm still learning to overcome the stigma of Metagaming.

That's part of why the Stances as described came into being in the early 2000's over at The Forge.

Also I find that the dichotomy between Metagaming vs. Roleplaying to be a false one. The stances posit (and fairly accurately, IMO) a wider range of interactions between roleplaying and metagaming where neither has to come at the expense of another. I'm sure some inversion of the Author Stance exists, too. (Instead of making a decision for metagame reasons and then creating a roleplaying reason why afterwords, you would be making a roleplaying decision and then create a metagame reason why afterwards. I swear I've done that at least once.) There are many, many ways that a player might interact with the metagame and with the fiction layer, even simultaneously.

Floret

2016-11-21, 11:27 AM

Ok, lemme stop you right there. Since I doubtless wasn't clear on this point, this isn't the way I chose to define the word. This is the way I do define the word, because this is the way it has been defined to me since back before the internet and Google became the answer to everything.
This definition happens to have value to me, because it roughly matches something I like; trying to change that definition to make it overly inclusive waters down the meaning of the word, making it no longer have value to me.
So, yes, in the interests of communication, I defend my definition... Unless, of course, I'm demonstrably wrong.
Thus, if, as you say, I'm not wrong... well, actually, either way, I'd recommend the invention of new words to differentiate my narrow definition from your broad one.

Depends on the system (many conflate role-playing with acting, for example), but, yes, that's the right general idea for what I mean.

Those replacement terms sound like they have too much "acting" to me. :smalltongue:

The fact that you didn't come up with the definitions yourself was not apparent from what you said, and is also, imho, rather irrelevant for the point being made.
As I said, I am aware that people define "role-playing" some way similar to you, but it is, in my eyes, a terribly confusing issue of "roleplaying" and "roleplaying" meaning two very distinct things.
Too much acting? Then I am at a loss to understand what you actually mean. Because if it is not "acting out a character as fully fleshed out as possible", then what do you mean? And if it is, where is the problem with calling it acting?

One must break immersion, and break out of character, often enough and long enough to push the button once per session in order to receive cheese. Which, granted, can be zero times in a given session.

Not a terribly low ceiling, but a ceiling nonetheless.

I'm afraid I have to disagree. I don't see the ceiling in that. And I don't see how you have to break immersion and character. "The thing" you get cheese for is supposed to be something that is actually in line with your character. So if you have to break character to get it, you have probably just chosen "the thing" horribly

Hmmm... Let's start with the Dragon. The dragon is my running example for actors in a play, not for players in an RPG. The director is informing the actors who are asking "what's my motivation?" that "that cardboard prop represents a very scary dragon".

However, I did run into exactly the scenario you describe. A GM was describing this crazy amalgam creature, and I had my character burst out laughing at it. The GM was upset, and pointed out that this creature was specifically engineered in the setting to draw upon the worst of Man's fears, and was supposed to be terrifying, not comical. Shrug if you say so. So I had my character's laugh take on a slightly unhinged, manic tone. I still thought the creature was a joke, but roleplayed my character to be affected by how "scary" the creature was.

So, if Roleplaying and acting are distinct for you, why did you put up an example for actors? Because, I would actually agree that they are different - in a play you have roles and direction given out, and in RPGs... not so much. At least the vast majority of times. One of the things is, the characters capabilities are not defined by some vague author, but by the actual rules of the setting. If the setting does not have rules for frightening stuff, I would probably tell any DM that just says "Non, this is incredibly scary!" to stuff it. Either rules or immersion determine how scary something is, and if the first doesn't exist, and the second one isn't managing - telling me "no, it totally does" is... weird, at the very least, and the question of "why" in this case cannot be answered with "because it is". There has to be some metric by which it actually is.
Sure, in free-form there are no rules. But then it better be scary, or at least scary to my character (I mean, sure, a character of mine that is deathly afraid of spiders will react to a spider with fear, at least with much more leeway for GM descriptions.)

Now, your comments about Mike confuse me, as they're about the opposite of what I'd expect. ... Hmmm... Unlike in previous posts, I suppose I left out a few details. The theory here is that the group knows how convincing Mike's character is supposed to be, and probably just how convincing Mike usually is (or isn't). And respond accordingly, whether or not the system has any corresponding mechanics.

Just like when the "scary dragon" is a cardboard prop, and the "beautiful princess" is being played by a guy.

But how do they know how convincing exactly he is, if they aren't in a play, or otherwise acting out predetermined scenes, and there is no rule to use as a metric (Giving stats to it does, in fact, create rules, no matter how vague you put it) for how convincing he is? How does a system without the appropriate mechanics ACTUALLY manage to pull that off, in total absence of any convincing-ness coming from Mike? Same for the other examples. (And, besides the point, but I know a lot of guys who would pull of incredible princesses :smallwink:)

No, just no. The perfect level of a floor for me is none at all. I am totally fine if someone wants to play "Mike the fighter" who has the personality of a slab of concrete and only lives to kills monsters and take their stuff. I would never play such a character, and if I was in the group with them I would do my best to engage them and draw them out of their shell, but I would never begrudge them their right to RP (or not RP as the case may be) what I consider to be a shallow character.

Now, as for defining a ceiling, we need to actually figure out what system we are talking about. Does the game punish you for failing to RP? Does it reward you for good RP? Does it flat out forbid you to act in a way contrary to your predefined nature? Do the dice dictate your options? What for do the punishment / rewards take? Are they something minor and temporary like a +2 to your next dice roll, or something that will permanently cripple your character like earning no XP for the session?

I am not arguing that there has to be a floor, or even that I personally like there to be floors. I am, in fact, one of those people playing exclusively with people who do put in the effort to act according to character, no matter if to their detriment, regardless of the system giving them any reward for it.
I am just arguing that there being a floor is alright, and that it does not automatically constitute a ceiling.

If the reward is big enough to matter to encourage RP (raising the floor) then it is also going to discourage behavior which the system does not see as RP (thus also lowering the ceiling).

Say for example my character has a code of honor to never harm a woman. To "raise the floor" the system would reward me for protecting women and / or punish me for harming them. But, say part of my character backstory is that when I was a small child I was physically abused by one of my aunts, and as a result when we are fighting a bandit queen who is the spitting image of my aunt I ignore my code of honor and take out my repressed childhood trauma on her, beating her to within a half inch of her life. Now, this is in character behavior that I would certainly consider roleplaying, but at this point most system would then either punish me or withhold my reward, thus I have to choose between doing what I think my character would do and what the system rewards. IF the punishment / reward system motivates me enough to "raise the floor" it will also, in this case, motivate me enough to ignore RP in favor of the rewards, thereby "lowering the ceiling".

Earlier in the thread someone sarcastically used the example of "Always protects young beautiful redheads in the hours between 7 and 11, unless they are taller than 5ft 6" as something that is ok for a character to do but not something the system should reward, but if you actually wanted a character with anywhere near the depth that I am comfortable RPing at (and I am by no means claiming to be the worlds best or deepest RPer) then I would need dozens of pages of such stipulations, more than I would ever be able to actually sit down and write out, let alone get anyone else in the game interested in reading.

Literally, how. Something that encourages RP in certain ways does not, automatically, discourage behaviour that the system does not see as RP. It might automatically discourage behaviour that it sees as RPing against your character, but that is a different story - doing something unrelated to the beats is not going delibarately against them, and only the latter would actually be punished? I mean, c'mon. You say, quite rightly, that you RP a character without the system giving you a reward for it. Then how does it limit you to play a character, if you get a reward for some of the stuff you do, but not the rest, especially if the rest is just... unconcerned with the rules?
Would it? You put yourself in a situation where your Code of honor, which you have decided (keep that in mind. Putting that in the "I get cheese for that" category was your decision.) to put into the spotlight goes against some other aspect of your character. You wanted your character to be conflicted in some way, and thereby chose this setup. Now you have to choose - has your character actually learned to better themselves? Or have they not overcome his issues with the aunt still? Yes, this situation might present a ceiling. Because of the choices you made, and conflicting issues you put into your character.
If your character has a mechanical effect for "protecting women", but not for "I need to take revenge on my aunt", then, yeah, this puts in somewhat of a ceiling if you want to grab all the bonuses. Or at least forces your character to be the better person in all such cases that come up. But a system designed as a RP aid that has rewards for something as specific as "Won't harm women", but only provides one such slot - I would fault the specific system in that case, and not all possible ones.
And, finally: Yes, I know, there CAN be ceilings, but. A ceiling. Does not AUTOMATICALLY follow from there being a floor. That you can construct examples where both exist is, for refuting that position, entirely meaningles.

This is kind of a loaded statement, don't you think? Although I do actually share this sentiment, I would have just phrased it as:

"Free-form/rule-less LARP can be insanely frustrating for people who like to be immersed in a fictional world because their characters don't actually have any defined capabilities and thus cannot interact with the setting in any predictable manner."

Not really, no... Except in the sense of "People who want to play superheroes in LARP that are just THE BEST are people I don't wanna Larp with, and I am happy the rulesystem I play under discourages such things".
And, no, that is not an accurate rephrasing or way to look at what I am saying. Your own capabilites are perfectly defined, they are just not exclusively defined BY YOU. Or, more accurately, you are somewhat limited in defining your character, since there are no stats. You can say "I am good at fighting", but not "I deal enough damage per hit to fell a normal man". Everything you would roll for in TRPGs is requiring ad-hoc decisions in the moment, and is decided by how people see you acting. When you hit a person with a weapon, they will be hurt. That is very predictable. Just HOW hurt they will be is not, sure. But really, that is just the equivalent of dicerolls in TRPGs - there is a spectrum of what you might achieve with any given action. That does not, in fact, limit immersion.
"Don't expect any specific reaction" means "don't expect the other person to go down immidiately when you hit them once and be frustrated if they don't". It does not mean "Hitting people might or might not have any effect, and might heal them". Not given fire-elementals being healed by fireballs (Something that will be somehow knowable by the games setting and at least after the first try explicitly telegraphed - "SHOW a plausible reaction") and similar things. "Show a PLAUSIBLE reaction" means your capabilites are defined. Just not down to specific numbers. Which, given we use Random number generators, also called "dice" in TRPGs, does not constitute much of a difference in "defined capabilites" in my view.

I actually cannot fathom this. This is so far outside of my realm of experience that I am not sure I can even have a meaningful argument about it. That style of gaming must be totally alien to me and what you get out of gaming must be totally different than what I get out of gaming.

I will say that I don't think that even if I had all the time and money in the world I could pull of even a tenth of the scenarios I have ran / played in over the years.

What can you not fathom? These things happening? I assure you, all have, to me. And though of course reflecting on them out of game and talking with the people who did the monsters and mages does reveal how they pulled off their stunts, the fact that it is faked does not appear while you are "in there" and are the bandit that just got to see that guy shoot effin fire out of his hand.
Oh, surely, TRPGs can do stuff that Larp just can't. You will hear no argument there from me. But if you wanna go for immersion? There is little more immersive than ACTUALLY sitting in the underbrush, arrows being fired at you, totally outnumbered, knowing if you turn back, you will be hit, your friend desperately blowing on his whistle to make himself heard... and then hearing, in some distance, clanging. Of something big arriving. "Being in the spot" instead of just imagining to be in the spot does incredible things, and even the most immersive TRPGs I have played don't actually hold a candle to the hundreds of moments I have experienced in Larps. Yes, they have been much smaller in scale, and perhaps in "Epicness" if you wanna phrase it that way. But "actually" experiencing them makes them just feel so much bigger and closer to you, that it, for me, more than makes up for it. I'd rather have an intense moment than intense scale. I like scale! And, relating to your next point, playing and being stuff I just can't pull off "IRL". That is why I play TRPGs. The two hobbys just give me totally different things. They are better at different things, and for me, using both for their respective strengths makes the most sense.

Ok, so the character I have been playing and thoroughly enjoying for the last three years:

Is a different gender than myself.
Is a different ethnicity than myself.
Is four inches taller than I am.
Is a hundred pounds lighter than I am.
Is fifteen years younger than I am.
Has a different voice range and accent than I do.
Has a different hair style and color than I do. As well as a different eye and skin color.
Has a different fashion sense than I do.
Has significantly different facial features and body type than I do.
Is in significantly better shape than I am even discounting my bad back and asthma.
Is a talented gymnast and fencer while I am so clumsy I literally have trouble walking and chewing at the same time sometimes.
Is a trained surgeon while I am barely competent to put on a Band-Aid.

If I even tried to LARP this character I would look ridiculous and no one would be able to see past it or take anything I did seriously. Plus I would have to cut off most of my hair and shave my beard, which is a lot to ask out of a game. I would also not enjoy the game, and I would literally kill myself if I seriously tried for some reason, as she is the type who never gives up and, as I said above, is in significantly better shape than I am. Plus, I literally can't do the things she does, and am not sure why LARPing would be any more immersive than table top if I have to constantly "play pretend"; for example rolling a dice to perform surgery is, in my mind, no more or less immersive than simply kneeling over someone and waving my hands while wiping away fresh blood.

And yeah, I could make a character who didn't have any of those features that would be easier to LARP. But then we have made the problem worse rather than better; I want to play the character I want to play and the rules of the game are fighting against me.

From my experience of what I have done, seen and heard of:
Gender? Doable, depending on the person. I have played both men and women, though I am fairly androgynous, granted.
Ethnicity... Clothes do a lot of things, treading respectfully is required, but generally doable.
Four inches taller, yeah, no. You can do a bit with heels/Plateau shoes, walk utterly upright, but four inches might be a tad much, sure. (Though I would argue that specific size is actually rather unimportant in... really, whatever RPG.)
Hundred pounds lighter are indeed hard to get rid of. I mean, training, eating and the right clothes can do some things, but that is either an investment of considerable time and effort, or can't do THAT much.
Again, fifteen years might be a long shot. Depending on your age, 60 year old can manage 45 easier than a 30 year old 15. I have seen a 20something play a twelve year old quite believably, so much so that you became very unnerved with her being on the Con (At least in Germany we call the meetings that), but that is depending on your general looks, yes.
Voice range and accent can be trained. None of my Larpcharacters match mine perfectly.
Hair style and colour is a matter of wigs, styling, or hairdye. Eyecolor can be dealt with by contact lenses, skin colour... if it is something that cannot naturally occur in humans (Green orcs, Drow), makeup does the trick (There are ways to make that last a weekend; same with for example the tattoos of some of my chars). If it IS something that can occur in humans, it is still doable, but should probably be avoided for ethical reasons.
Fashion sense, c'mon. You wear different clothes on a Larp. None of my characters wear anything CLOSE to what I would put on in my normal life, but fashion sense is not something visible through anything but the clothes you wear. And those are rather easy to change. You need a costume anyways :smallwink:
Facial features... again, makeup does wonders. Body type... the right clothing can go long ways, but it isn't magic, yeah.
Better shape... Training does its thing, barring that, yes, that is a hard limit.
Skills, again, training or hard limit. The fencing thing can reasonably easily be brought up to a level where you feign enough confidence. Gymnastics are harder. Surgery, reading up enough to be able to convince people who have no idea (Or who are at least in character pretending to have no idea) should be done with such a concept, certainly. Larp takes time, effort, and preparation. Just as reading up on a characters culture, or designing it yourself does, putting in the effort for knowing stuff for the skills is somewhat requried if you want your character to actually be a competend surgeon.

If you tried to Larp this exact character as is, you might run into some problems, yes. But: Larpcharacters have to be, or at least should be designed for Larp, with the limitations that it puts on kept in mind.
If you only ever wanna play one specific character that lies outside of that? Larp won't be for you. I didn't try to assert it was for everyone, sorry if that came across.* Taking TRPG-characters and simply putting them in a Larp is a very bad idea (Looses you out on some of the wonder as well. Some of the things TRPG-chars have experienced will never happen or be topped in Larp. And making your character numb agains the things that CAN happen in Larp looses part of the experience.)
As for why it is more immersive: There are certain points at which you "play pretend", yes. But even those are 1) in my experience far from the majority of play, and 2) still much closer to the real thing - seing someone writhing and screaming in pain laying in front of you I would assert just IS more immersive than rolling a die while imagining it. And if you put the limit of Larp on "waving your hands while wiping away fresh blood", you are selling the possibilites of Larp surgeons far, far short. The trick is called "Interaktive Wunden" in Germany, for which the english translation sadly does not yield any usable results on google.

*What I did wanna say: Intense and immersive character play, and getting deeply into the character is a whole lot more rewarding and intense in Larps in my experience. Since I have been larping, I don't try to get that out of TRPGs anymore. I DO get it out of TRPGs, but it is not, mainly, what I play them for. I know Larpers who do. They see TRPGs as a poor substitute, and don't enjoy it that much, which I find a shame, since TRPGs have other things to offer, that LARP can't.

Talakeal

2016-11-21, 10:39 PM

maybe

2016-11-21, 10:44 PM

The point is, there's nothing inherently wrong with rules forcing characters to behave in certain ways. But these rules are heavily game/genre dependent and shouldn't be applied to most games.

ComradeBear

2016-11-22, 12:15 AM

@ Floret:

Sorry, the formatting for the multi-quoting is getting to be a bit much so I am just going to ignore the specific points and respond to generalities.

About floors and ceilings:

Any system that tries to encourage RP is going to have a range of acceptable behavior. It is going to reward behavior that falls within that range and / or punish behavior that falls outside of it. If that reward / punishment is sufficient to encourage people who are normally RPing below that range to rise to it, it will also be sufficient to encourage people who would normally RP above that range to drop themselves into it.

Some systems are more complex than others (although I have never seen one that is terribly complex), but it is not feasible to make a system where the acceptable range is anywhere close to the actual range of human behavior. You would need so many rules, way more than D&D has for combat or even spell-casting, before you got anywhere close to a reasonable facsimile of a real person like you would find in your average sitcom or Saturday morning cartoon character.

So I agree that IN THEORY you could have a system that (effectively) has no ceiling for RP, but in practice that is just pie in the sky.

You need to demonstrate the claim that a floor always means a ceiling. And bear in mind that even one example where that isn't true will blow this out of the water.

So for instance, to use one of my favorites as said counter-example:
In-character goals from Stars Without Number.
They can be whatever you want. (Including things like getting medical training, overthrowing a particular government, getting closer with another character, saving one's home planet, etc.)
They are worth real XP.
There is no upper limit to how many you can have, but they do recommend avoiding 10+ goals for practicality reasons only.
Goals are as broad or specific as you want them to be. (I had a character desire to contact her family. That was it. It wasn't worth much XP, but she got it.)
You may alter/add goals at any time.

This has no ceiling. (Hell, I'm fairly sure the limit of 10 was my homebrew rule about it to keep my own bookkeeping down since I have to track their goals as well.)
It rewards roleplaying your character.

Show me the ceiling that is BUILT INTO this system. That means:
"GM can abuse this" is not an argument. GM can abuse any system.
Neither is "Players can abuse this" for basically the same reason.

About LARP:

I don't doubt that it exists, I just can't fathom why anyone would put the required time / money / and effort into it for such little payoff. Anything more involved than sitting around the campfire talking in character or something akin to a paintball / SCA hybrid would require an amount of time, money, effort, and number of participants that it boggles my mind.

Frankly if I had the resources and discipline that it required I wouldn't bother with games, I would go out and get a PhD, land a six figure job, and spend my free time dating models or traveling the world.

Also, it would seriously tax my acting ability. Like, say for example, I am pretending to be someone who is orders of magnitude more skilled and coordinated than myself, at the same time I am pretending to be injured when I am fine IRL, but my injured character is doing her best to ignore her injuries and fight to the best of her ability. That is a situation that comes up all the time in table top, but if I was trying to LARP that I wouldn't have the first idea how to do it, and it would be such a challenge that I wouldn't have any time for enjoyment or immersion.

You can't fathom someone wanting to run around in the woods pretending to be a knight and being willing to spend time and money on that hobby?

Can you also not fathom camping?

About Freeform:

Again, I just don't think I get it.

Say, for example, we are playing an X-Men RPG. I am playing Colossus. Obviously, a regular guy can't hurt me with a punch. Why would I show a reaction if he did? At the same time, if The Beast attacked me, I might show a reaction, I actually have no idea. If we were using numbers and dice I could (for example) see that beast has a d20+8 damage modifier and Colossus has a Resilience Rating of 25, meaning that The Beast could hurt Colossus roughly 15% of the time (numbers just pulled out of the air here). How would you actually resolve this in a free form setting?

You play fair. You do what Quertus suggested we do for Mike The Unconvincing.

The exact same reason you can't parse making this interaction fair is the same one we have for social interactions in TRPGs. You need SOME way to resolve it fairly.

Also, how do you avoid people either god moding or getting hurt feelings without something impartial like dice? Like, if I am playing an ace pilot and I roll three "1"s in a row and the DM says I crash in a one in a million freak accident, that seems fair. If there were no dice and someone proclaimed my ace pilot crashes I would feel singled out, but at the same time if I always flew perfectly wouldn't other people resent that?
You are your own GM, but godmodding will usually lead to being ignored by the other folks in the RP, or flat out being kicked out of the group.

You just handle your own stuff. Just like you claim is the best way to handle social stuff. Just apply that logic to LITERALLY EVERYTHING.
Freeform.

Talakeal

2016-11-22, 02:16 AM

You need to demonstrate the claim that a floor always means a ceiling. And bear in mind that even one example where that isn't true will blow this out of the water.

So for instance, to use one of my favorites as said counter-example:
In-character goals from Stars Without Number.
They can be whatever you want. (Including things like getting medical training, overthrowing a particular government, getting closer with another character, saving one's home planet, etc.)
They are worth real XP.
There is no upper limit to how many you can have, but they do recommend avoiding 10+ goals for practicality reasons only.
Goals are as broad or specific as you want them to be. (I had a character desire to contact her family. That was it. It wasn't worth much XP, but she got it.)
You may alter/add goals at any time.

This has no ceiling. (Hell, I'm fairly sure the limit of 10 was my homebrew rule about it to keep my own bookkeeping down since I have to track their goals as well.)
It rewards roleplaying your character.

Show me the ceiling that is BUILT INTO this system. That means:
"GM can abuse this" is not an argument. GM can abuse any system.
Neither is "Players can abuse this" for basically the same reason.

Note that I didn't say that every game had a ceiling. I said that every game that mechanically enforces RP has a range of acceptable behavior. If the rewards are strong enough to encourage people who normally RP below the bottom of the range (a floor if you will) to rise into it will also encourage people who normally play above the upper limit of the range (the ceiling if you will) to drop down to it.

The system you describe (and keep in mind I am only going by your description, I am not familiar with this system myself) does indeed not have a ceiling. It also doesn't have a floor, or really anything else. It is more or less a non-system. It boils down to "do whatever you want and get XP for it" and will not encourage anyone to role-play. Any limits are completely self imposed. The high RP guy can change his goals to whatever he feels his character does at the time, and the low RP guy can simply assign himself goals like "kill the bad guys and take their stuff," that he would be doing anyway to "win the game" regardless of what character he was playing.

Honestly I don't see the point of it, everyone is just going to do what they would normally do, but with the extra added book keeping and tedium of needing to constantly keep track of and adjust your goals.

You say you don't want me to talk about how exploitable such a system would be (which is certainly true), but I actually have the opposite view; to make it work the players and the DM are going to need to heavily house rule it to make it serve any purpose at all, and such a system would almost certainly have a "floor and ceiling" as I described above.

You can't fathom someone wanting to run around in the woods pretending to be a knight and being willing to spend time and money on that hobby?

Can you also not fathom camping?

Sure I can. That sounds fun.

But Floret is talking about renting castles, building animatronic dragons, having costumed people playing every NPC (including non-humanoid monsters), wizards putting on pyrotechnic displays, and requiring players to put enough time and money into their costumes that they can convincingly look like people of different races, sexes, or body types. He is also saying that people who are really into the hobby will learn whole new skill sets, drastically change their appearance and mannerisms, etc. That is a ton of time, money, and effort for what is still a fairly limited experience. I can see how it would be fun, I just can't see it being fun enough to justify such massive costs.

Like I said in the post you quoted, I can see something akin to paintball or SCA or spending a weekend camping without breaking character being reasonably fun and not cost prohibitive. I would do that if I had friends who were into it (although I wouldn't give up tabletop for it), but what Floret is talking about is something on a whole other level.

You are your own GM, but godmodding will usually lead to being ignored by the other folks in the RP, or flat out being kicked out of the group.

Isn't being ignored by other people actually cheating given the rules Floret described?

And who draws the line at what god-modding is? If I am, for example, playing a master cat-burglar, how often should I decide I fail to pick a lock or accidently trip an alarm? 1/3 times? 1/10? 1/100? 1/1,000? With dice OR statistics (you wouldn't even need both) you could have some sort guideline, but without any rules I honestly would feel totally lost.

The exact same reason you can't parse making this interaction fair is the same one we have for social interactions in TRPGs. You need SOME way to resolve it fairly.

You just handle your own stuff. Just like you claim is the best way to handle social stuff. Just apply that logic to LITERALLY EVERYTHING.
Freeform.

Did I actually say that? I don't remember ever talking about social skills being used on players (at least not in this thread) and if I said I think freeform is the best way to handle social stuff I must have not been thinking / typing clearly because that isn't a view that I hold.

However, I will say that doing social interaction freeform is a lot easier than physical stuff because it is fairly simple to just act out. You don't require props, people's natural abilities play a smaller role, people generally know what they are talking about, and it is unlikely that anyone will get hurt.

DracoknightZero

2016-11-22, 04:00 AM

ComradeBear

2016-11-22, 08:31 AM

Note that I didn't say that every game had a ceiling. I said that every game that mechanically enforces RP has a range of acceptable behavior. If the rewards are strong enough to encourage people who normally RP below the bottom of the range (a floor if you will) to rise into it will also encourage people who normally play above the upper limit of the range (the ceiling if you will) to drop down to it.

The system you describe (and keep in mind I am only going by your description, I am not familiar with this system myself) does indeed not have a ceiling. It also doesn't have a floor, or really anything else. It is more or less a non-system. It boils down to "do whatever you want and get XP for it" and will not encourage anyone to role-play. Any limits are completely self imposed. The high RP guy can change his goals to whatever he feels his character does at the time, and the low RP guy can simply assign himself goals like "kill the bad guys and take their stuff," that he would be doing anyway to "win the game" regardless of what character he was playing.

Honestly I don't see the point of it, everyone is just going to do what they would normally do, but with the extra added book keeping and tedium of needing to constantly keep track of and adjust your goals.

You say you don't want me to talk about how exploitable such a system would be (which is certainly true), but I actually have the opposite view; to make it work the players and the DM are going to need to heavily house rule it to make it serve any purpose at all, and such a system would almost certainly have a "floor and ceiling" as I described above.

The floor is: Your Character Must Be Self-Motivated and Have Their Own Agenda.
For many players, that is a step upwards in terms of RP.
There's your floor. Now where is the ceiling that goes with it?
It should be noted that the amount of XP any given goal is worth is determined by the GM based on how difficult the activity in question is based on the circumstances when the goal was created.
I had a.character wanting to get in contact with her family. Because it was as easy as sending a space-email, it was only.worth about 5xp. (Messages in SWN take a few days or weeks to arrive and return)
I had another character want to take over the Exchange, which was the basic infrastructure that keeps a sector running. That task was worth 250,000 xp. Because it would be literally years of in-game work time.

Sure I can. That sounds fun.

But Floret is talking about renting castles, building animatronic dragons, having costumed people playing every NPC (including non-humanoid monsters), wizards putting on pyrotechnic displays, and requiring players to put enough time and money into their costumes that they can convincingly look like people of different races, sexes, or body types. He is also saying that people who are really into the hobby will learn whole new skill sets, drastically change their appearance and mannerisms, etc. That is a ton of time, money, and effort for what is still a fairly limited experience. I can see how it would be fun, I just can't see it being fun enough to justify such massive costs.

Like I said in the post you quoted, I can see something akin to paintball or SCA or spending a weekend camping without breaking character being reasonably fun and not cost prohibitive. I would do that if I had friends who were into it (although I wouldn't give up tabletop for it), but what Floret is talking about is something on a whole other level.

Many of these groups have paid entry, as they've been described to me.

Isn't being ignored by other people actually cheating given the rules Floret described?

Not once youve been identified as a God-modding.
Kinda like how shooting people is against the law, right up until they try to kill you. (Obviously not on the same scale, but a similar concept of bad things becoming okay after other bad things happen.)

And who draws the line at what god-modding is? If I am, for example, playing a master cat-burglar, how often should I decide I fail to pick a lock or accidently trip an alarm? 1/3 times? 1/10? 1/100? 1/1,000? With dice OR statistics (you wouldn't even need both) you could have some sort guideline, but without any rules I honestly would feel totally lost.

Generally this is avoided by not having characters who are perfect at things and having good dramatic pacing with things going wrong when it is thematically and narratively appropriate.

Did I actually say that? I don't remember ever talking about social skills being used on players (at least not in this thread) and if I said I think freeform is the best way to handle social stuff I must have not been thinking / typing clearly because that isn't a view that I hold.

However, I will say that doing social interaction freeform is a lot easier than physical stuff because it is fairly simple to just act out. You don't require props, people's natural abilities play a smaller role, people generally know what they are talking about, and it is unlikely that anyone will get hurt.

Freeforming it without rules is the easiest way for someone to feel patronized to, as I illustrated in previous posts, and freeforming the social part runs into all the same problems you have for combat, but does so about different topics.

Segev

2016-11-22, 09:59 AM

A system which rewards certain RP behaviors has a "floor" in that it gives guidance that is not counterindicated by the system. It lacks a ceiling in that, if you wish to step outside that guidance or go beyond it, you can.

If the fact that the system might penalize some in character decisions makes a ceiling, then every system that lacks social mechanics has a ceiling inherently, since "selling" another character's social influence or eve your own character's vices with nothing to mechanically enforce it nor reward/counterbalance the negatives means that the ceiling is inherent. You can push beyond it with effort, but only by playing the game part of the game deliberately worse.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-22, 11:41 AM

Just a note on the "Metagaming Stigma", i feel there is two sides of this extreme.

First side is the ones that we all fear would come to the game, the one that take his game knowledge and inpose it on his characters making him know things he should not. Like he would know that there is 3 human warriors on the other side of this door due to the notes he read over the GMs shoulder, or the pieces that the GM just pulled out. Or knowledge about the world that would not make sense for the character to know, like about a hidden cult, the leaders names etc, or the plot of a adventure path.

This is the stigma of the metagame... however there is the other side of the coin.

The other side of this is the ones that are trying too hard to not metagame and enforce the "ban" of metagame to a fault halting the game to a standstill, ofcourse thats a hyperbole of the extreme, but lets see of a lesser variant. You have the people who are so afraid of being marked as "metagaming" that they play their characters as children that is basically just learned how to walk. You have the wise monk that cannot draw from his wisdom that its "a bad idea to open that door with the unholy symbols" or the fighter that cannot walk around his enemies to set-up a flanking position as a basic combat tactic because "the fighter only have 7 int, its not like he is that smart". What if fighting is the only thing he knows?

And now you dont have the issue in the first example where you have a player trying to make his character what he shouldnt be able to do, but instead a 3rd party of another player dictating how another player how a character functions because he label his action as "metagamey".

I've come across gamers (GMs and players) who seem to earnestly believe that PC competence = metagaming, and that the only way to engage in "true" roleplaying is to have a character who is somewhat to totally inept.

They consider a character who would genuinely be smart/skilled/experienced enough to generally avoid bad situations, make the right tactical call, see trouble coming, recognize common pitfalls, etc, to be an attempt to excuse metagaming on the part of the player.

In my experience, these are also often the people who say "We're playing a horror game, and in horror fiction, people do things like go into the basement alone after three other people didn't come back, so not going into the basement alone is breaking genre and metagaming based on player knowledge". And thus, one source of me being absolutely OVER anything in an RPG that attempts to "emulate genre" -- "emulate genre" has become, in my mind, a fancy way of excusing hackneyed eye-roll-worthy tropes, and browbeating players.

Floret

2016-11-22, 12:26 PM

@ Floret:
About floors and ceilings:

I would not actually be able to say anything beyond what Segev and ComradeBear have already said, so: What they said :smallwink:
It lines up rather well with what I think.

But: I also find the point of maybe worth stressing, as it aligns pretty much with my mostly preferred system, or at least the system I play in aside from FATE which one COULD interpret as having such a system - but no inherent ceiling in my view, aside from limiting how often you can change your aspects/personality.

About LARP:

I don't doubt that it exists, I just can't fathom why anyone would put the required time / money / and effort into it for such little payoff. Anything more involved than sitting around the campfire talking in character or something akin to a paintball / SCA hybrid would require an amount of time, money, effort, and number of participants that it boggles my mind.

Frankly if I had the resources and discipline that it required I wouldn't bother with games, I would go out and get a PhD, land a six figure job, and spend my free time dating models or traveling the world.

Also, it would seriously tax my acting ability. Like, say for example, I am pretending to be someone who is orders of magnitude more skilled and coordinated than myself, at the same time I am pretending to be injured when I am fine IRL, but my injured character is doing her best to ignore her injuries and fight to the best of her ability. That is a situation that comes up all the time in table top, but if I was trying to LARP that I wouldn't have the first idea how to do it, and it would be such a challenge that I wouldn't have any time for enjoyment or immersion.

Floret is talking about renting castles, building animatronic dragons, having costumed people playing every NPC (including non-humanoid monsters), wizards putting on pyrotechnic displays, and requiring players to put enough time and money into their costumes that they can convincingly look like people of different races, sexes, or body types. He is also saying that people who are really into the hobby will learn whole new skill sets, drastically change their appearance and mannerisms, etc. That is a ton of time, money, and effort for what is still a fairly limited experience. I can see how it would be fun, I just can't see it being fun enough to justify such massive costs.

Like I said in the post you quoted, I can see something akin to paintball or SCA or spending a weekend camping without breaking character being reasonably fun and not cost prohibitive. I would do that if I had friends who were into it (although I wouldn't give up tabletop for it), but what Floret is talking about is something on a whole other level.

The time, money and effort are possibly not as gigantic as you might imagine, and the payoff not that little :smallwink:
Larp as I experience it, and in fact the way it is in most cases done where I live (Germany) is not organised by groups in the way that TRPGs are. So you don't actually go ahead and meet regularly with the same people to charter the adventures of your group of heroes. Instead, there are "Cons"/Conventions, organised by Organisers, which usually are Clubs or Societies, but sometimes minor corporations, who think up the plot/setting/scenario, who advertise the event, who rent out the castles (or whatever location, most cons aren't at one. But you'd be surprised how cheap castles can be to rent for groups upward of maybe 30, 40 people), build the dragons, props, sometimes provide the food, and so on. The players, and indeed also the Non-players then pay money to attend these events. (Non-players being used for every NPC-role you'd require, quite often playing multiple roles over one event, then with different costumes according to role, and paying quite a lot less in the vast majority of cases.) Over the fees they usually (except for the corporate ones, they do make a profit) make their money back.
As a player, you spent the "entrance fee" for the event, and provide your own epquipment and character. As an NPC, you get your character(s) provided for you, and quite often your equipment as well. Everything else is already organised. And then, you play. A day, a weekend, or sometimes a week. With anything from a dozen to several thousand participants. Ever had a rain of arrows go down on you? Really makes your heart sink. Even though you, at some point in your heart know that those have foam tips. :smallwink:
Sure, I could have spent the money I have spent on it over the years differently. But... looking back I wouldn't change a thing. Because the intensity and magic of the play were worth every penny. I'm not doing this for lack of options. I am doing this, as I imagine most people are doing with RPGs, because it is just so, immesurably and incredibly fun^^

As for the acting thing: If you get into character, get into the flow of things, you don't actually notice those. Maybe I am vastly more skilled at acting than you (I highly doubt it), but I have pulled off what you describe. Maybe not the "vastly more skilled and coordinated". As I said, Larp places certain limits on character ability, which one has to be fine with for it to work.
Most people don't actually play characters of sexes or races different than their own (Aside from orcs, elves, dwarves and the like), and stick with their own body type. I was just pointing out it being possible, not that it was common. Sorry if it came across that way. And yes, since I picked up Larping I learned sewing, for one character regularly write saga-style poems, learned card counting and the like. And it is a major motivator for me staying in shape. Running in chainmail requires certain limits to be possible. As for mannerisms... In character. People don't actually change who they are (just for the game, at least), but their characters will talk differently and behave differently from them, sure. Your TRPG characters don't?

Minor note: "She is also saying". You couldn't have known, but I like these things to be correct :smallwink:

About Freeform:

Again, I just don't think I get it.

Say, for example, we are playing an X-Men RPG. I am playing Colossus. Obviously, a regular guy can't hurt me with a punch. Why would I show a reaction if he did? At the same time, if The Beast attacked me, I might show a reaction, I actually have no idea. If we were using numbers and dice I could (for example) see that beast has a d20+8 damage modifier and Colossus has a Resilience Rating of 25, meaning that The Beast could hurt Colossus roughly 15% of the time (numbers just pulled out of the air here). How would you actually resolve this in a free form setting?

Also, how do you avoid people either god moding or getting hurt feelings without something impartial like dice? Like, if I am playing an ace pilot and I roll three "1"s in a row and the DM says I crash in a one in a million freak accident, that seems fair. If there were no dice and someone proclaimed my ace pilot crashes I would feel singled out, but at the same time if I always flew perfectly wouldn't other people resent that?

Aside from CBs comment:
In TRPGs I would never touch a free-form game. At the scales of Colossus vs. anyone (or at other scales only possible in TRPGs, one of the reasons I still play them), you have lost what I consider a scale that they work well at, given that the rulings would be far outside of the realm of experience where you can semi-accurately judge. And, yes, for the reasons you describe, I consider rules to be a great boon to have in a TRPG. I am one of the stern advocates for having rules for social stuff.
(Playing fair and "no godmodding" are usually required, though. No free-form game I have ever seen actually skipped on making "no godmodding, you control your own character(s) and only them" a rule)

At the point you get to Free-form Larp, you can't godmode. Like, literally impossible. The impartial third party is in part the world that exists around you (Yeah. You tripped. That happens insanely rarely, but it happened now, so... tough luck.).
For points where you hit or interact with other people, you just generally assume good faith. The other player won't just ignore your blows, and if they don't collapse as you think they would've, maybe there's a good reason for that. They aren't down yet, next blow, or defend yourself!
For points of social stuff - i mean, you either are convincing, or you aren't. Your character can, in that respect, not really exceed you, as always with there being no rules for it, though being a character with significant social leverage (A noble or sth) can get you an edge. Yeah, Larp comes with limitations, freeform Larp with less in some respects, but more in others.
If someone behaves like an ass, someone will take them aside and explain why they are making it worse for everyone. If they don't learn, they get thrown out of the game, though this rarely if ever is necessary.

Talakeal

2016-11-22, 01:21 PM

The floor is: Your Character Must Be Self-Motivated and Have Their Own Agenda.
For many players, that is a step upwards in terms of RP.
There's your floor. Now where is the ceiling that goes with it?
It should be noted that the amount of XP any given goal is worth is determined by the GM based on how difficult the activity in question is based on the circumstances when the goal was created.
I had a.character wanting to get in contact with her family. Because it was as easy as sending a space-email, it was only.worth about 5xp. (Messages in SWN take a few days or weeks to arrive and return)
I had another character want to take over the Exchange, which was the basic infrastructure that keeps a sector running. That task was worth 250,000 xp. Because it would be literally years of in-game work time.

I think we both need to step back and take a breath; it seems to me like at this point you are so determined to prove me wrong on a technicality that you are ignoring what I am actually saying.

I was talking about systems that encourage or enforce player behavior and reinforce how they go about accomplishing their goals, not having goals themselves. Sure, these are (vaguely) the same thing, but not really what I was talking about. Yes, if you look at it in a certain light you can find a way in which it raises the floor for RP (and I am sure I could find a way to define it as having a ceiling as well, unless the game is totally free-form from both a mechanical and setting perspective), but it isn't the type of system I was ever talking about. It feels like having a discussion about the fastest sports cars and then someone wants to bring race cars into it.

Now, I personally wouldn't enjoy such a system, I am too much of a perfectionist and too competitive. I hate having to play a weaker character than the rest of the people at the table (and I don't like the idea of playing a stronger one) or of permanently damaging my character because of how I set my goals.
In all of the groups I have ever been in people all have their own goals and are always fighting for spotlight time to resolve them, if actual XP was on the line I can see this getting really ugly. I remember the last major campaign I DMed I had a couple players who would constantly complain that the main plot didn't give their characters a chance to resolve their personal goals, I imagine that if they lost out on XP as a result of that they would have left the campaign (and rightly so), meaning that if I wanted to keep them as players I would have had to drastically change the nature of the campaign (and even if I did that other players would no not be able to accomplish their goals).

Freeforming it without rules is the easiest way for someone to feel patronized to, as I illustrated in previous posts, and freeforming the social part runs into all the same problems you have for combat, but does so about different topics.

I am actually not quite sure what you are trying to say here.

I think you are saying something like "If players are always in control of their characters one player cannot use social rolls to force another player to act in a certain manner, which would be just as bad as if they were fighting and had no way to actually injure one another," but I am not sure.

As I said, I don't remember talking about this issue. It is a discussion we could have, but I don't remember actually saying anything about it one way or another.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-22, 01:26 PM

georgie_leech

2016-11-22, 01:32 PM

I think we both need to step back and take a breath; it seems to me like at this point you are so determined to prove me wrong on a technicality that you are ignoring what I am actually saying.

I was talking about systems that encourage or enforce player behavior and reinforce how they go about accomplishing their goals, not having goals themselves. Sure, these are (vaguely) the same thing, but not really what I was talking about. Yes, if you look at it in a certain light you can find a way in which it raises the floor for RP (and I am sure I could find a way to define it as having a ceiling as well, unless the game is totally free-form from both a mechanical and setting perspective), but it isn't the type of system I was ever talking about. It feels like having a discussion about the fastest sports cars and then someone wants to bring race cars into it.

I think the point is that the bonded portion isn't necessary to encourage rp, so 'systems that encourage rp disincentivize going above and beyond' doesn't follow. Sure, it's possible to write Encourage RP rules that do so, but it's also possible to write Combat rules that are bad, so I'm not sure how much of an objection that really is.

Talakeal

2016-11-22, 01:51 PM

Minor note: "She is also saying". You couldn't have known, but I like these things to be correct :smallwink:

Darn, I noticed you didn't have a gender symbol in your profile and was working so hard to only use gender neutral language, but I guess a few of the English "androgynous = male" slipped in. Sorry about that.

I think the point is that the bonded portion isn't necessary to encourage rp, so 'systems that encourage rp disincentivize going above and beyond' doesn't follow. Sure, it's possible to write Encourage RP rules that do so, but it's also possible to write Combat rules that are bad, so I'm not sure how much of an objection that really is.

Of course it is possible to encourage RP without limiting you; I never claimed it wasn't. I wasn't even the one who came up with the whole floor / ceiling thing, I merely agreed that it was a good analogy when someone else (Quertus?) suggested it.

What I said was that systems that reward you for acting in a certain way for the purpose of encouraging rp will by definition discourage you from RPing in a way that falls outside of said certain way.

But even something as simple as "At the end of the session the group decides who the best RPer was and gives them a cookie," is going to cause people who want that cookie to make sure to do their best to RP in ways that are dramatic, obvious to the rest of the group, and inline with what other people's expectations of them are.

Floret

2016-11-22, 02:31 PM

Darn, I noticed you didn't have a gender symbol in your profile and was working so hard to only use gender neutral language, but I guess a few of the English "androgynous = male" slipped in. Sorry about that.

No hard feelings^^ I did leave the marker off my profile, after all. (I mean, I do have a female avatar. But that can mean nothing, and the only thing I said was "I can pull off both in LARP", which I admit doesn't help to clarify matters :smalltongue: )

On a sidenote: Have my explanations made "my style" of Larp any more fathomable for you?

Of course it is possible to encourage RP without limiting you; I never claimed it wasn't. I wasn't even the one who came up with the whole floor / ceiling thing, I merely agreed that it was a good analogy when someone else (Quertus?) suggested it.

What I said was that systems that reward you for acting in a certain way for the purpose of encouraging rp will by definition discourage you from RPing in a way that falls outside of said certain way.

But even something as simple as "At the end of the session the group decides who the best RPer was and gives them a cookie," is going to cause people who want that cookie to make sure to do their best to RP in ways that are dramatic, obvious to the rest of the group, and inline with what other people's expectations of them are.

Yeah, seems like you kinda became a Quertus-replacement for the discussion through agreeing with some of their arguments. My main problem with the argument given was the inevitability of a ceiling. I actually agree with the terms being rather useful, to be honest.^^
It seems we are all more or less on the same page, in actuality.

Systems as the one you describe I find the most terrible way to do things, as those are too vague to provide any usable guideline, and so usually boil down to favouritism, flashy and dramatic actions, or trying to "educate" and "train" people into the "right" way of RPing for rewarding it. Which I find a horrible practise. If someone's style doesn't jell with yours, trying to goad them into using the "better" one instead of just parting ways seems like the way more frustrating option to me.

ComradeBear

2016-11-22, 05:13 PM

I think we both need to step back and take a breath; it seems to me like at this point you are so determined to prove me wrong on a technicality that you are ignoring what I am actually saying.
If I come across as wanting to win, I apologize. I do a lot of debating, and so I tend to point out faulty logic as what it is, and will point out simple things like "making an Always/Never claim is a bad idea unless you're 100% certain there are no exceptions." Which is what you were doing. (All RP rules introduce a Floor AND a Ceiling.)

I don't mean to seem aggressively pursuing being RIGHT, but I tend to expend effort on defending my position and pointing out logical errors in alternative positions. Which, yes, is pretty close to trying to win. But I can only say that's not my intent.

I was talking about systems that encourage or enforce player behavior and reinforce how they go about accomplishing their goals, not having goals themselves. Sure, these are (vaguely) the same thing, but not really what I was talking about. Yes, if you look at it in a certain light you can find a way in which it raises the floor for RP (and I am sure I could find a way to define it as having a ceiling as well, unless the game is totally free-form from both a mechanical and setting perspective), but it isn't the type of system I was ever talking about. It feels like having a discussion about the fastest sports cars and then someone wants to bring race cars into it.

If you mean here "You did X behavior so here is a cookie," then yes. It will have a ceiling. But that is only one way to encourage RP among many. (Also literally the worst way.)

Now, I personally wouldn't enjoy such a system, I am too much of a perfectionist and too competitive. I hate having to play a weaker character than the rest of the people at the table (and I don't like the idea of playing a stronger one) or of permanently damaging my character because of how I set my goals.
In all of the groups I have ever been in people all have their own goals and are always fighting for spotlight time to resolve them, if actual XP was on the line I can see this getting really ugly. I remember the last major campaign I DMed I had a couple players who would constantly complain that the main plot didn't give their characters a chance to resolve their personal goals, I imagine that if they lost out on XP as a result of that they would have left the campaign (and rightly so), meaning that if I wanted to keep them as players I would have had to drastically change the nature of the campaign (and even if I did that other players would no not be able to accomplish their goals).

The thing about SWN is that a lvl 1 character can pretty easily kill a lvl 5 character with the right weapons. Combat is super deadly. A Lvl 5 character will have more points in their favorite skills, but there's a lot of those and overlap will be hard. If you are a lvl 1 Warrior, a lvl 5 Expert specializing in Mechanics isn't going to step on your toes at all. Granted, you get XP for completing jobs as well. Most goals end up being side things, and if you assume players playing in good faith, there's no problem.
If you assume every player being the worst kind of player, then yeah. It will go horribly wrong. And for 0 reasons related to the system.
Combat systems can be exploited and cause huge problems as well.

I think you are saying something like "If players are always in control of their characters one player cannot use social rolls to force another player to act in a certain manner, which would be just as bad as if they were fighting and had no way to actually injure one another," but I am not sure.

That's pretty much what I was saying, yes.
Essentially that the se vagueries and issues will come up for things without rules, regardless of what we lack rules about.

As I said, I don't remember talking about this issue. It is a discussion we could have, but I don't remember actually saying anything about it one way or another.

I don't think you said anything on this, either. I was simply making my point because I do that.

So that makes for at least two of us in that boat...
One last thing:

http://i.imgur.com/rVQQyUVl.jpg

Character attacks aren't arguments. Please stop.

Cluedrew

2016-11-22, 06:26 PM

Segev

2016-11-22, 06:41 PM

The "soft ceiling" is a bad argument because it is is similar to saying that, since seat belts don't save 100% of lives in car crashes, they introduce a ceiling in severity of crash beyond which people die more often. While potentially technically true, as presented, the argument is being used to give a false impression that seat belts make more of a problem.

Similarly, thus, a "soft ceiling" argument that any RP-aiding mechanics lead to a "ceiling" on how much you can RP geared to suggest that RP-aiding mechanics are undesirable for that reason is relying on a false impression that such mechanics make it harder to RP past a certain point than lacking them would.

That is untrue; that would be a "hard ceiling".

It is either, therefore, a useless argument which contributes nothing, or a deliberately deceptive argument meant to convince by giving an impression contrary to the truth while claiming it is "a good argument" because it's true in the useless case. And then hoping nobody notices that that defense doesn't make it valid for the falseimpression about such mechanics that this bad argument gives.

Talakeal

2016-11-22, 06:49 PM

Actually I think this debate actually stems from people using the word "ceiling" (and probably floor) differently.

On one side we have it been used at a "hard ceiling", a cap that you cannot go beyond or are punished for doing so. On the other we have a "soft ceiling", which is more like a point of diminishing returns. I did a quick skim over the last little bit and the arguments on both sides seem to make sense under that light.

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where a simpler character would.

Segev

2016-11-22, 06:54 PM

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where as a simpler character would.

The same is true of a character who has to choose between social traits or vices and mechanically optimal choices that don't give in to the RP aspect.

Still a net gain, but a sign that the rule isn't yet perfect. Again, just because seat belts only save lives sometimes doesn't mean they're worse than not having them.

ComradeBear

2016-11-22, 06:55 PM

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where as a simpler character would.

Yes. And the problem there is that the system is designed really stupidly. >.>
(I'm not blaming you, since the goal is to make a worst-case scenario)

But then again, a large part of your issue with them seems to stem from the mere possibility of uneven development of characters. (Correct me if I am wrong, of course.) The way to prevent that is group-based RP rewards and players playing in good faith and honestly.
For instance, some Hexcrawl campaigns have "Did we discover something significant?" As a group RP bonus. It doesn't matter who it is who makes said discovery, everyone benefits.

Building from that base could give you a solid option that doesn't bother your even progression sensibilities.

Talakeal

2016-11-22, 06:57 PM

Yes. And the problem there is that the system is designed really stupidly. >.>
(I'm not blaming you, since the goal is to make a worst-case scenario)

But then again, a large part of your issue with them seems to stem from the mere possibility of uneven development of characters. (Correct me if I am wrong, of course.) The way to prevent that is group-based RP rewards and players playing in good faith and honestly.
For instance, some Hexcrawl campaigns have "Did we discover something significant?" As a group RP bonus. It doesn't matter who it is who makes said discovery, everyone benefits.

Building from that base could give you a solid option that doesn't bother your even progression sensibilities.

Actually a worst case scenario would be one where control of your character is taken away from you and you don't even get a choice in the matter. A close second would be something where you have to spend XP in order to RP.

But yes, I always run / design games with group based XP progression and prefer to play in them when possible.

However; then you get back to the problem I was having in my OP, you are deemed a problem player if you choose to RP a character over giving into peer pressure and choosing the "optimal" choice for the group.

Green Elf

2016-11-22, 07:49 PM

I personally don't agree with dice over RP. The thing that is most important is rule 0 though. RULE OF FUN! Are those mechanics fun and is your RP decision fun? Choose the one that's fun.

(D&D 1e was called "Rules For Fantastic Fantasy War Games". That may apply to your situation. It's a bit redundant though.)

The Glyphstone

2016-11-22, 07:56 PM

And that's a problem with the group, not the game. Good players understand that you occasionally make sub-optimal decisions for the sake of RP.

Segev

2016-11-22, 10:04 PM

And that's a problem with the group, not the game. Good players understand that you occasionally make sub-optimal decisions for the sake of RP.

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-22, 10:06 PM

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

To make an extreme example... if PC's in-character response to an attack is to turn his back, is it "punishment" when the PC gets stabbed by the attacker?

Lacco

2016-11-23, 02:10 AM

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

I prefer games that reward playing in character.

Hawkstar

2016-11-23, 02:16 AM

To make an extreme example... if PC's in-character response to an attack is to turn his back, is it "punishment" when the PC gets stabbed by the attacker?The punishment isn't felt by him, because he's deliberately turning his back to screw over the group, instead of doing what he's supposed to be doing with his character's skills and positions. Because this jackass decided to 'turn his back' (instead of Power Attacking the threat, Turtling and providing protection for the rest of the party, or shifting away then casting a control spell) "Because that's what his character would do", the rest of the party is fighting at a serious disadvantage and looking at a wipe. Because he chose to turn his back, the rest of the party got punished for it.

(The preceding paragraph is some sort of satire, but I'm not quite sure what view I'm satirizing with it, hence it's not Sarcasm nor Chief Circle)

Cluedrew

2016-11-23, 07:43 AM

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?I think playing a character who faces the consequences of their actions is part of the appeal for some people. I say this because the main plot hook in my group's games seem to be "Whatever stupid thing you do after the game starts." Of course that is stupid from an in-character perspective, from a game perspective they are great.

To Hawkstar: Now I wish there were formatting flags for [SARCASM] & [CHIEF_CIRCLE]... well using the parts will have to do.

Stealth Marmot

2016-11-23, 07:52 AM

Why must I be punished by the game for playing in character?

If you cannot feel the consequences of having a trait, then the trait has no real weight to it.

ComradeBear

2016-11-23, 11:39 AM

Segev's assertion is why many systems tend to give a carrot when a trait causes trouble. Yes, a bad outcome happens but is mitigated by getting the good thing.

One way to keep the system from becoming "screwup simulator" would be either of the following two options:
When a character's trait causes problems, the entire group gets a boon. (XP, rerolls, etc.) Include a cap so that people aren't just trying to get it as much as possible. The reason I say to provide rerolls is that once you're rolling, you aren't engaged in the fiction at the time. So if you spend one of your reroll points, you're not coming out of the fictional space to do so. You were already out of it and simply have a few seconds delay before slipping back in.

When a trait causes problems, everyone except the person with the trait gets a bump. At the very least it prevents the rest of the group from getting mad.

There is also, of course, options like the Hx stat from Apocalypse World, which allows you to gain XP by becoming emotionally tied to other characters. (Or, rather, reward others for seeking emotional ties with your character.)

Segev

2016-11-23, 12:58 PM

To make an extreme example... if PC's in-character response to an attack is to turn his back, is it "punishment" when the PC gets stabbed by the attacker?Definitely. Which is why it would be a rare character trait in reality as well as games. It also likely is far more nuanced than any of these examples of social mechanics.

If he's doing it as a show of trust, he either already thinks it isn't a bad idea or his player is role playing that his character is fooled. Social mechanics would inform the player just how fooled his character is, and reward compliance somehow to counterbalance the risk, or punish refusal somehow to counterbalance the safety in not turning his back.

I prefer games that reward playing in character.
Indeed.

If you cannot feel the consequences of having a trait, then the trait has no real weight to it.

Consequences are not always all negative. People indulge vices which are nothing but mechanically bad for hem in most RPGs, in real life. To model the war between long term knowledge of what's good for you and short-term gratification earned by giving in to a vice, the consequences of not giving in (and of giving in) need to have as much positive to the player as they do to he character, at least relative to the longer term negatives.

ComradeBear

2016-11-23, 02:21 PM

Consequences are not always all negative. People indulge vices which are nothing but mechanically bad for hem in most RPGs, in real life. To model the war between long term knowledge of what's good for you and short-term gratification earned by giving in to a vice, the consequences of not giving in (and of giving in) need to have as much positive to the player as they do to he character, at least relative to the longer term negatives.

Blades in the Dark has a great way of dealing with vices. Namely, characters accumulate Stress through their adventures. The only way to remove this stress is by indulging in that character's Vice. You have to make sure you don't overindulge, but your Vice is how you rid yourself of stress.

Talakeal

2016-11-23, 03:56 PM

Blades in the Dark has a great way of dealing with vices. Namely, characters accumulate Stress through their adventures. The only way to remove this stress is by indulging in that character's Vice. You have to make sure you don't overindulge, but your Vice is how you rid yourself of stress.

What happens if you don't?

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-23, 04:10 PM

You spend stress to improve your odds on succeeding at things or resist the consequences of failing things. So if you don't clear stress you're going to be failing more than you should and will eventually take catastrophic consequences because of it.

Also if you fill up on stress you take a trauma. Four traumas and you retire.

Talakeal

2016-11-23, 06:00 PM

Kane0

2016-11-23, 08:25 PM

I play a Cleric of a god whose domain is struggle, perseverance and self improvement. His defining trait is taking on challenges just for the sake of it, but not to the point of suicide.
He's the kind of guy that would readily pick up a dagger to rush in and stab a demon, but would also sit down and discuss the best way to take on a fortress as to avoid losses.
I wonder, am I being 'that guy' when I regularly and willingly take on the greatest risk of any particular situation we find ourselves in?

ComradeBear

2016-11-23, 08:59 PM

So I guess that is what Cluedrew would call a hard ceiling then?

No. Because it's not really an RP mechanic. There's a phase of the game called Downtime which takes place between jobs. You indulge your vice as a downtime activity. You don't get to indugle your vice during a job (since the job is the actual execution of a plan and should only take a few hours of in-game time. The planning and various smaller details play out during Downtime, and of course you can always spend stress to have a flashback that details how your character pre-planned for a twist that they would have anticipated, but you did not. (It is unlikely that you have the same amount of knowledge about the setting as your character does. They likely know MUCH more about it, and the flashbacks serve to help them be more competent at heists/assassinations/drug-runs than you are.)

RP doesn't really figure into the Vices in Blades in the Dark, but could be used as a basis for how to handle them better.

Talakeal

2016-11-24, 01:20 PM

No. Because it's not really an RP mechanic. There's a phase of the game called Downtime which takes place between jobs. You indulge your vice as a downtime activity. You don't get to indugle your vice during a job (since the job is the actual execution of a plan and should only take a few hours of in-game time. The planning and various smaller details play out during Downtime, and of course you can always spend stress to have a flashback that details how your character pre-planned for a twist that they would have anticipated, but you did not. (It is unlikely that you have the same amount of knowledge about the setting as your character does. They likely know MUCH more about it, and the flashbacks serve to help them be more competent at heists/assassinations/drug-runs than you are.)

RP doesn't really figure into the Vices in Blades in the Dark, but could be used as a basis for how to handle them better.

No, it certainly isn't. I downloaded the rules thinking there would be something there only to find a few vague sentances, was afraid I was missing so ething, because what I saw could have replaced "indulge vice" woth "take a long rest".

Out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a game withh a good mechanical system that encourages people to RP complex characters?

Segev

2016-11-24, 02:21 PM

So I guess that is what Cluedrew would call a hard ceiling then?

A hard ceiling would put a limit on how much you can role-play. This does not.

ComradeBear

2016-11-24, 02:47 PM

No, it certainly isn't. I downloaded the rules thinking there would be something there only to find a few vague sentances, was afraid I was missing so ething, because what I saw could have replaced "indulge vice" woth "take a long rest".

Out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a game withh a good mechanical system that encourages people to RP complex characters?

You can't overindulge on resting. Indulging your vices involves a roll, and potential risks. Indulging your vice is a gamble.

Taking a long rest is not. I'd re-read the rules for that.

On the second note, I've had no problems with PbtA systems in general. They encourage Roleplay just fine without really limiting it. Your Playbook will determine some generals about your personality, but nothing we don't expect. The Gunlugger is definitely NOT a pacifist, for instance. The reasons should be relatively obvious from the name. Brainers tend to be creepy or weird, but the How and Why of their puculiarities are up to you. Some brainers read your mind by staring into your eyes and caressing your temples. Others might do it, as one of my Brainers did, by wrappin their arms around you and placing their cheek against your cheek.... and just waiting a while. Some are more like doctors. Nothing REQUIRES that the brainer be creepy, mind you, but that playbook does it really well.

Skinners will be manipulative. (It's the socially-saavy manipulator class, after all) but they have an option on being beautiful or beguiling or a singer or a dancer, etc. That's up to them. (I've heard of a skinner who literally did on-stage torture as their art. So it's pretty open as far as options.)

What you get rewarded for is rolling certain highlighted moves (based on choices made at the start of the session) and for interacting with other characters/trying to learn more about them. (Generally speaking. Most xp comes from these two. But there are other sources as well.)

Most of my best roleplay has come out of Apocalypse World. *shrug*

Certainly leagues beyond what I ever got out of D&D.

All the rest of my best Roleplay came from Fall of Magic, but that's barely a system at all and more of a joint storytelling venture that features dice about once or twice per session.

Talakeal

2016-11-24, 03:18 PM

I haven't actually read Apocalypse world. I read the quick play rules for Dungeon World (which is a fantasy variant of Apocalypse World iirc?) and found it to be a fairly generic fantasy RPG with tighter than usual constraints, so I didn't pursue the system too deeply, but if you think it has the best RP mechanics I will take a look at it.

You can't overindulge on resting. Indulging your vices involves a roll, and potential risks. Indulging your vice is a gamble.

Taking a long rest is not. I'd re-read the rules for that.

You really like to take me to task on everything I say being absolutely literally true :p

I didn't mean that vices were mechanically identical to long rests (nor did I specify which system I was talking about; there are several where taking a long rest is indeed a gamble as there is a chance of attracting wandering monsters while sleeping or of your wounds turning septic). I just meant that there didn't seem to be a strong RP element to the vices and that they were more or less a recovery mechanic with the vice's actual nature being mostly irrelevant.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-24, 04:12 PM

One of the best reasons to read Dungeon World is that it's one of the best "How to GM well" guides out there.

Quertus

2016-11-24, 05:04 PM

A system which rewards completion of goals penalizes couch potatoes (fair enough), as well as penalizing attempts to roleplay characters who always leave things half-done (surely you've met people like this, no?).

On a different note, I, personally, don't like telling GMs what my goals are, so that I can "come by them honest".

As a simple example, one (2e D&D) campaign started with the characters being abducted from their various homeworlds. My character, Armus, collected soil samples from everyone's boots, and a single gold piece from each PC. As we encountered new characters, he continued this process. Later, he collected sand from a moving island, an angel's hair, scales and blood from several dragons, something I'll describe as a shard of a TARDIS, etc etc. When I had everything I needed, I presented my formula to the DM. Armus used his collected components to craft a not-so-cubic Cubic Gate, with each face tied to a different prime material world, so that he could get everyone home.

Personally, I would not have felt the same sense of accomplishment if the DM had been seeding my desired components throughout the campaign, knowing what I was trying to do, and how. And the same goes for anything else any of my characters have ever accomplished.

On a side note, despite my preferences, I've tried working with GMs to make certain things happen. For whatever reason, I've never had much luck trying to engineer a game with a GM. Saying that I would like X out of a game pretty well guarantees that I will not get X. :smallmad: So there's that.

So, the system you described penalizes certain styles of character, and certain styles of play, none of which (aside, perhaps, from the couch potato), seem inherently antithetical to to a good game.

Any reward system, by virtue of being less complex than human behavior, will display favoritism for certain play styles, and certain styles of character.

So perhaps calling it a floor and ceiling is a bit misleading. But there is a limit to how accurately one can portray their character before they run afoul of the rewards system, unless their character is perfectly in sync with the rewards system. When that reward is individual XP, this is a problem if the system really cares about equality (D&D 3.x); not so much when balance matters less (World of Darkness).

Now, if the party gets group rewards :smallcool: this removes the imbalance issue, at least. Everyone gets a cookie when you "do a good job" / push the button.

Personally, I prefer the idea of the group deciding what the group enjoys, and rewarding that, instead of the system hard-coding what gets rewarded. This puts the style that gets rewarded in the hands of the group, where it belongs.

Now, if role-playing is rewarded in some other way... Hmmm... Let me take this slowly.

I don't like the idea of people confusing role-playing with disadvantages, any more than I like them thinking role-playing is the talky bits, or role-playing is acting. So I don't like the idea of rewarding people (or the party) when characters' disadvantages come up in play. It feels like Pavlovian encouragement for wrong thinking.

But if everyone gets a cookie whenever Quertus casts Wall of Text, whether or not that is advantageous in the current situation, I think I'm fine with that.

If the fact that the system might penalize some in character decisions makes a ceiling, then every system that lacks social mechanics has a ceiling inherently, since "selling" another character's social influence or eve your own character's vices with nothing to mechanically enforce it nor reward/counterbalance the negatives means that the ceiling is inherent. You can push beyond it with effort, but only by playing the game part of the game deliberately worse.

This is an interesting idea. It's not the way things feel to me. Hmmm... yes, some role-playing, such as my signature wizard for whom this account is named, being tactically inept seems strictly disadvantageous. Of course, should he ever acquire a reputation based on his tactical ineptitude, his foes might start to underestimate him, not target him in combat, etc. Most parties would pay good money to not have to worry about protecting the wizard, yet Quertus could achieve that for free.

Quertus being verbose, with a penchant for large, obscure verbiage is neither inherently disadvantageous nor inherently advantageous. It is merely indicative of his particular style of communication. Similarly, different characters having distinct targeting priorities in combat is certainly role-playing, but, barring omniscient (and, perhaps even prescient) battlefield awareness, this is not necessarily significantly functionally different in play than just playing a war game.

systems that reward you for acting in a certain way for the purpose of encouraging rp will by definition discourage you from RPing in a way that falls outside of said certain way.

Agreed. This is... smarter than what I said.

Yeah, seems like you kinda became a Quertus-replacement for the discussion through agreeing with some of their arguments.

We are plural. We approve. :smallwink:

I tend to point out faulty logic as what it is, and will point out simple things like "making an Always/Never claim is a bad idea unless you're 100% certain there are no exceptions." Which is what you were doing. (All RP rules introduce a Floor AND a Ceiling.)

Well, by virtue of the complexity of human behavior, I am 100% certain that any rules set that correctly maps human behavior will be more complex than most gamers would care for. :smalltongue: Similarly, any "behavior encouragement" will not encourage role-playing; rather, it will encourage a particular style of role-playing a particular style of character. I am also fairly certain that, given infinite time, you could find a simple system that I cannot find fault with, because it speaks to my particular biases. I am also 100% certain (99% certain?) that gamers have brains that are inherently by definition complex enough to model human behavior. Granted, the whole floor / ceiling bit might not be the most intuitive way to express this otherwise mathematical concept.

My Artificial Intelligence courses taught me the math, not how to translate that to a discussion about role-playing. :smalltongue: That I'm struggling through on my own.

If you mean here "You did X behavior so here is a cookie," then yes. It will have a ceiling. But that is only one way to encourage RP among many. (Also literally the worst way.)

Sorry if you've explained this and I missed it, but what ways of encouraging role-playing are there, what do you consider best, and why?

The "soft ceiling" is a bad argument because it is is similar to saying that, since seat belts don't save 100% of lives in car crashes, they introduce a ceiling in severity of crash beyond which people die more often. While potentially technically true, as presented, the argument is being used to give a false impression that seat belts make more of a problem.

Similarly, thus, a "soft ceiling" argument that any RP-aiding mechanics lead to a "ceiling" on how much you can RP geared to suggest that RP-aiding mechanics are undesirable for that reason is relying on a false impression that such mechanics make it harder to RP past a certain point than lacking them would.

That is untrue; that would be a "hard ceiling".

It is either, therefore, a useless argument which contributes nothing, or a deliberately deceptive argument meant to convince by giving an impression contrary to the truth while claiming it is "a good argument" because it's true in the useless case. And then hoping nobody notices that that defense doesn't make it valid for the falseimpression about such mechanics that this bad argument gives.

Hmmm... To attempt to parallel... Every time I've worn a seat belt, I've died. I have come to understand, at least somewhat, why that is. I have found alternatives to seat belts that don't kill me. These alternatives have many advantages. Because some people associate seat belts with safety, they are unable to move beyond seat belts.

That's the best I can do at making that example for what I'm saying.

Ok, say a game makes you pick three personality traits and gives you a "cookie" every time you act in accordance with them.

Now, for people who would have less than three personality traits normally, this raises the floor on RP.

For people who have more than three traits normally they will have to pick three that are the most important for them. Other traits can still be used, but don't get them a "cookie", this is a form of diminishing returns, what you are describing as a "soft ceiling".

The problem, for me at least, is that when one of a character's unwritten traits conflicts with one of their written ones. In this case the character will have to choose between making a choice that they feel is true to their character or one that gets them a "cookie". If the nature of the "cookie" is a strong enough motivator they will pick it more often than not, thus providing what could be called a "hard ceiling", a point by which characters not only don't get a reward for further character development, but are actively punished for it as they do not get a reward where a simpler character would.

And this. When you reward something, you inherently detract from what is not that. When you limit your reward system to something manageable, it will inherently miss rewarding some parts of something as complex as human behavior.

Floret

2016-11-24, 08:04 PM

We are plural. We approve. :smallwink:

Your gender is unnkown to me, and therefor you are adressed in a neutral way. But if you want to be plural, just pretend all those are Plural-"you" :smalltongue:

A system which rewards completion of goals penalizes couch potatoes (fair enough), as well as penalizing attempts to roleplay characters who always leave things half-done (surely you've met people like this, no?).

(Note: In the following post I have reverted to what I called you out for and used "roleplaying" for... what I think is at least something close to what you are talking about, and not my own definition. Just fyi.)
I have. In some parts am one myself. I don't think I'd make a good RPG character, though. But I think there may be a different problem here again standing between us: The thing about RPGs being more than just one hobby.
And for the way I play them? I don't think "As realistic a person as possible" is, even if it might be achievable, an actually desirable goal. I find an interesting character, that can actually drive story, encounters, setting and other characters in interesting ways due to how they play off of each other much more rewarding. And for that, "As realistic a person as possible" might actually be a hindrance in some ways. "As realistic a person as possible" for me either hinders immersion or makes me revert back to "just myself, but in (insert genre)" more often than I'd like to, along with some other things I can't quite put into words. For actually playing a character, I personally strongly value the ability to "get into character" over the realism of the character itself.

Since how ever intensely I get into character, for the purposes of immersion, to play someone other than yourself? At least I personally have to be able to first reduce that character down to one central character trait, or maybe in extreme cases two or three, and then "let the character take it from there". I find it useless to develop a character in great detail before play, because they consistently develop themselves in play. Now, maybe my method is just weird (But far from self-developed).
To be fair, what results from this are characters, in the right moments indistinguishable from a real person. They might as well be real people. But they are not, they are somewhat overdrawn, which lends itself perfectly to intense character interaction. Since real, reasonable people can get somewhat boring if everyone is. No conflict if everyone constantly tries to compromise. (Alright, maybe this is more "not every real person would make for a great game character", but if we start filtering, where to stop? And why not overdraw a bit, to make the effect of the filtering just that bit greater?)
...Maybe my Roleplaying is just weird.

But with this method, one might be able to glean why I personally find no issue with such mechanics.

Well, by virtue of the complexity of human behavior, I am 100% certain that any rules set that correctly maps human behavior will be more complex than most gamers would care for. :smalltongue: Similarly, any "behavior encouragement" will not encourage role-playing; rather, it will encourage a particular style of role-playing a particular style of character. I am also fairly certain that, given infinite time, you could find a simple system that I cannot find fault with, because it speaks to my particular biases. I am also 100% certain (99% certain?) that gamers have brains that are inherently by definition complex enough to model human behavior. Granted, the whole floor / ceiling bit might not be the most intuitive way to express this otherwise mathematical concept.

My Artificial Intelligence courses taught me the math, not how to translate that to a discussion about role-playing. :smalltongue: That I'm struggling through on my own.

Oh, I find the terms to not be the problem, if I do not misunderstand them horribly.
But I would challenge the assumption that all gamers have brains that are complex enough to model human behaviour. This may be nitpicky, but: They are for sure complex enough to exhibit human behaviour. But to accurately simulate another person that is not "They, but in (Insert genre)"? This is a task I don't think many are up to. I know I am not, even with those characters I have literally stood in the shoes of. (For what I do instead, see above)

And this. When you reward something, you inherently detract from what is not that. When you limit your reward system to something manageable, it will inherently miss rewarding some parts of something as complex as human behavior.

Do you, though? Yeah, you elevate the rewarded thing over the things that are not the rewarded thing.
But: A player who plays the bare minimum, will be elevated by that. A player who plays somewhere above, will be unaffected, since they do appearantly, without such a system, still play a complex character. Now they are being rewarded for some parts of that, those they deem most important. I cannot see the fault in this.
I mean, by what you are saying, the "roleplaying" seems to be its own reward for you. Why complain when you get cookies for some of it?
I stand by my point of "If the system doesn't punish you for going above a certain limit, there is no actual ceiling". Everything else is player willingness to go beyond what the floor prescribes.

Talakeal

2016-11-24, 08:52 PM

I stand by my point of "If the system doesn't punish you for going above a certain limit, there is no actual ceiling". Everything else is player willingness to go beyond what the floor prescribes.

The difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment is purely semantic.

For example, in the World of Warcraft Beta they had an exhaustion penalty, where if you played too much you got half XP. People hated being "punished".

So, they halved all baseline XP rewards and then put in a "rested bonus" where you got double XP based on the amount of time you were online.

Cluedrew

2016-11-24, 10:29 PM

Out of curiosity, can you think of an example of a game withh a good mechanical system that encourages people to RP complex characters?Not really. Playing a character (as in more than a stat block) yes but in my experience they tend to be simpler games and so can only encourage so much complexity.

Still I think after you get people in the right mindset they can start progressing from there. Even other people in the group can set an example (the example can just be ignored) about how the game can be played. Attitude is important, so a system that says "'Who your character is' is more important than 'what your character is'" might be all you need.

... FATE I guess? I haven't gotten to play FATE yet but I have liked what I have seen of it.

On ... Positive vs. Negative Punishment: I think those are the terms. Anyways people do react slightly differently to applying a penalty and withholding a reward. Especially in this case when you can earn the reward and do extra for no cost, as opposed to having to stop before you get in trouble.

Quertus

2016-11-25, 01:51 AM

Your gender is unnkown to me, and therefor you are adressed in a neutral way. But if you want to be plural, just pretend all those are Plural-"you" :smalltongue:

Like most of my best characters, Quertus is plural. Which is what I found so amusing. So please continue.

His puppet master happens to have been born male, but does not consider that a particularly important detail, especially in a forum. :smalltongue:

(Note: In the following post I have reverted to what I called you out for and used "roleplaying" for... what I think is at least something close to what you are talking about, and not my own definition. Just fyi.)
I have. In some parts am one myself. I don't think I'd make a good RPG character, though. But I think there may be a different problem here again standing between us: The thing about RPGs being more than just one hobby.
And for the way I play them? I don't think "As realistic a person as possible" is, even if it might be achievable, an actually desirable goal. I find an interesting character, that can actually drive story, encounters, setting and other characters in interesting ways due to how they play off of each other much more rewarding. And for that, "As realistic a person as possible" might actually be a hindrance in some ways. "As realistic a person as possible" for me either hinders immersion or makes me revert back to "just myself, but in (insert genre)" more often than I'd like to, along with some other things I can't quite put into words. For actually playing a character, I personally strongly value the ability to "get into character" over the realism of the character itself.

Since how ever intensely I get into character, for the purposes of immersion, to play someone other than yourself? At least I personally have to be able to first reduce that character down to one central character trait, or maybe in extreme cases two or three, and then "let the character take it from there". I find it useless to develop a character in great detail before play, because they consistently develop themselves in play. Now, maybe my method is just weird (But far from self-developed).
To be fair, what results from this are characters, in the right moments indistinguishable from a real person. They might as well be real people. But they are not, they are somewhat overdrawn, which lends itself perfectly to intense character interaction. Since real, reasonable people can get somewhat boring if everyone is. No conflict if everyone constantly tries to compromise. (Alright, maybe this is more "not every real person would make for a great game character", but if we start filtering, where to stop? And why not overdraw a bit, to make the effect of the filtering just that bit greater?)
...Maybe my Roleplaying is just weird.

But with this method, one might be able to glean why I personally find no issue with such mechanics.

Oh, I find the terms to not be the problem, if I do not misunderstand them horribly.
But I would challenge the assumption that all gamers have brains that are complex enough to model human behaviour. This may be nitpicky, but: They are for sure complex enough to exhibit human behaviour. But to accurately simulate another person that is not "They, but in (Insert genre)"? This is a task I don't think many are up to. I know I am not, even with those characters I have literally stood in the shoes of. (For what I do instead, see above)

Do you, though? Yeah, you elevate the rewarded thing over the things that are not the rewarded thing.
But: A player who plays the bare minimum, will be elevated by that. A player who plays somewhere above, will be unaffected, since they do appearantly, without such a system, still play a complex character. Now they are being rewarded for some parts of that, those they deem most important. I cannot see the fault in this.
I mean, by what you are saying, the "roleplaying" seems to be its own reward for you. Why complain when you get cookies for some of it?
I stand by my point of "If the system doesn't punish you for going above a certain limit, there is no actual ceiling". Everything else is player willingness to go beyond what the floor prescribes.

Well, my role-playing style isn't exactly the norm, which is why I feel I have to go through so much effort to defend my niche. I have freely admitted (although perhaps not in this thread) that a good RP system will, on average, improve the role-playing at the table. This is largely irrelevant to my point, that such a system will hinder me. And, yes, for me, role-playing is its own reward.

Pure roleplay, at the level of realistic person, is actually not the perfect goal, although, until recently, it was my goal. I have learned that, despite its bad rap, metagaming has a time and place. For example, just because it would be in character for Quertus to summon spiders, if someone at the table is deathly afraid of spiders, metagaming is called for.

But, yes, I am weird, and aim for a very, very high level of role-playing. As others have mentioned, when role-playing comes into conflict with receiving a cookie - especially receiving a cookie in the name of "role-playing" - this makes me grumpy. When this cookie is something that matters - like XP in 3e D&D - that will permanently set my character behind the curve of the party (and I've been told for years that being behind in levels in 3e just isn't playable), well, it's rather strong encouragement to compromise your roleplay, get treat. I feel like there's a comic about that... and I, too, do not feel like I should agree with something that's wrong to get a treat. However, if failing to do so puts me behind levels in 3.x D&D, well, it's a no win situation. :smalleek:

My PC is complex enough to emulate a Mac, yet it cannot, because it lacks the appropriate software. Similarly, the human mind is complex enough to simulate a human mind, it simply lacks the training to do so.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-25, 04:06 AM

Ooh I just remembered an example of a mechanic I really love. Dwarven greed in Burning Wheel.

Lying in the heart of every Dwarf is a terrible seed - one of avarice, lust and greed. It is a strange facet of their nature. Some Dwarves manage hold it in check, others give in to it - acquiring all they desire in a bloody swath of war, murder and betrayal.

Mechanically every dwarf has a greed stat, ranging from 0 to 10. If a dwarf ever reaches 10 greed they go insane and lock themselves away in their vault with all of their worldly possessions. Dwarves can make use of their greed by adding it to their rolls when they pursue something they covet.

For example if a dwarf sees this beautiful jeweled crown on the head of the elven prince and he immediately draws his axe and tries to murder him for the crown, he can add all of his greed dice to the roll (a massive bonus). But in using greed like that the greet stat goes up, making it even more powerful the next time you give in to it, and bringing you one step closer to insanity and retirement.

Floret

2016-11-25, 05:04 AM

The difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment is purely semantic.

I mean, sure it is. And I am well familiar with that wonderful example^^ Maybe I should extend my point: "If the system does not punish you for going above a certain level of RP, if through giving out a punishment, or withholding a boon, it does not have a ceiling inherent to it."

Like most of my best characters, Quertus is plural. Which is what I found so amusing. So please continue.

His puppet master happens to have been born male, but does not consider that a particularly important detail, especially in a forum. :smalltongue:

Well. I shall. Surprising coincidences.

Well, my role-playing style isn't exactly the norm, which is why I feel I have to go through so much effort to defend my niche. I have freely admitted (although perhaps not in this thread) that a good RP system will, on average, improve the role-playing at the table. This is largely irrelevant to my point, that such a system will hinder me. And, yes, for me, role-playing is its own reward.

Pure roleplay, at the level of realistic person, is actually not the perfect goal, although, until recently, it was my goal. I have learned that, despite its bad rap, metagaming has a time and place. For example, just because it would be in character for Quertus to summon spiders, if someone at the table is deathly afraid of spiders, metagaming is called for.

Meh. The hell do I know if my style is the norm. It is the norm in my groups at TRPGs, though mostly because I field them together out of friends who share it in at least broad strokes, and, due to GMing, call for the rolls. So it is rather easy to have, for example, "Social skills are rolled, though acting out your speech is encouraged and may reduce Target numbers, so invest points if you want to be good at it" be the norm of a group. It's also the norm in LARPs, though I do follow, as I have alluded to in previous posts, very different approaches to roleplaying (Esp. in regards to freeform) when it comes to the two.
The question I am curious about is, however: How does it hinder you? This is probably related to the ceiling argument. I cannot, in such a system, see the inherent hindrance for RP?
(Also, Metagaming is not what I talked about when I said a realistic person might not be the ideal goal. What I meant was that a person who is less-than realistically overdrawn in their personal traits, and maybe even has a few "central words" to describe their character, is actually more beneficial to "productive" roleplaying than having a most realistic person. Having a really realistic character in my head and acting accordingly is all nice and well, but the main point for me at leas would be to have that character interact with others and with the world, and get reactions out of them. And for that, a rather extreme character can be extremely beneficial, nevermind their (however slight) lack of realism. Roleplaying, for me, is very centrally a group experience, and whatever goes on in my head is nice - but not ultimately what I play RPGs for.) (I do realise this might sound contradictory to some of my previous points about immersion, but it is not. I just don't quite know how to put WHY it's not in words.)

But, yes, I am weird, and aim for a very, very high level of role-playing. As others have mentioned, when role-playing comes into conflict with receiving a cookie - especially receiving a cookie in the name of "role-playing" - this makes me grumpy. When this cookie is something that matters - like XP in 3e D&D - that will permanently set my character behind the curve of the party (and I've been told for years that being behind in levels in 3e just isn't playable), well, it's rather strong encouragement to compromise your roleplay, get treat. I feel like there's a comic about that... and I, too, do not feel like I should agree with something that's wrong to get a treat. However, if failing to do so puts me behind levels in 3.x D&D, well, it's a no win situation. :smalleek:

My PC is complex enough to emulate a Mac, yet it cannot, because it lacks the appropriate software. Similarly, the human mind is complex enough to simulate a human mind, it simply lacks the training to do so.

(As an utter sidenote: This description what you give is why I brought up LARP in this thread to begin with, not knowing it would lead to such an utter derailing. I have yet to experience anything close in terms of "getting into character" in TRPGs. Where I play, maybe something similar to what you describe might actually be the norm.)
I would support you on the assertion, that if the system forces you to do something that you feel is wrong or out of character to reward you for staying in character, it has failed as a system. But maybe also that if you design a character so that this is bound to happen frequently enough to put you at a permanent disadvantage, maybe you should try to design a character that gels more with the actual systems. Different RPGs require different methods of character creation, and I feel this goes far beyond the pure mechanical. There is a reason why the "20 questions" for answering in character (For some reason always 20 when I come across them) are different depending on the system and setting.
I don't find this actually implements a ceiling, though, at least not in the hard and fast sense. It sets a ceiling on how contradictory a character can be in themselves (Which is a trait that humans have, yeah), but not actually automatically on the level of detail your character can have. The limit is less on the Roleplay, and more on the breadth of possible/viable character designs.

But is the human mind complex enough for that actually? I would like to see sources on that.
As I said, I can simulate what a character would do, if I have predefined a set number of "maximes" that character acts by, and maybe a backstory explaining those (No more than three, and something as "Hedonist" and "PTSD" would fall under maximes, as would "boisterous" or "scholarly". (Two characters of mine) Maybe traits would be a better word...). I can stay in character for days and do things I would never personally do IRL, but I don't actually believe the people as I play them would fare as 100% convincing humans. I mean, sure, they could be, but would probably be the sort of people you think of when you hear "Stereotype".
Though: Maybe I am doing exactly what you are doing, we just have very, very different ways of thinking about it and come to rather opposed views. No idea. I get a slight feeling this might be a matter of communication.

Segev

2016-11-25, 11:32 AM

The difference between withholding a reward and applying a punishment is purely semantic.
Applying that reasoning consistently, then, a system which never rewards making non-optimal decisions for role-playing reasons is always punishing role-playing that doesn't directly mechanically benefit you and the party.

So arguing that lacking RP-supporting mechanics is avoiding a ceiling is fundamentally wrong by that line of reasoning. The ceiling is "no RP at all," because there is no reward for it.

Which means you need RP/social mechanics to have the ceiling raised above "don't even try" at all. By the quoted argument.

ComradeBear

2016-11-25, 12:27 PM

A system which rewards completion of goals penalizes couch potatoes (fair enough), as well as penalizing attempts to roleplay characters who always leave things half-done (surely you've met people like this, no?).
If you want to play someone who never finishes their goals in SWN, you can.
You don't get punished. You just get less rewards.

It's a bit like saying that an A+ student getting cake and ice cream, and a B student getting just one or the other, means the B student is suddenly being punished. That's not how reward/punishment work. B Student is just getting fewer rewards.

(Not to mention someone who never finishes what they start is not going to be a good option for a game about going on space-quests with the intent to finish them.)
(Also you can still RP this person by setting smaller goals as part of a larger project and then abandoning said larger project.)

On a different note, I, personally, don't like telling GMs what my goals are, so that I can "come by them honest".

The GM assigns the XP values for the goals based on how hard they're going to be. (Mostly they have to just eyeball it, but it pretty much works. Generally I do it based on how many sessions it will probably take to complete it.)
I understand your reservation, but that's not feasible in SWN. *shrug*

As a simple example, one (2e D&D) campaign started with the characters being abducted from their various homeworlds. My character, Armus, collected soil samples from everyone's boots, and a single gold piece from each PC. As we encountered new characters, he continued this process. Later, he collected sand from a moving island, an angel's hair, scales and blood from several dragons, something I'll describe as a shard of a TARDIS, etc etc. When I had everything I needed, I presented my formula to the DM. Armus used his collected components to craft a not-so-cubic Cubic Gate, with each face tied to a different prime material world, so that he could get everyone home.

Personally, I would not have felt the same sense of accomplishment if the DM had been seeding my desired components throughout the campaign, knowing what I was trying to do, and how. And the same goes for anything else any of my characters have ever accomplished.

On a side note, despite my preferences, I've tried working with GMs to make certain things happen. For whatever reason, I've never had much luck trying to engineer a game with a GM. Saying that I would like X out of a game pretty well guarantees that I will not get X. :smallmad: So there's that.

I never seed stuff for their goals. They have to go looking for the stuff involved. Once they go looking I generally tell them what their character would already know, or where they would know to look. Depending on their background, etc. *shrug*

So, the system you described penalizes certain styles of character, and certain styles of play, none of which (aside, perhaps, from the couch potato), seem inherently antithetical to to a good game.

Just gonna rehash that fewer rewards is not the same as a penalty. (And also I showed how you could still go the route you described. You could even be a couch potato if you set your goal as "do nothing helpful this mission." You'd just get hardly any points for it.)

Any reward system, by virtue of being less complex than human behavior, will display favoritism for certain play styles, and certain styles of character.

perhaps calling it a floor and ceiling is a bit misleading. But there is a limit to how accurately one can portray their character before they run afoul of the rewards system, unless their character is perfectly in sync with the rewards system. When that reward is individual XP, this is a problem if the system really cares about equality (D&D 3.x); not so much when balance matters less (World of Darkness).

Now, if the party gets group rewards :smallcool: this removes the imbalance issue, at least. Everyone gets a cookie when you "do a good job" / push the button.

Personally, I prefer the idea of the group deciding what the group enjoys, and rewarding that, instead of the system hard-coding what gets rewarded. This puts the style that gets rewarded in the hands of the group, where it belongs.

There's no reason why you can't have a group goal in a system, defined by the group.

Now, if role-playing is rewarded in some other way... Hmmm... Let me take this slowly.

I don't like the idea of people confusing role-playing with disadvantages, any more than I like them thinking role-playing is the talky bits, or role-playing is acting. So I don't like the idea of rewarding people (or the party) when characters' disadvantages come up in play. It feels like Pavlovian encouragement for wrong thinking.

But if everyone gets a cookie whenever Quertus casts Wall of Text, whether or not that is advantageous in the current situation, I think I'm fine with that.

Well, pretty much all rewards are Pavlovian. Usually when someone describes Pavlovian rewards they mean Positive Reinforcement. Which is not the whole of what Pavlov figured out about modifying behavior.

Well, by virtue of the complexity of human behavior, I am 100% certain that any rules set that correctly maps human behavior will be more complex than most gamers would care for. :smalltongue: Similarly, any "behavior encouragement" will not encourage role-playing; rather, it will encourage a particular style of role-playing a particular style of character. I am also fairly certain that, given infinite time, you could find a simple system that I cannot find fault with, because it speaks to my particular biases. I am also 100% certain (99% certain?) that gamers have brains that are inherently by definition complex enough to model human behavior. Granted, the whole floor / ceiling bit might not be the most intuitive way to express this otherwise mathematical concept.

My Artificial Intelligence courses taught me the math, not how to translate that to a discussion about role-playing. :smalltongue: That I'm struggling through on my own.

I think you're still stuck on "roleplaying rules give a carrot for a specific behavior dictated in the rules, and this is how they all work."

Sorry if you've explained this and I missed it, but what ways of encouraging role-playing are there, what do you consider best, and why?

Usually the best allow a person to figure out what THEY want to get rewarded for in terms of character behavior.
Some examples:
-Bonds-
You and another character have a "bond." In other words, your character believes something about the other and wants to do something about it. For instance:
"Quertus is a dithering fool and unsuited for adventuring. I will put him back in a university, where he belongs."
Might be a belief held by Ragnar The Fighter.
When this Bond is resolved (aka, when both players agree that the Bond is no longer an accurate description of Ragnar's beliefs and goals, or maybe he achieves his goal, up to the players) both players involved get XP. (Yes, this does mean Ragnar gets XP for being convinced that Quertus is, indeed, worthwhile to have around. So does Quertus.) You can have multiple bonds with several party members. Limitations may or may not be imposed for bookkeeping reasons.

-Traits as done in Dogs in the Vineyard-
Traits in DitV are worded however you want. There are no set traits to choose from, though there are examples. They can be as vague or specific as you like.
Whenever one of your traits applies to the situation at hand, you can pull in extra dice based on the trait you're invoking. So for instance if you're casting out a demon and you have the trait "BEGONE, FOUL DEVIL!" then you can call upon that for extra dice right now. And maybe again later if a similar circumstance happens.

-Belief, Instinct, Goal-
I've already described these. System agnostic and easy to implement. Be as vague or specific as you want, make the rewards as permanent or temporary as makes sense. (Starting next session with a number of rerolls equal to how much of these points you got today is a good alternative to XP)
The Belief is basically your character's primary guiding principal, worded as a statement of belief.
"I am the strongest there is."
"I must bring honor to my family"
"The Way of Deep Seas must be punished."
Etc.
When you act on your belief during the session, congrats! You get a cookie at the end. (Again, this should be a thing the character is ALREADY DRIVEN TO DO.) Your belief may be changed at the beginning or end of any session.

Instinct is something your character habitually does.
"I always carry a gun" or
"I'm always sticking to the shadows." Or
"I never leave my spellbook out of arm's reach."
This has a dual purpose. Purpose 1 is to protect you from the GM saying "But you never SAID you brought your gun!" It's your instinct. Of course you brought it. Get your GMBS outta here.
Purpose 2 is, you get a point whenever your instinct causes you a problem. (You brough a gun along to a school function, perhaps.)
Basically, since the Instinct has a highly useful passive helpfulness, people don't angle to have it hurt them. Because that's less convenient than when the Instinct is helpful.

Goal is just what your character wants to accomplish. Similar to SWN, and once again worded however you want. But the reward is flat. (So working towards your goal and accomplishing the goal have similar outcomes.)

And this. When you reward something, you inherently detract from what is not that. When you limit your reward system to something manageable, it will inherently miss rewarding some parts of something as complex as human behavior.

Rewarding a dog for playing fetch does not prevent the dog from engaging in other activities. It will just enjoy playing fetch more. Especially if it was already playing fetch to begin with.

If what you WANT out of rhe game is to get as many cookies as possible, then yes. It will change the way you play. If you just want the opportunity to get cookies for what you're ALREADY DOING, there's not a problem. Just keep doing what you're already doing, and get cookies for it. That's the point of RP rules. For those who don't RP, now you have a reason.
For those who do already, now you'll actually get something for your effort. Maybe not always, but at least it's SOMETHING.

Talakeal

2016-11-25, 03:13 PM

If what you WANT out of rhe game is to get as many cookies as possible, then yes. It will change the way you play. If you just want the opportunity to get cookies for what you're ALREADY DOING, there's not a problem. Just keep doing what you're already doing, and get cookies for it. That's the point of RP rules. For those who don't RP, now you have a reason.
For those who do already, now you'll actually get something for your effort. Maybe not always, but at least it's SOMETHING.

Ok, let me give you a hypothetical:

You are playing in an RPG game. Everyone in their group is having fun and everyone is having a good time. Everyone gets 10 XP per session.

Then your GM adopts a new house-rule, the exact nature doesn't matter, but the end result is that everyone plays the exact same way they already did and everyone but ComradeBear now get's 20 XP per session, you still only get 10.

Would this not diminish your enjoyment of the game?

Stuff

I agree that perfect realism for a character is both impossible and neither expected nor desired. I prefer to say that I strive for more complex character motivations.

Applying that reasoning consistently, then, a system which never rewards making non-optimal decisions for role-playing reasons is always punishing role-playing that doesn't directly mechanically benefit you and the party.

So arguing that lacking RP-supporting mechanics is avoiding a ceiling is fundamentally wrong by that line of reasoning. The ceiling is "no RP at all," because there is no reward for it.

Which means you need RP/social mechanics to have the ceiling raised above "don't even try" at all. By the quoted argument.

If there are no rewards or punishments people will follow their natural instincts and do whatever they enjoy.

The basic premise of the whole floor / ceiling argument is that the reward has to be compelling enough to override people's natural instincts.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-25, 04:47 PM

Well, my role-playing style isn't exactly the norm, which is why I feel I have to go through so much effort to defend my niche. I have freely admitted (although perhaps not in this thread) that a good RP system will, on average, improve the role-playing at the table. This is largely irrelevant to my point, that such a system will hinder me. And, yes, for me, role-playing is its own reward.

Kinda the same here, to the point where I'm a bit insulting by games that feel the need to "carrot and stick" me into RPing.

And again, as I stated before, it's my character, not someone else's, and I'll decide what that character would feel, think, or attempt to do, in any given situation, not the GM, and not the game mechanics. End of story.

I refuse to play any game that tries to take the character away from the player.

Pure roleplay, at the level of realistic person, is actually not the perfect goal, although, until recently, it was my goal. I have learned that, despite its bad rap, metagaming has a time and place. For example, just because it would be in character for Quertus to summon spiders, if someone at the table is deathly afraid of spiders, metagaming is called for.

I wouldn't consider that metagaming -- I'd consider it common courtesy.

But, yes, I am weird, and aim for a very, very high level of role-playing. As others have mentioned, when role-playing comes into conflict with receiving a cookie - especially receiving a cookie in the name of "role-playing" - this makes me grumpy. When this cookie is something that matters - like XP in 3e D&D - that will permanently set my character behind the curve of the party (and I've been told for years that being behind in levels in 3e just isn't playable), well, it's rather strong encouragement to compromise your roleplay, get treat. I feel like there's a comic about that... and I, too, do not feel like I should agree with something that's wrong to get a treat. However, if failing to do so puts me behind levels in 3.x D&D, well, it's a no win situation. :smalleek:

Indeed.

And any game that makes me feel like I'm chosing between a cookie and playing my character as I see fit, I'm MORE likely to reject the cookie and do what I was going to do elsewise.

I agree that perfect realism for a character is both impossible and neither expected nor desired. I prefer to say that I strive for more complex character motivations.

Indeed.

"Perfect" is a canard. The point isn't that self-driven RPing of a character is perfect, the point is that it's more nuanced and complete than systemized/mechanized "RPing". And, demanding that self-driven RPing be perfect is holding it to a standard that mechanized "RPing" isn't being held to.

georgie_leech

2016-11-25, 04:49 PM

I refuse to play any game that tries to take the character away from the player.

How are spells like Mental Domination or Charm Person any different?

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-25, 05:16 PM

How are spells like Mental Domination or Charm Person any different?

There's a reason I give my characters the highest possible resistance to that kind of bullcrap.

Segev

2016-11-25, 06:02 PM

The basic premise of the whole floor / ceiling argument is that the reward has to be compelling enough to override people's natural instincts.

No, the premise is that they are compelling enough to cause the player to view the choices with the same sort of cost/benefit analysis that the character is experiencing on an emotional level.

Talakeal

2016-11-25, 06:33 PM

No, the premise is that they are compelling enough to cause the player to view the choices with the same sort of cost/benefit analysis that the character is experiencing on an emotional level.

I think we got off on different topics here somehow.

I was responding to your statement that people wouldn't do "anything" without some sort of threat or punishment, and I was saying that people would still do what they wanted to do / obey their natural instincts even without a reward or punishment being present.

Also, I whole heartedly disagree that these mechanics accomplish what you are claiming they do. That may be their intent, but that isn't how they play out in my experience.

If, for example, I have defeated an opponent. They are pitifully begging me for mercy. I know that if I spare their life they will only revert to their old ways and harm future innocents. My character is emotionally torn and conflicted about what they want to do. Adding a mechanics that rewards one of these choices (or punishes the other) doesn't simulate any sort of in character emotional analysis, it merely reduces a complex issue down to a black and white decision.

Cluedrew

2016-11-25, 07:15 PM

Then your GM adopts a new house-rule, the exact nature doesn't matter, but the end result is that everyone plays the exact same way they already did and everyone but ComradeBear now get's 20 XP per session, you still only get 10.

Would this not diminish your enjoyment of the game?I'm not ComradeBear, but I have been in too many games that have ended quickly and too few that have gone on for a long time to really care about character advancement. So it may annoy me for a moment, but that is about it.

If I am suddenly playing the game "wrong" and holding the group back, I would probably bow out. But the rest of the time I want to have fun, and if how I am playing is bringing me the most fun, why change?

The bonuses are guidelines more than actual rules.

ComradeBear

2016-11-25, 07:27 PM

Ok, let me give you a hypothetical:

You are playing in an RPG game. Everyone in their group is having fun and everyone is having a good time. Everyone gets 10 XP per session.

Then your GM adopts a new house-rule, the exact nature doesn't matter, but the end result is that everyone plays the exact same way they already did and everyone but ComradeBear now get's 20 XP per session, you still only get 10.

Would this not diminish your enjoyment of the game?

There are problems with this example, but I'll answer the question first:

Depends on the XP scale. If we're getting XP at the D&D scale, no. Not even a little. It won't end up mattering until many, many sessions in. And by that point the difference between individual levels will be miniscule.

If we're getting XP at the Apocalypse World scale.... well, in AW I'd have 0 problems because I don't need more XP to be really good at what I'm doing. Otherwise it would be so many levels shooting by each time that they probably don't mean anything.

The problem is the assumption that rewards MUST be permanent.

Everyone else gets 2 rerolls and I get one? Eh. I can change my approach according to the new homebrew rule depending on how much I care about that compared to how my character behaves. But I'm probably going to be largely indifferent.

And it also assumes it's an imposed behavior and not one that I get to choose. *shrug*

"Perfect" is a canard. The point isn't that self-driven RPing of a character is perfect, the point is that it's more nuanced and complete than systemized/mechanized "RPing". And, demanding that self-driven RPing be perfect is holding it to a standard that mechanized "RPing" isn't being held to.

But... the whole reason you don't use any system at all is because of a lack of a perfect system.
It is absolutely a standard that mechanized RP is being held to.
Hence why we point it the other way. If nobody cared that the systems were imperfect and was just saying that they hadn't experienced any good ones yet, then that would be different from "all RP systems are bad and do bad things because imperfect."

I'm not even arguing that RP systems aren't imperfect or don't lack impeccable nuance. But the idea that ALL of them are essentially "Do X thing the rules describe to get XP" is not accurate to the several ways of encouraging RP and rewarding it WITHOUT saying "do what the system says, and nothing else."

Like the examples I listed before of player-made goals, beliefs, bonds, and traits that behave in ways outside of granting permanent boons. Which allow you to figure out what the character will generally do anyways and write that down to cash in on later. If Angron The Red Angel is written to be a tortured, brain-altered and tragic rage monster, I can potentially set up a Belief, Instinct, and Goal setup that will go along with his character concept. (Angron is a Warhammer 40k Character, and one of a small handful with unexpected depth.)

(Below, I use the term "points." This is not necessarily XP. It could be Rerolls for next session, Fate Points, extra dice to throw in on rolls, whatever)
Belief:
"I always destroy what I care about."
If I act in accordance to/confirm that belief, then I get points. Notice how it gives me two avenues: If I actually DO destroy what I care about, then I've confirmed my belief. Points. If I am conflicted and I seek to distance myself from something I care about to keep myself from destroying it, points! And maybe later this belief will change.

Instinct:
"Always strike first."
Basically, I can guarantee myself that if a fight is going to start, I'm gonna throw the first punch.
Notice how it gives me a boost, essentially allowing me to say, when a social interaction turns violent, that I'm the one who initiates the violence. Neat!
And it might also get me in trouble. And if it does, neat! Complications make for good times. Plans that go off without a hitch are only fun if they're wacky or insanely elaborate. (But even Ocean's Eleven had complications) Oh, and I get points.

Goal:
"Make men tremble at the name of Angron!"
Was I big and scary today? Points!
Had I spread my legend a bit today? Points!
Did I use my mere name to intimidate someone this session? POINTS!

This is a complicated character, summarized by Belief, Instinct, and Goal. We know a lot about him. He has anger issues and is quick to resort to violence. He is prideful, boastful, and revels in being scary. He recognizes the destructiveness of his life, and so he distances himself from that which he holds dear to keep those things from getting swept up in the bloody storm surrounding him.

He's not simplified. We've merely pointed out his important edges.

He does not get rewarded for specific behaviors, but for acting in accordance to WHO HE IS. Which may be a wide variety of things.

And since none of these are set in stone, as we discover things that matter more to Angron than his current Belief, Instinct, or Goal, we can change those around to reflect his growth.

The point of these rules is not to DEFINE Angron. They're to describe what Angron is likely to do, think, and want and let him draw benefits from being what he is.

And that's how you do RP rules that, at the very least, don't suck.

Segev

2016-11-26, 01:43 AM

I think we got off on different topics here somehow.

I was responding to your statement that people wouldn't do "anything" without some sort of threat or punishment, and I was saying that people would still do what they wanted to do / obey their natural instincts even without a reward or punishment being present.
Re-read what I wrote.

I said that your logic, applied consistently, would suggest that. As your own beliefs are that that is not the case, you're not applying that logic consistently.

Also, I whole heartedly disagree that these mechanics accomplish what you are claiming they do. That may be their intent, but that isn't how they play out in my experience.

If, for example, I have defeated an opponent. They are pitifully begging me for mercy. I know that if I spare their life they will only revert to their old ways and harm future innocents. My character is emotionally torn and conflicted about what they want to do. Adding a mechanics that rewards one of these choices (or punishes the other) doesn't simulate any sort of in character emotional analysis, it merely reduces a complex issue down to a black and white decision.

How does it make it more black and white to give you an incentive on par with the emotional feeling your character would get from sparing him (or emotional pain from killing him)? It would seem more black and white when the only mechanical (dis)incentive is the knowledge that you will regret not having done so, vs. a sense that you think maybe your character "should" feel conflicted over it.

If, instead, mechanics give a suggestion in game terms how conflicted he feels, the decision seems less black and white. Mechanics are no longer at war with RP.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-26, 09:08 AM

I think we got off on different topics here somehow.

I was responding to your statement that people wouldn't do "anything" without some sort of threat or punishment, and I was saying that people would still do what they wanted to do / obey their natural instincts even without a reward or punishment being present.

I must have missed that -- yeah, the idea that people only act on reward/punishment is pure Skinnerian bunkus.

Also, I whole heartedly disagree that these mechanics accomplish what you are claiming they do. That may be their intent, but that isn't how they play out in my experience.

If, for example, I have defeated an opponent. They are pitifully begging me for mercy. I know that if I spare their life they will only revert to their old ways and harm future innocents. My character is emotionally torn and conflicted about what they want to do. Adding a mechanics that rewards one of these choices (or punishes the other) doesn't simulate any sort of in character emotional analysis, it merely reduces a complex issue down to a black and white decision.

Exactly. No mechanical system can emulate that emotional conflict, and the character's player either feels it, or they don't.

E: And I mean it can't emulate it at all. Not one bit. A mechanical carrot/stick system for "character personality" is entirely contrived, and either becomes about conforming to the carrot/stick for mechanical reasons, or becomes something that the player has to overcome in order to play the character rather than the numbers.

ComradeBear

2016-11-26, 10:01 AM

I must have missed that -- yeah, the idea that people only act on reward/punishment is pure Skinnerian bunkus.

I mean, there's evidence that when you break down human behavior a hell of a lot of it is based on whether the behavior gives us feel-good brain chemicals or feel-bad brain chemicals.

Even altruism makes us feel good, generally speaking. (And there's some evolutionary imperative to behave in such a manner, so it's a good thing we have that.)

But the idea that we only do things for immediate rewards (which isn't Skinnerian at all) is false. And usually what people mean when they talk about this stuff.

Exactly. No mechanical system can emulate that emotional conflict, and the character's player either feels it, or they don't.

I'm just gonna point out a thing that was said before by this poster. (Who is ignoring me, so whatever.) This just illustrates the failure to recognize double-standards.

...demanding that self-driven RPing be perfect is holding it to a standard that mechanized "RPing" isn't being held to.

And then mechanized RPing was held to that standard. Weeee!

Berenger

2016-11-26, 10:37 AM

It's a bit like saying that an A+ student getting cake and ice cream, and a B student getting just one or the other, means the B student is suddenly being punished. That's not how reward/punishment work. B Student is just getting fewer rewards.

I don't find that example particularly compelling.

Leaving aside the fact that trying to reinforce desired behaviour in children by giving sweets is a pretty terrible parenting idea, there are several other problems. First, players are generally not children or students that need to be disciplined by a parent or teacher figure. This is not appropriate behaviour among equals. Second, grades are (in theory, not always in practice) given according to strict rules and in an objective manner. This is possible in a math test where incorrect and correct answer can be scientifically proven or in sports where there are clear, visible goals. It is not possible in a pure leisure activity where the only relevant goal is "mutual enjoyment", unless you construct an objective, impartial scale to measure the amount of fun you each had and who was accountable for how many percent of fun. Third, to decide if a given amount of sweets constitutes a reward (more) or a punishment (less), you need to know how this amount correlates to the "standard amount of sweets" that is given for a "standard grade". Only if this standard amount of sweets is "none" (so that C grade students and below would never get sweets, which is just not reasonable in a sweets-based school), every amount of sweets given would still be a reward. Fourth, if the B student could have easily scored an A+ if he had learned with the A+ student instead of helping out in the homeless shelter two nights a week, the sweets system starts to encourage pure antisocial and unfun behaviour.

Amphetryon

2016-11-26, 12:45 PM

"We are having cake and ice cream. Only students who scored a B or better may participate. Only students who got an A+ will be given the ice cream."

Am I really the only one who sees the punitive nature of this arrangement?

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-26, 12:51 PM

I mean, there's evidence that when you break down human behavior a hell of a lot of it is based on whether the behavior gives us feel-good brain chemicals or feel-bad brain chemicals.

Even altruism makes us feel good, generally speaking. (And there's some evolutionary imperative to behave in such a manner, so it's a good thing we have that.)

But the idea that we only do things for immediate rewards (which isn't Skinnerian at all) is false. And usually what people mean when they talk about this stuff.

I'm just gonna point out a thing that was said before by this poster. (Who is ignoring me, so whatever.) This just illustrates the failure to recognize double-standards.

And then mechanized RPing was held to that standard. Weeee!

That sort of deliberately deceitful strawman "gotcha!" attempt is exactly why I have you on ignore -- you're more concerned with "winning" than with even making a halfway attempt to respond to what the other person is actually saying, and you do it over and over again.

The only place that mechanical RPing was held to the "perfection" standard was in your imagination. The problem isn't that mechanical RPing can't do it perfectly, the problem is that it cannot it do it AT ALL. Playing to the carrot/stick of a mechanical contrivance isn't playing the character, it's playing the system.

And then you have the gall to accuse anyone else of arguing in bad faith? Seriously, that takes come major cahones to just brazenly accuse anyone else of anything given your ongoing behavior.

(Sadly, ignore doesn't work if you forget to log in before reading a thread.)

Berenger

2016-11-26, 01:44 PM

Am I really the only one who sees the punitive nature of this arrangement?

No. Nononononono. Satisfied, forum?

Cluedrew

2016-11-26, 01:46 PM

I wonder if we are focusing in too narrowly. The general topic is (as I can recall) about playing character's who make bad decisions and the possibility of mechanics enforcing that. Using mechanics to create particular emotional responses in the player, is one way of doing it, but it is hardly the only reason someone would.

(Shout outs to, "because it will make the game more interesting".)

Say you are playing a game that has players react to surprises based on there moral. If they are feeling good they are likely to keep it together, if they are stressed out they may snap and lose control. So then your gambler can waste some of their share of pay, but get +2 moral because they had fun. Now it may actually be a valid tactical option from the player's point of view.

Actually it is there is some overlap in execution of this method and the emotional one. I think that is good because you can have a broader appeal with the same trick.

Talakeal

2016-11-26, 03:43 PM

Re-read what I wrote.
I said that your logic, applied consistently, would suggest that. As your own beliefs are that that is not the case, you're not applying that logic consistently.

Still not quite following you. Let me restate my position to see if we are on the same page:

The difference between a "reward" and a "punishment" is purely semantic as it is in relation to the baseline, which can be set wherever the rules / DM want it to.
Setting a low baseline and giving extra for good behavior is called a reward, and setting a high baseline and giving less for bad behavior is called a punishment, but when you have the freedom to move the baseline or determine what constitutes good vs. bad behavior the difference between the two is purely semantic.

Without a compelling system of reward / punishment to alter their behavior people will do what they enjoy doing (I suppose you could get technical and say that some people by nature choose to pursue goals that they don't enjoy, but that is another tangent).

A system that offers a sufficiently compelling reward to play within a certain range of behavior will get people to act in accordance with the rewarded behavior (or avoid punishable behavior if you like) rather than doing what they would normally enjoy.

If your goal is to force people to RP you need to either take away player autonomy or provide suitable rewards / punishments to get people to put some effort into RPing. This is a "floor".

No system designed by man will be complex enough to simulate a fully fleshed out human mind. There is some point where a character is too complex for the system to detect as good RP. Until we have true AI it will never be complex enough to fully simulate a human mind. You can make longer and more complex system if you like, but this will only lead to it being harder to use or remember and more easily exploitable by rules lawyers.

If a player's natural inclination is to play at this level they will have to simplify their behavior to get the reward / avoid the punishment. If the reward / punishment is compelling enough to get the non-RPer to increase complexity it is likely to be compelling enough to get the high complexity RPer to do so, hence the "ceiling".

Now, what I think you are saying is that you (like me) want to do suboptimal things for the sake of RP. You also want a mechanical reward for RPing so that it is a compelling choice from an OOC perspective, you can either go for the tactically sound option or the RP option that grants some sort of mechanical "cookie" to offset the lack of good tactics.

And I can get behind this conceptually.

The problem is that such a system would be impossible to actual balance by the rules as the actual benefits in any situation are virtually impossible to analyze, certainly not on the fly. or to catalogue in a book. It also means that you will have to have long in depth conversations with the Game Master about your character's motives, personality, intentions, and thought process; this is, imo unfavorable because it slows down the game, ruins the "surprise" factor, always makes me feel like I am being judged, and opens the door to really vicious arguments.

The system I am toying with for my own game is that you can pick any number of personality quirks at character creation. You then go over them with the GM and determine exactly what they mean so that you are both on the same page before the game starts. In play whenever the player and GM agree that the character has made a tangible sacrifice or clearly suboptimal choice to act in accordance with their mental quirk that character gets a floating reroll for the remainder of the session. You also add or remove a single quirk between each session to represent character growth.

Now, the only problem is how to limit this so people don't just take a billion quirks and ignore them 99% of the time. I am thinking either limiting the number (not optimal), or reducing the characters pool or morale (floating bonuses that can be applied to any roll) every time they blatantly ignore or act against their quirk. But I don't like the punitive nature of this solution.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-26, 04:23 PM

Floret

2016-11-26, 05:13 PM

Exactly. No mechanical system can emulate that emotional conflict, and the character's player either feels it, or they don't.

E: And I mean it can't emulate it at all. Not one bit. A mechanical carrot/stick system for "character personality" is entirely contrived, and either becomes about conforming to the carrot/stick for mechanical reasons, or becomes something that the player has to overcome in order to play the character rather than the numbers.

...actually I would challenge that. Because you are looking at it from the assumption of "Do one thing and get reward, do other thing and don't", and, yeah, there is little conflict there.
But as soon as you have a system that potentially rewards both sides, or has "This gives a simple reward" and one "This gives a bigger reward, but at a cost/risk" then you have a mechanical system where, given the tradeoff is balanced, you have mechanical options to do one or the other, thereby simulating the character being torn.
You are still arguing against only a part of these systems.

Also: Any system will likely be just as contrived. You are separating out "character" as the one thing that may not be touched by the rules - which, fair enough, is a thing you can do and a preference you can have. But it is one that to me seems... rather weird. But this is the same discussion we in another thread did not manage to come to a sastisfying understanding on.

jayem

2016-11-26, 05:56 PM

To me, that just ends up either with the player of the "gambler" character having the character go gamble for the bonus, or the player having to "swim upstream" against the mechanics every time they decide the character would do something else.

But then in a situation where he's having to swim upstream against the mechanics,
a) it either corresponds to the character swimming upstream against his instincts against his instincts for no reason (I.E bad role play)
b) it corresponds to the character swimming upstream against his instincts for a higher need (in which case taking the hit is exactly what good role play would involve, and the game is right to make that not his fault)
c) it corresponds to a deeper rule about the immediate situation (the three shells game isn't a gamble), in which case the GM has to modify things anyway
d) it corresponds to a deeper rule about the wider situation (yes playing cards helps me unwind, but in battle I don't joke, or vice versa) which in this case:
if the effect is less valid more times than it is, you're not really a "gambler" (and could lead to false positives, but it's the players/gm fault not the games), role play and take the hit on the exceptions.
if it is and you didn't apply the rule then you have to swim upstream every time it's more convenient to ignore it, (so even worse without it).
if it is and you did chose to go with it, just roleplay and take the hit on the exceptions.
and if it did have genuine split situations, talk first, and maybe arrange to be a bespoke 'pub gambler' class and get the roleplay/mechanics even better aligned.
e) it corresponds to the character being miscast temporally in the first case, if you meant to be a puritan fighting old gambling urges, then not being a 'gambler' is a better description of you than a 'gambler'
f) the character is changing midgame, where there would be difficulties. But frankly there's no difficulty in giving up a vice which didn't exist, in which case it's more improv theatre role-play than game role play. Which is perfectly fine, but if that's the predetermined route you want to go then it's the choice. If as a result of something happening in the game, then a character change should either be a slow result of events or as the result of something shocking (in both cases you have the chance and good reason to speak to the GM and work something out). But it may be the case that you get railroaded, into being vaguely consistent (but at least if they are the rules you chose you know them).

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-26, 06:44 PM

But then in a situation where he's having to swim upstream against the mechanics,
a) it either corresponds to the character swimming upstream against his instincts against his instincts for no reason (I.E bad role play)
b) it corresponds to the character swimming upstream against his instincts for a higher need (in which case taking the hit is exactly what good role play would involve, and the game is right to make that not his fault)
c) it corresponds to a deeper rule about the immediate situation (the three shells game isn't a gamble), in which case the GM has to modify things anyway
d) it corresponds to a deeper rule about the wider situation (yes playing cards helps me unwind, but in battle I don't joke, or vice versa) which in this case:
if the effect is less valid more times than it is, you're not really a "gambler" (and could lead to false positives, but it's the players/gm fault not the games), role play and take the hit on the exceptions.
if it is and you didn't apply the rule then you have to swim upstream every time it's more convenient to ignore it, (so even worse without it).
if it is and you did chose to go with it, just roleplay and take the hit on the exceptions.
and if it did have genuine split situations, talk first, and maybe arrange to be a bespoke 'pub gambler' class and get the roleplay/mechanics even better aligned.
e) it corresponds to the character being miscast temporally in the first case, if you meant to be a puritan fighting old gambling urges, then not being a 'gambler' is a better description of you than a 'gambler'
f) the character is changing midgame, where there would be difficulties. But frankly there's no difficulty in giving up a vice which didn't exist, in which case it's more improv theatre role-play than game role play. Which is perfectly fine, but if that's the predetermined route you want to go then it's the choice. If as a result of something happening in the game, then a character change should either be a slow result of events or as the result of something shocking (in both cases you have the chance and good reason to speak to the GM and work something out). But it may be the case that you get railroaded, into being vaguely consistent (but at least if they are the rules you chose you know them).

Or most people are more complicated than "He has the gambler trait, so he gambles all the time no matter what".

Talakeal

2016-11-26, 06:44 PM

But then in a situation where he's having to swim upstream against the mechanics,
a) it either corresponds to the character swimming upstream against his instincts against his instincts for no reason (I.E bad role play)
b) it corresponds to the character swimming upstream against his instincts for a higher need (in which case taking the hit is exactly what good role play would involve, and the game is right to make that not his fault)
c) it corresponds to a deeper rule about the immediate situation (the three shells game isn't a gamble), in which case the GM has to modify things anyway
d) it corresponds to a deeper rule about the wider situation (yes playing cards helps me unwind, but in battle I don't joke, or vice versa) which in this case:
if the effect is less valid more times than it is, you're not really a "gambler" (and could lead to false positives, but it's the players/gm fault not the games), role play and take the hit on the exceptions.
if it is and you didn't apply the rule then you have to swim upstream every time it's more convenient to ignore it, (so even worse without it).
if it is and you did chose to go with it, just roleplay and take the hit on the exceptions.
and if it did have genuine split situations, talk first, and maybe arrange to be a bespoke 'pub gambler' class and get the roleplay/mechanics even better aligned.
e) it corresponds to the character being miscast temporally in the first case, if you meant to be a puritan fighting old gambling urges, then not being a 'gambler' is a better description of you than a 'gambler'
f) the character is changing midgame, where there would be difficulties. But frankly there's no difficulty in giving up a vice which didn't exist, in which case it's more improv theatre role-play than game role play. Which is perfectly fine, but if that's the predetermined route you want to go then it's the choice. If as a result of something happening in the game, then a character change should either be a slow result of events or as the result of something shocking (in both cases you have the chance and good reason to speak to the GM and work something out). But it may be the case that you get railroaded, into being vaguely consistent (but at least if they are the rules you chose you know them).

I agree with most of what you said (although I don't think occasionally being inconsistent in necessarily bad roleplaying, real people act out of character for no real reason all the time, and even fictional character's best stories are often one's were circumstances led them to break out of their usual role) but I have to ask, why?

You wrote out a long list of all the situations where having such rules could create problems and people have to jump through all these extra steps to avoid the pitfalls, but for what benefit?

If I have to write out a hundred page summary of my character's personality traits (and then force the GM to read and understand it) and am still constantly upset because the game punishes (or fails to reward) what I consider to be good RP, then why have the system at all? It seems to be a whole lost of cost with almost no benefit.

jayem

2016-11-26, 07:31 PM

I agree with most of what you said (although I don't think occasionally being inconsistent in necessarily bad roleplaying, real people act out of character for no real reason all the time, and even fictional character's best stories are often one's were circumstances led them to break out of their usual role) but I have to ask, why?

You wrote out a long list of all the situations where having such rules could create problems and people have to jump through all these extra steps to avoid the pitfalls, but for what benefit?

If I have to write out a hundred page summary of my character's personality traits (and then force the GM to read and understand it) and am still constantly upset because the game punishes (or fails to reward) what I consider to be good RP, then why have the system at all? It seems to be a whole lost of cost with almost no benefit.

I may have been a bit unfair with (a). Though I'd say the best are when circumstances led them to break down.
I don't think you'd need that much of a discussion.
(b) is the rules behaving as they ought.
(e) should be fixed before starting the game

(c) type situations the discussion really ought to have mostly happened as part of character dialog (and even in the more free form role play the issue really needs resolving).
While (d)&(f) only occur where the player wants the character to be in both camps, and the hoops get stretched.
In (d) you have a fair idea what rules apply with a simple comment. There may be some boundary cases. But you've gained the benefits, and if it's not worth the time then being a simpler character is an option .
In (f) you have a fair idea what rules apply at what time. And if personality development is as much a part as other XP development then the time will be needed anyway, it just means everyones aware.
If after stretching those hoop, the game still unfairly punishes 'good rp' then it may be that the rules aren't right for the game you want to play, but it may be that the GM&other PC's end up 'punishing good rp' anyway.

Or most people are more complicated than "He has the gambler trait, so he gambles all the time no matter what".

If I thought they weren't I could have left at point a. It's not perfect. But the alternative also isn't perfect, either.

Amphetryon

2016-11-26, 07:44 PM

If I have to write out a hundred page summary of my character's personality traits (and then force the GM to read and understand it) and am still constantly upset because the game punishes (or fails to reward) what I consider to be good RP, then why have the system at all? It seems to be a whole lost of cost with almost no benefit.
1. 'Have to write out a hundred page summary' reads as hyperbolic both in 'have to' and the length of the summary 'required.' Is it your belief that this level of hyperbole helps your argument?

2. If you're making a Character whose traits are a poor fit for the game, you can generally expect to get less from the game. Creating a chess grandmaster with limited physical prowess for a game about physical confrontations with monsters is less effective in that circumstance, but this is not a failing of the game.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-26, 07:54 PM

If I thought they weren't I could have left at point a. It's not perfect. But the alternative also isn't perfect, either.

"Perfect" isn't, or at least shouldn't be, the goal.

The goal, at least for me, would be to find a way to encourage the player to get inside the character's head.

The mechanical ways of doing this that I've seen -- in games and suggested here -- are all worse than the player making their best attempt at it, and come at the costs of oversimplifying the matter, and reducing player control over their character.

Talakeal

2016-11-26, 08:04 PM

1. 'Have to write out a hundred page summary' reads as hyperbolic both in 'have to' and the length of the summary 'required.' Is it your belief that this level of hyperbole helps your argument?

2. If you're making a Character whose traits are a poor fit for the game, you can generally expect to get less from the game. Creating a chess grandmaster with limited physical prowess for a game about physical confrontations with monsters is less effective in that circumstance, but this is not a failing of the game.

1: I don't see it as hyperbole at all, in fact 100 pages is kind of lowballing it; we are talking about a guide to all of my character's personality traits and how they interact with one another and how they apply in any given situation, that is going to be a seriously weighty tome.

Unless I misread Jayem's point he is saying that any sort of problem or misunderstanding that is going to arise from such a system can be fixed by simply writing out exactly how the character's traits apply in any given situation.

2: Absolutely agree. That's kind of my point, putting in rules to enforce player behavior is going to limit the number of possible characters.

Cluedrew

2016-11-26, 08:16 PM

To jayem: I like your analysis. I have to particular comment about it but I like the look of it.

Or most people are more complicated than "He has the gambler trait, so he gambles all the time no matter what".I did not mean to suggest that the gambler trait is the only thing on the character sheet. Nor that gambler trait meant gambling addition, more enjoys a few hands of poker (and might spend a little more than they should on occasion), but that can go either way.

Something else I didn't say (although you didn't say I said this one, I'm just clarifying... does relate to what Talakeal is saying) is that everything about a character's personality should be encoded on the character sheet. Besides the fact that would be effectively impossible, it would be wasted effort as a lot of it would not come up in a game, it would hinder a player's ability to develop the nuisances of a character in play and I imagine it would make calculating any mechanical effects of that personality an absolute nightmare.

I do however believe that there is room for using significant (as in important) parts of a character's personality as mechanical effects. And yes you don't have to, but you can get interesting mechanics out of it.

jayem

2016-11-27, 04:15 AM

Floret

2016-11-27, 08:48 AM

1: I don't see it as hyperbole at all, in fact 100 pages is kind of lowballing it; we are talking about a guide to all of my character's personality traits and how they interact with one another and how they apply in any given situation, that is going to be a seriously weighty tome.

Unless I misread Jayem's point he is saying that any sort of problem or misunderstanding that is going to arise from such a system can be fixed by simply writing out exactly how the character's traits apply in any given situation.

2: Absolutely agree. That's kind of my point, putting in rules to enforce player behavior is going to limit the number of possible characters.

1. I would highly, highly doubt you can go into 100 pages on character traits alone, if you don't ALSO list a full list of each time it came up during their life, from birth on, and a full histoy of how they formed and changed. At which point you are no longer actually writing down character traits.
Any character that is written up in a so complex fashion that at every point you have to think about "what would character x do in this situation", which is bound to come up with 100 pages of possibly contradictory character traits, would just hinder your ability to actually get "into character" (Or at least it highly does with mine). The point of being "in character", as I understand the term, is to just KNOW what the character would do intuitively. I have a very hard time believing that you can actually juggle that amount (or even, leaving out character backstory, a full page) of character traits and keep them all in mind. It strikes me as completely and utterly impossible, if you insist it is not hyperbolical.

2. And why is that necessary a bad thing? A system should allow exactly the amount of characters it needs and it works with. I don't need the rules of Shadowrun to support playing characters utterly opposed to crime (Even though they can be hacked to do it), because that is not what the game is about. I don't need the rules of FATE to support couch potatoes, the system is about Proactive characters and meant for that.
Limiting the number of possible characters would strike me as a neutral to positive thing, in most instances. Yes, many systems support a large amount of characters, but any system that limits itself and its focus in that regard mostly does so with intent. Now you can criticise that there are systems that adress a very specific niche... but why would you? Noone forces you to play them.

ComradeBear

2016-11-27, 09:38 AM

The problem isn't that mechanical RPing can't do it perfectly, the problem is that it cannot it do it AT ALL.

That's a distinction without a difference.

And you'll have to debunk a LOT of evidence to the contrary to assert that mechanising RP literally does nothing to assist RP for anyone, ever, at any time. Which would be what "cannot do it at all" would mean when applied. (Ie, if glue cannot stick metal to wood AT ALL, then that means it will never get metal to stick to wood. Ever. Because it cannot.)

Making your statement bold and italicized doesn't make it any more true.

Also, I don't need to want to be right to point out a double standard.

"Perfect" isn't, or at least shouldn't be, the goal.

The goal, at least for me, would be to find a way to encourage the player to get inside the character's head.
Any of the three alternarives I've listed of player-defined options work for this just fine.
Hell, I had two players who never actually RPd before go from not caring,(Playing D&D with basically no RP rules) to lengthy backstories just because I switched to Apocalypse World. (Which has some RP rules.)
Take that as you will.

The mechanical ways of doing this that I've seen -- in games and suggested here -- are all worse than the player making their best attempt at it, and come at the costs of oversimplifying the matter, and reducing player control over their character.

Simplification =/= reduced control.
That, and most characters (yes, even ones created by Shakespeare and other legends) can be reduced down to only a small handful of traits. And there is a sweet spot. More complicated characters are not inherently better. Most overlycomplex characters become either confusing or tiring. Shylock is not a particularly complex character, but he has been hotly debated by actors, literary professors, and students for literally hundreds of years, due to a few seemingly conflicting choices and behaviors. (And the state of Shakespeare's environment, of course.)

If Merchant of Venice was an RPG, I could describe pretty much all the stuff he has going on via Belief, Instinct, Goal, and maaaybe one Bond. And yet he's considered one of the most deep and human characters ever. Listing out a Belief, Instinct, and Goal for him don't do anything to Him or how he's being portrayed. But you could get to the end of the play and say "how many of these did he hit on?" And if we wrote them well, it will be all three. Every time.

Talakeal

2016-11-27, 02:23 PM

That, and most characters (yes, even ones created by Shakespeare and other legends) can be reduced down to only a small handful of traits. And there is a sweet spot. More complicated characters are not inherently better. Most overlycomplex characters become either confusing or tiring. Shylock is not a particularly complex character, but he has been hotly debated by actors, literary professors, and students for literally hundreds of years, due to a few seemingly conflicting choices and behaviors. (And the state of Shakespeare's environment, of course.)

If Merchant of Venice was an RPG, I could describe pretty much all the stuff he has going on via Belief, Instinct, Goal, and maaaybe one Bond. And yet he's considered one of the most deep and human characters ever. Listing out a Belief, Instinct, and Goal for him don't do anything to Him or how he's being portrayed. But you could get to the end of the play and say "how many of these did he hit on?" And if we wrote them well, it will be all three. Every time.

But that is a single story, to which the outcome is already known, and to which there is only a single offer.

Could you do the same thing to character from a long running television series? In retrospect probably, if given the freedom to change your traits retroactively once the episode was seen; but how could you plan it out before hand? Even the author doesn't often know how a story will end before it is finished, and they have the advantage of controlling everything, unlike a typical RPG where that responsibility is split up between several players and a GM.

1. I would highly, highly doubt you can go into 100 pages on character traits alone, if you don't ALSO list a full list of each time it came up during their life, from birth on, and a full histoy of how they formed and changed. At which point you are no longer actually writing down character traits.
Any character that is written up in a so complex fashion that at every point you have to think about "what would character x do in this situation", which is bound to come up with 100 pages of possibly contradictory character traits, would just hinder your ability to actually get "into character" (Or at least it highly does with mine). The point of being "in character", as I understand the term, is to just KNOW what the character would do intuitively. I have a very hard time believing that you can actually juggle that amount (or even, leaving out character backstory, a full page) of character traits and keep them all in mind. It strikes me as completely and utterly impossible, if you insist it is not hyperbolical.

2. And why is that necessary a bad thing? A system should allow exactly the amount of characters it needs and it works with. I don't need the rules of Shadowrun to support playing characters utterly opposed to crime (Even though they can be hacked to do it), because that is not what the game is about. I don't need the rules of FATE to support couch potatoes, the system is about Proactive characters and meant for that.
Limiting the number of possible characters would strike me as a neutral to positive thing, in most instances. Yes, many systems support a large amount of characters, but any system that limits itself and its focus in that regard mostly does so with intent. Now you can criticise that there are systems that adress a very specific niche... but why would you? Noone forces you to play them.

1:

Not just a list of traits; it is a list of how the traits are to be applied in every situation and a hierarchy of how each trait reacts with every other trait.

And no, this absolutely isn't ideal, and I would much prefer being able to improve it on the fly, there is no way I could memorize or easily use such a tome, but I was going by the premise that we need to have codified rules for PC behavior.

Keep in mind, I have PCs that I have been playing on and off for over 20 years, that is a lot of character to try and write down on paper.

2:
I find that limitations don't add anything to the system. They might help for an individual campaign, to keep the PCs together and motivated to follow whatever plot outline the GM has prepared, but as a limitation on the system I don't see it. Maybe for a short term gimmick game, but for a full on tool-box RPG from which you are expected to derive long running campaigns, no way.

To go back to my earlier example, my group played Mage for three years without any problems getting people to RP. Indeed there was too much RP more often than not, we had so many dramatic personalities and personal goals that we often had trouble fitting everything in. Then we switched to Scion, a system with heavy rules for how you RP but an otherwise similar setting and rules set. Do you actually think that if the RP rules had been left out of our copies of Scion we wouldn't have been able to keep on RPing the way we always had?

Also, in D&D I have never seen a game where the alignment restrictions or codes of conduct on classes have improved the experience for anyone. I have never heard anyone complain that they just don't know how to RP a rogue and are so glad that bards can't be lawful. I have, on the other hand, heard (and experienced) seemingly endless wailing and gnashing of teeth in response to the paladins code.

jayem

2016-11-27, 03:00 PM

ComradeBear

2016-11-27, 04:21 PM

But that is a single story, to which the outcome is already known, and to which there is only a single offer.

Could you do the same thing to character from a long running television series? In retrospect probably, if given the freedom to change your traits retroactively once the episode was seen; but how could you plan it out before hand? Even the author doesn't often know how a story will end before it is finished, and they have the advantage of controlling everything, unlike a typical RPG where that responsibility is split up between several players and a GM.

In short, yes. I could. Very, very easily. (Unless the character is not consistent at all. But if they're inconsistent due to insanity, Yes again.)
I should also have included that for Belief, Instinct, and Goal for Shylock, he would only get 2/3. Because he certainly fails his goal.

Authors of series DO know what motivates their character going into an episode, or season. Yes, that can change. But often we will be aware when it does.

I will grant that as consumers of media we must work backwards.
But as someone who has done writing, establishing the most important basic tenants of a character's motivations allows you to extrapolate the rest.

That's not only common writing practice, but good writing practice. And it also ties into, according to the very few actor friends I have, the way actors put on their characters. Roleplaying being a fusion of Author and Actor, I'm really not surprised that there are common points in characterization with those two worlds.

Talakeal

2016-11-27, 04:54 PM

In short, yes. I could. Very, very easily. (Unless the character is not consistent at all. But if they're inconsistent due to insanity, Yes again.)
I should also have included that for Belief, Instinct, and Goal for Shylock, he would only get 2/3. Because he certainly fails his goal.

Authors of series DO know what motivates their character going into an episode, or season. Yes, that can change. But often we will be aware when it does.

I will grant that as consumers of media we must work backwards.
But as someone who has done writing, establishing the most important basic tenants of a character's motivations allows you to extrapolate the rest.

That's not only common writing practice, but good writing practice. And it also ties into, according to the very few actor friends I have, the way actors put on their characters. Roleplaying being a fusion of Author and Actor, I'm really not surprised that there are common points in characterization with those two worlds.

Do you know where there is a more detailed write up of the BIG system? I am seeing that it seems to come from Mousegard, but not many of the details.

I am curious as to the details and what the system actually does.

I would think there would have to be a very narrow sweet spot where the goals are narrow enough to be useful but not so narrow as to be restrictive.

I also cant imagine how such a system doesnt hinder character growth; how would one use them in a remption story, for example A Christmas Carol or How the Grinch Stole Christmas which are all about the protaganist learning they were wrong and reevaluating their priorities in life?

Quertus

2016-11-27, 05:40 PM

I keep trying to cast Wall of Text, and the forum keeps eating it. So no individual replies.

There's a few minor differences between my stance and that of Max or T~; for example, I have no problems with supernatural mind control in a game. But, for the most part, we seem to be on the same chapter, if not the same page. So, they've said a lot of what I'd be saying if the site hadn't taken Improved Counterspell.

So let me say a few things I haven't seen them say, that may be specific to me.

Suppose D&D combat had always been resolved with padded weapons. Further, suppose that's one of the major draws of the game for me. Then, after decades of fun, someone comes along, and decides to implement combat resolution via dice. No. A tactical combat minigame is just not the same as (mock) combat. It doesn't scratch the same itch.

Similarly, a lot of proposed role-playing aids are really just emotion simulators, that don't scratch the same itch as role-playing does.

So, what about the lighter touch of rewarding role-playing? Don't I like the idea of giving people incentives to RP their characters?

Here, the problem is the level of granularity. Sitcom level caricature characters will be rewarded more than more complex / more realistic personalities. You're not rewarding role-playing, you're rewarding following a particular oversimplification of a personality. To crib on a previous example, it's like giving A students cake, and giving B students cake and ice cream.

But is it worth it, since the end result is to get so many more B students? Meh. As I've said before, one does not need to roleplay to play with Quertus' puppeteer. Sure, it's a nice bonus if they do, but I'd rather game with players just playing undead Battletech with characters with all the personality of wet cardboard than have to fight the system to roleplay my character.

Ok, fine, but would a rose by any other name smell as sweet? And here's where I act like an inconsistent human being. Despite the fact that rewards and punishment feel like equivalent mechanics (which they generally are), you can use many of the same mechanics, but replace the "role-playing" connotations from them, and I'll be less likely to object. Rules to enforce theme, like a horror theme rule where, after a half dozen people have have down the stairs and not returned, you get a bonus if you hold the idiot ball, and go down the stairs after them? Fine. I'll either roleplay my character correctly and ignore the theme, or choose a character who will be more likely to push button, get treat.

Say that you get to pick X traits, and you get a mechanical bonus when you can legitimize using said trait? Great. Neither "verbose" nor "bad at combat" sounds particularly optimal options to pick as traits, but I'll figure something out ("better than the gods at understanding and utilizing magic" might be a more optimal choice).

"I'm no War Mage. I'm not trained in combat. I really should be back in the academy, not out adventuring" is certainly one of Quertus' Beliefs. It is just usually less important than, say, his morals, or his sense of civic responsibility. Otherwise, I'd probably have had to retire my signature character long ago. So systems which require an oversimplification of Quertus could easily model his behavior very incorrectly.

Now, should Quertus every accomplish his goal (one of very, very many) that "it sure would be nice if I could train a competent apprentice - someone I could trust to look over the world, worlds, universe, multiverse, time, reality, and magic", well, then he probably would retire. Once again, this is fortunately a lower-priority goal, and one which none of his apprentices have met.

Modeling Quertus fully, so that someone else could play him reasonably close to the way I do would require way more than 100 pages, at least the way I would organize the data. Heck, I could probably fill 100 pages just detailing the nature of his relationships with the hundreds of people he's met that I still remember. A better writer could probably fill 100 pages just explaining his relationship with a single PC.

But I (obviously?) don't play with a stack of notes taller than I am. I just know the character. Which, admittedly, makes it difficult to pick up an old character after I've put them down for too long.

Which helps explain why I like running existing characters, to keep them fresh in my memory. And, perhaps, why I dislike the idea of rules that encourage me to act out of character, based on some oversimplification of the character's personality.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-27, 06:48 PM

Very good point in there -- what happens when you have a character with multiple conflicting "axioms"?

What if a character has both "Truth" and "Compassion", and they find themselves in a situation where telling the truth will cause great suffering?

If a system asked me to roll dice to determine that a PC did in that situation, I'd find a different system. Let the player play out the conflict in their head, or openly.

E: same thing if a system started giving out cookies... I'd rather see players ignore the cookies and take the course of action that they arrive at on their own.

Cluedrew

2016-11-27, 06:59 PM

Keep in mind, I have PCs that I have been playing on and off for over 20 years, that is a lot of character to try and write down on paper.I have a request, could you describe one? Not so much their 20 year history (although mention it where it is important) but the things that you would keep in mind if you were about to sit down and play them.

Here, the problem is the level of granularity. Sitcom level caricature characters will be rewarded more than more complex / more realistic personalities.Do you have a particular argument for that? Because I don't see it. It you try to encode every case yes, but that strikes me a bit like having a separate attack bonus for every weapon/technique/enemy combination. That is to say, ridiculous. Personally I like the "Broad Strokes" approach, which is to say the rules create some broad strokes but leaves room for the players to fill in the details. Here is an example rule:

Whenever your character makes an unusual decision based on their personality, get 1XP.

Now, I can tell you right now that there are issues with this rule. For instance it may encourage crazies a bit too much. But one problem it does not have is encouraging simple characters. Every single detail of a character's personality can be used, not matter how small. Every contradiction can be examined for its importance. And if you adjust "unusual" for broad archetypes it actually punishes caricatures. If you adjust for narrow archetypes than people have perhaps a too strong incentive to keep there characters changing, so overdoing that might be a bad idea.

ComradeBear

2016-11-27, 07:45 PM

Do you know where there is a more detailed write up of the BIG system? I am seeing that it seems to come from Mousegard, but not many of the details.
To be entirely honest, I don't know where it started. It was given to me in System Agnostic format. The writup I had was about as complicated as I described.

I am curious as to the details and what the system actually does.

I don't know what it does in its original iteration, but I've seen it applied to games like Shadowrun, D&D, and I've even ported Belief and Instinct into SWN, since it already had goals.

I would think there would have to be a very narrow sweet spot where the goals are narrow enough to be useful but not so narrow as to be restrictive.

I mean... if you know what makes for a good goal, it's not hard.
Just use SMART.
Specific: ie, not something like "become a happier person." It needs to be something you could make an action plan for.
Measurable: You should be able to know when it's finished.
Acheiveable: It should be something that can reasonably be achieved. Urgrok the Barbarian probably shouldn't have "master astrophysics" as a goal unless he's some kind of ragescientist.
Relevant: Make it relevant to things you're already doing.
Timely: Your character should probably be able to finish it off within a short timespan. (One or two sessions, or a goal that can be cashed in regularly.)

I also cant imagine how such a system doesnt hinder character growth; how would one use them in a remption story, for example A Christmas Carol or How the Grinch Stole Christmas which are all about the protaganist learning they were wrong and reevaluating their priorities in life?

Because we don't care if you held the belief from the start to the end. If The Grinch had his belief as "Christmas is horrible," at the end of the session he will still get points even though his belief changed. Because he acted according to his beliefs at some point within the session.
But at the end, he will likely change his Belief.

What I'd peg the Grinch's Instinct as would depend on what variation we speak about, but I'm certain it would be easy to find places where it either helped or hindered him. (Essentially, a habitual behavior the Grinch has would be his Instinct. Also subject to change.)

For Goal, he would likely fail if his goal was "Stop Christmas from Coming." Which it pretty much was. But his goal can change along with his beliefs.

(Granted, this means the Grinch is antagonistic to other PCs anyways. So not everyone will come out of this happy one way or another.)

As your belief/instinct/goal shifts, you change it. The belief can be altered at the beginning or end of any session. First, second, twelfth, eighty-third, final, whichever. Change just one. Change all three. Whatever.

Yes, it requires you to think about what kinds of beliefs are probably going to come up in the session today. (Your belief that the town mayor is committing adultery won't help you if you're gonna be spending this session fighting orcs in an old fort. You should probably swap out your belief and come back to that one when it's revelant again. Because your character believes many things, not just one thing. Changing the Belief doesn't necessarily mean that your character no longer believes something. It can just mean that this particular belief is not relevant right now.

Etc.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-27, 11:42 PM

Do you know where there is a more detailed write up of the BIG system? I am seeing that it seems to come from Mousegard, but not many of the details.

It originally came from Burning Wheel. A modified version of it was then used for Mouseguard and Torchbearer.

Burning Wheel:
Beliefs:
Beliefs are the central mechanic in the game and everything revolves around them. Every character has to have between 1 and 3 beliefs at all times, quoting from the rulebook.

When a player brings to life a new character in Burning Wheel, he furnishes that character with three Beliefs. In essence, these are the top three priorities for the character in play.

These are not general beliefs, like “God” or “Country.” They are explicitly stated drives that tie directly into the world and setting. Examples of Beliefs are “I must serve the Etharch so that I might be redeemed for my crime,” or “I will protect my friend's sister at any cost.”

When sculpting your character's Beliefs, think: What do I want out of this character and this situation? How can my character's Beliefs reflect that? Then shape your character's Beliefs to reflect those priorities.

Beliefs are a strongly held world view and goal wrapped into one and a way for the player to tell the GM what he wants the game to be about. When you pursue a belief in play you get a fate point (a reward that helps you succeed at rolls). When you accomplish a goal to the point where it's no longer relevant you cross it off, write a new one, and get a persona point (a reward that helps you succeed at rolls better). Players can always change a belief between sessions if it isn't working out, or the character no longer believes that, or whatever. There's nothing forcing you to stick to a belief either, and you can also get a persona point if you go against your belief in a big dramatic way during play. Like you have a belief that some dude totally needs to die, but when you ambush him he's playing with his daughter and they're both laughing and you can't go through with it and spare his life.

The game is about beliefs, in that the GM's job is to test and challenge the beliefs of everyone in the group and make the game about them. Put obstacles in the way of achieving those beliefs, tempt the characters to break them, keep pushing and pushing until the characters either succeed, fail, or realize that they don't believe that any more.

Instincts:
Instincts are much less heavy. They're a way of saying "My character does these things without thinking". An example of an instinct might be "When insulted, lash out physically" or "Never harm an innocent" or "Always have a knife on me". Instincts serve a dual purpose in that they're a way to say something about your character as well, but they also have a mechanical effect. When an instinct gets you in trouble you get a fate point for it. Always having a knife on you might get you into trouble when the guards are patting you down. But instincts are also a way to let you say "I did that, look at my sheet". An example of an instinct working for you might be that you got disarmed in a fight inside the mansion and then you went outside. And outside you're suddenly jumped by a street thug and oh no you have no weapon... but because you had an instinct that you always have a knife on you you can point at it and say "My character grabbed a knife off the dinner table when he was leaving".

Again, you can always ignore an instinct. You're never forced to act on them. But if you're constantly ignoring your instincts then maybe it's time to pick different ones instead. You can always change them between sessions.

Traits:
Traits are descriptors of your character and they come in three varieties. Character traits, call-on traits, and die-traits. Character traits are just a description of your character, with no mechanical effects. Things like "proud" "suspicious" "generous" and so on. Call-on traits are a way of saying that your character is good at a particular thing, and as such, once per session they can reroll a failure on the attached skill(s). "Quiet", for example, is a call-on for the stealthy skill. Die traits have some sort of mechanical effect, either positive or negative. "Missing Eye" is a die trait that, obviously, makes it harder to see things. "Gifted" is a die trait that allows the character to try to cast magical spells.

All traits say things about your character, and when those things come up during play in a way that people agree helped change the story then the player takes a fate point. Traits are a longer term thing than beliefs or instincts and you start out buying them at character creation. Character creation in Burning Wheel involves picking a number of "lifepaths" to build your character's life from the moment he was born. Lifepaths are things like "Peasant: Farmer" or "City: Clerk" or "Noble Court: Torturer". Life paths lead into each other and you can't always go from one to another time. For example if you want the "knight" lifepath you either require "squire" or "cavalryman". "Squire" requires "page" and so on. Among other things, lifepaths give you a number of trait points to spend, and a number of traits associated with them. If the lifepath has any traits, you're required to take the first trait on the list, because the game is saying that the trait is essentially linked to what the lifepath is. "Laborer" is required to take "Calloused", for example. And points you have left over after taking everything you're required to, you can spend buying any trait you want off the general trait list. More powerful traits cost you more points.

Traits can be added or removed during play at obvious junctions. If you get your hand chopped off you should go right ahead and take a die trait to represent that immediately. At the end of an arc the group discuses everyone's traits and nominates traits to be removed. If someone has "Veneer of Obedience" as a trait, but has consistently been played as a mouthy little **** then that trait will probably be voted off because everyone agrees that it doesn't represent the character. Similarly, people take an honest look at how the character has been played so far and will nominate new trait(s) to give them.

Torchbearer/Mouseguard:
This post is way too long already so I'll be brief. These games changed it to 1 belief, 1 goal, 1 instinct, and 1-4 traits.

They split the "goal" part of beliefs away into its own thing. A belief is a statement about something. "I am blessed by the gods", "Might makes right", etc. Goals are something you want to accomplish in the next session or two. "Free the prisoners", "Escape this hellhole". Again, you can always change them between sessions and/or ignore them if you want to. Play towards them or accomplish them to get rewarded.

All traits are an RP description that can be used to give you bonuses to a roll a limited number of times per session, or a penalty to a roll an unlimited number of times per session in exchange for future goodness. "Foolhardy", for example, could give you bonuses if you say something like "I rush screaming at him. He's taken off guard by the sudden suicidal tactic and doesn't have time to respond." or it could give you a penalty if you say "I rush screaming at him. I'm totally out of cover and exposed to archer fire as I charge across open terrain".

At the end of an adventure traits are voted on/off based on how the character was played.

Talakeal

2016-11-27, 11:59 PM

Long stuff.

I have to admit, I actually really like this.

Well, until you got to the part about voting off people's traits. That's the point where I would say "**** you guys," pack up my things, and walk out the door never to game with that group again. Table flip optional.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-28, 12:10 AM

Well, until you got to the part about voting off people's traits. That's the point where I would say "**** you guys," pack up my things, and walk out the door never to game with that group again. Table flip optional.

I got you covered. Only the GM or the owning player can nominate a trait to be voted off. If the owning player does it it requires a majority. If the GM does it it requires a unanimous consensus, including the owning player's vote. :smallsmile:

Talakeal

2016-11-28, 12:24 AM

I got you covered. Only the GM or the owning player can nominate a trait to be voted off. If the owning player does it it requires a majority. If the GM does it it requires a unanimous consensus, including the owning player's vote. :smallsmile:

Oh, ok then :smallsmile:

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-28, 12:40 AM

Burning Wheel character creation is absolutely my favourite char creation in any game. There's a fun app for it too. I have no idea how much sense this makes without more info, but here it is.

http://charred.herokuapp.com/#/

Four lifepaths is a standard game. More is more powerful.

The Glyphstone

2016-11-28, 01:54 AM

I have to admit, I actually really like this.

Well, until you got to the part about voting off people's traits. That's the point where I would say "**** you guys," pack up my things, and walk out the door never to game with that group again. Table flip optional.

Considering the wacknuts, crazies, and outright psychopaths who make up your entire gaming community, the GMs included, it's not a system I would have ever recommended you try in person. :/ But with sane, non-bizarro play groups, it can be amazing.

Cluedrew

2016-11-28, 07:55 AM

On Burning Wheel: I clicked on some buttons and I ended up with a Born Slave->Field Labourer->Leper->Trapper girl who has the hope trait and is a mother. I kind of want to play this character now.

I like it when the character sheet is enough to get an idea of who the character actually is. As opposed to 8 9 10 15 17 7.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-28, 11:03 AM

I'm sorry, which one is Burning Wheel, again? I got bombarded with system suggestions and descriptions that ended up blurred together at one point.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-28, 11:33 AM

I'm sorry, which one is Burning Wheel, again? I got bombarded with system suggestions and descriptions that ended up blurred together at one point.

Well, I'm not entirely sure how to answer that. If you're looking for a brief summary I suppose I'd say it's what Lord of the Rings would be if Lord of the Rings was mostly focused on the inner workings of one of the nations in Middle Earth instead of adventuring.

Do you have a specific question?

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-28, 11:51 AM

Well, I'm not entirely sure how to answer that. If you're looking for a brief summary I suppose I'd say it's what Lord of the Rings would be if Lord of the Rings was mostly focused on the inner workings of one of the nations in Middle Earth instead of adventuring.

Do you have a specific question?

System-wise, I have to keep disentangling it in my head from the "______ World" / PbtA systems, and some others I don't recall right now, because all of them were pushed at me strongly after I asked for system recommendations, despite none of them matching up with my wishlist very well.

Burning Wheel is not the super-"narrative" one with "story structure" baked into the mechanics, right?

E: and if that sounded slammy on either one, it's not intended that way.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-28, 12:40 PM

System-wise, I have to keep disentangling it in my head from the "______ World" / PbtA systems, and some others I don't recall right now, because all of them were pushed at me strongly after I asked for system recommendations, despite none of them matching up with my wishlist very well.

Burning Wheel is not the super-"narrative" one with "story structure" baked into the mechanics, right?

E: and if that sounded slammy on either one, it's not intended that way.

It's not PbtA, no. I don't how you qualify super-narrative, really, but they play nothing alike. PbtA is generally designed to provide a satisfying story arc over the course of 8-12 sessions. Burning Wheel is designed for multi-year campaigns. In my opinion the "beliefs" part of my post above is the heart and soul of the system and everything else revolves around them.

I suppose you might potentially be annoyed by the emotional attributes stats on non-humans? The game does flat out tell you that non-humans have alien aspects to their personalities that are represented mechanically. If care isn't taken, elves will waste away from grief or travel west, dwarves will go mad with greed and lock themselves in their vaults with all of their worldly possessions, and orcs will go mad with rage and attack everything nearby in a mindless fury until they're cut down. But, like, you don't need to use any of that. Humans don't have any emotional attributes and an all human game is probably the standard way to play. Hell, you can rip the magic and pseudo-magic out of the game too and play a fairly accurate medieval world with the system if you're so inclined.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-28, 12:44 PM

It's not PbtA, no. I don't how you qualify super-narrative, really, but they play nothing alike. PbtA is generally designed to provide a satisfying story arc over the course of 8-12 sessions. Burning Wheel is designed for multi-year campaigns. In my opinion the "beliefs" part of my post above is the heart and soul of the system and everything else revolves around them.

I suppose you might potentially be annoyed by the emotional attributes stats on non-humans? The game does flat out tell you that non-humans have alien aspects to their personalities that are represented mechanically. If care isn't taken, elves will waste away from grief or travel west, dwarves will go mad with greed and lock themselves in their vaults with all of their worldly possessions, and orcs will go mad with rage and attack everything nearby in a mindless fury until they're cut down. But, like, you don't need to use any of that. Humans don't have any emotional attributes and an all human game is probably the standard way to play. Hell, you can rip the magic and pseudo-magic out of the game too and play a fairly accurate medieval world with the system if you're so inclined.

I should probably pick up a copy for reference and completeness sake, see how it does things in detail.

When it comes to the "emotional trait" you mention about elves, dwarves, and orcs, I'd have to see how it's actually constructed, rather than rejecting it out of hand. It's a singular thing that doesn't set in stone the entire personality, it's just one aspect.

If I were using such a system, I would probably give the player a lot of leeway in interpreting it and controlling it, as long as they honored the spirit of the thing.

Segev

2016-11-28, 01:00 PM

I must have missed that -- yeah, the idea that people only act on reward/punishment is pure Skinnerian bunkus.Since I explicitly refuted that I ever suggested people only act for mechanical reward/punishment, this is a pointless response if it is meant to in any way relate to my comments. I respond here thusly because this was in response to a response to my comments, which I refuted.

Exactly. No mechanical system can emulate that emotional conflict, and the character's player either feels it, or they don't.No mechanical system can emulate physical conflict. Either the character's player feels like his character is threatened, or he doesn't.

I'm not trying to directly emulate emotions, here. I'm trying to point out that we can stop punishing players for looking to their characters' emotions through the mechanics.

E: And I mean it can't emulate it at all. Not one bit. A mechanical carrot/stick system for "character personality" is entirely contrived, and either becomes about conforming to the carrot/stick for mechanical reasons, or becomes something that the player has to overcome in order to play the character rather than the numbers.
So, too, is any mechanical system to emulate physical capability. This argument is specious.

"We are having cake and ice cream. Only students who scored a B or better may participate. Only students who got an A+ will be given the ice cream."

Am I really the only one who sees the punitive nature of this arrangement?Not at all. However, you're ignoring that the notion isn't "oh, you didn't RP well, so you get punished" or "oh, you RP'd well, so you get rewarded."

The notion is, "The mechanically optimal choice here is to take the loot and kill the kid, but in character your PC has a soft spot for kids and suspects this one might even be related to him, making his familial instincts kick in. It's a harder decision for him, if you play him true to personality."

In most systems, the emotional turmoil is meaningless, and the mechanical system encourages players to ignore it completely because there is naught but punishment for choosing the non-optimal path. After all, the optimal path is "getting an A+," while the non-optimal path is "getting an A" or even "getting a C or and F."

What I've been suggesting is that there should be mechanical incentives and disincentives to playing according to and against the character's desires and drives.

"Sure, because I got a B, I don't get the ice cream, but I got a B because I chose to play with friends every afternoon last week rather than locking myself in my room and studying every spare minute of every day, so I'm overall happier and have more friends."

This also illustrates the counter-point: don't make the "emotional" rewards too great, or you could start punishing those who DON'T "give in in to temptation" too much. (If "having friends and being happy" gives mechanical benefits superior to the +4 Ice Cream of Awesome, then it punishes those who got the A+.) The challenge is to try to balance both so it's generally, if not a perfectly balanced choice, at least close enough that the "consolation prize" is not worthless.

Still not quite following you. Let me restate my position to see if we are on the same page:
We are. My point, as I hopefully made clear above, is that right now, the systems which fail to reward "in character" decisions to follow character drives et al but reward mechanically optimal choices that may well be out of character are, per your definition, punishing RP.

If I play a man who loves living the high life and buys the most expensive luxuries and accommodations with my hard-earned adventuring gold, but there's no mechanical benefit over "average" accommodations and hard-tack rations (which are considerably cheaper), then I am being punished for playing in character and buying luxuries. The hard-drinking partier who buys ale and whores after every adventure is being punished over the teetotaling ascetic who buys the barest minimum fare to not suffer mechanical penalties (e.g. starvation and fatigue), as the latter has more gp to spend on cool gear. Heck, in a lot of games, the "murder-hobo" who is an orphan with no ties to any NPCs at all is a result of GMs unwittingly punishing RPers who build connections to the setting: they have their friends betray them, their families held hostage, and their family farms threatened by great foes as means of driving plot.

Now, don't get me wrong: having your backstory hooked to drive plot can be its own reward! But when it only is used to weaken your PC and make him less capable of doing cool stuff than the guys who have no connections...it's a punishment.

Some of these problems have solutions already in place if people use them well. That "happy family farm" might be a source of extra income...but require more defense. Friends and allies who can provide aid commensurate with (or in excess of) the danger and costs to which they put the PCs are trade-offs which enrich the character to have but don't punish him for it...and, given the loss of potential weaknesses, don't punish those who lack them, either.

Where emotional drives and personal weaknesses need more mechanical support is the area that Talekeal raised with the original post in this thread: when the emotional pull is to do something purely "bad decision," mechanically. Following that foreign femme fatale to her chambers overnight is likely to expose the PC to blackmail or extortion, to potential disease, to being ambushed while devoid of his gear, to being drugged or assaulted in his sleep, to kidnapping, etc. If the only promise is her charming company and "cultural exchange," then, as Max_Killjoy puts it, the player isn't going to feel the emotional pull. Nor the more visceral urge.

The player is punished for making the potentially-in-character choice of letting his PC be seduced.

This can be rectified by either taking it out of his hands (making the social manipulation of the seduction into a kind of "mind control" that the PC is compelled by his desires to follow), or by creating mechanical incentives to go along with it.

This isn't "you'll be rewarded for RPing well." This is a cost-benefit analysis tool. Now there are rewards or punishments either way: go along, and you risk all that's listed above, but might get these other perks as well; refuse, and you avoid those risks, but you don't get the perks and, perhaps, suffer some denied-desire-based penalties.

Without a compelling system of reward / punishment to alter their behavior people will do what they enjoy doing (I suppose you could get technical and say that some people by nature choose to pursue goals that they don't enjoy, but that is another tangent).That's kind of my point. I think you're assuming too much, here, of what I'm trying to encourage. Or you're ignoring that there already exist mechanical incentives to behave certain ways, but that the lack of incentives to behave other ways creates a distorted sort of incentive structure.

If a player's natural inclination is to play at this level they will have to simplify their behavior to get the reward / avoid the punishment. If the reward / punishment is compelling enough to get the non-RPer to increase complexity it is likely to be compelling enough to get the high complexity RPer to do so, hence the "ceiling".No, not really. That implies that "if you get an A, you get cake and ice cream" means that those who would get an A+ for its own sake now are punished for getting an A+.

Now, what I think you are saying is that you (like me) want to do suboptimal things for the sake of RP. You also want a mechanical reward for RPing so that it is a compelling choice from an OOC perspective, you can either go for the tactically sound option or the RP option that grants some sort of mechanical "cookie" to offset the lack of good tactics.

And I can get behind this conceptually.

The problem is that such a system would be impossible to actual balance by the rules as the actual benefits in any situation are virtually impossible to analyze, certainly not on the fly. or to catalogue in a book. It also means that you will have to have long in depth conversations with the Game Master about your character's motives, personality, intentions, and thought process; this is, imo unfavorable because it slows down the game, ruins the "surprise" factor, always makes me feel like I am being judged, and opens the door to really vicious arguments.
It's hard, not impossible.

The two ways I would approach it are either a depleting morale pool that lets you push yourself to do things better, and is replenished by "things you like," or by a system of bonuses and penalties based on overall mood and/or based on how much you want to be doing something at any particular point in time.

If there are things you'd rather be doing, you suffer penalties to what you're doing instead. If you're doing things you WANT to be doing, you get bonuses. If you're indifferent, you roll at "flat" skill/stat/whatever. This highly simplified concept would allow you to get "hyped up" to do something by your party bard, giving you bonuses to specific tasks. It would let things you really care about be easier for you as you just keep at it happily. It would allow the seductress or the salesman to entice you to vices because they make you want them more than whatever you're doing instead, granting penalties if you don't indulge.

With the pool of resources, instead, it might cost you "morale points" to do something you don't want to be doing (or at least to do it without penalty), or be something you can expend points on for bonuses representing being emotionally pumped. Do something you enjoy, and you can rebuild that pool (or keep the pool steady and be even better at that activity by spending the points as they come in). The friendly emotional manipulator (party bard) can help you enjoy other things or even give some temporary moral points to counteract "I don't want to do this." The enemy emotional manipulator can make you want to do something less, or make you want something badly enough to cost you morale points to refuse. (Maybe you can go negative, and that's when penalties set in.)

The system I am toying with for my own game is that you can pick any number of personality quirks at character creation. You then go over them with the GM and determine exactly what they mean so that you are both on the same page before the game starts. In play whenever the player and GM agree that the character has made a tangible sacrifice or clearly suboptimal choice to act in accordance with their mental quirk that character gets a floating reroll for the remainder of the session. You also add or remove a single quirk between each session to represent character growth.

Now, the only problem is how to limit this so people don't just take a billion quirks and ignore them 99% of the time. I am thinking either limiting the number (not optimal), or reducing the characters pool or morale (floating bonuses that can be applied to any roll) every time they blatantly ignore or act against their quirk. But I don't like the punitive nature of this solution.
My problem with these systems is that the "give in" cost is often much greater than the "re-roll" benefit can make up for.

"Let the sneaky guy bribe you to look the other way for a re-roll later this session. Oh, by the way, what he did while you weren't looking is something that will cost you...and recovering from it involves a lot more difficult rolls during which you'll likely expend that re-roll and still come out behind."

This is why I suggest longer-term rewards and penalties, but on a smaller overall scale.

Flickerdart

2016-11-28, 01:30 PM

My problem with these systems is that the "give in" cost is often much greater than the "re-roll" benefit can make up for.

"Let the sneaky guy bribe you to look the other way for a re-roll later this session. Oh, by the way, what he did while you weren't looking is something that will cost you...and recovering from it involves a lot more difficult rolls during which you'll likely expend that re-roll and still come out behind."

This is why I suggest longer-term rewards and penalties, but on a smaller overall scale.

It seems that having the cost of your re-roll be less than the re-roll would be pointless. Having to pay a larger cost than the benefit is fine if you do it properly - pay a cost you don't care about to get a benefit you do care about. Don't let the sneaky guy into your Vault of Vulnerability, but if he wants to pickpocket ten gold off a random commoner, let him go ahead.

GMs who exploit "give in" mechanics to punish their players, get players that don't use the mechanics at all.

Floret

2016-11-28, 02:11 PM

1:

Not just a list of traits; it is a list of how the traits are to be applied in every situation and a hierarchy of how each trait reacts with every other trait.
And no, this absolutely isn't ideal, and I would much prefer being able to improve it on the fly, there is no way I could memorize or easily use such a tome, but I was going by the premise that we need to have codified rules for PC behavior.
Keep in mind, I have PCs that I have been playing on and off for over 20 years, that is a lot of character to try and write down on paper.

As has been pointed out, this is not really what such a list would be about. Any system that would try to play your character for you I would be right on board with slamming. But for a system to reward you for playing in character, I would imagine something much closer to FATE: If you want to use one of your aspects, you call it, and if the GM doesn't immidiately see why it would apply, you talk why you think it does.
I don't wanna play "character simulator", put in character points and see how the system decides that character acts and develops (Though that would be an AWESOME program to have), I want the system to encourage going certain ways that align with "the character" as previously defined.

2:
I find that limitations don't add anything to the system. They might help for an individual campaign, to keep the PCs together and motivated to follow whatever plot outline the GM has prepared, but as a limitation on the system I don't see it. Maybe for a short term gimmick game, but for a full on tool-box RPG from which you are expected to derive long running campaigns, no way.
To go back to my earlier example, my group played Mage for three years without any problems getting people to RP. Indeed there was too much RP more often than not, we had so many dramatic personalities and personal goals that we often had trouble fitting everything in. Then we switched to Scion, a system with heavy rules for how you RP but an otherwise similar setting and rules set. Do you actually think that if the RP rules had been left out of our copies of Scion we wouldn't have been able to keep on RPing the way we always had?
Also, in D&D I have never seen a game where the alignment restrictions or codes of conduct on classes have improved the experience for anyone. I have never heard anyone complain that they just don't know how to RP a rogue and are so glad that bards can't be lawful. I have, on the other hand, heard (and experienced) seemingly endless wailing and gnashing of teeth in response to the paladins code.

We might have different definitions of limitations then, or different things we want out of RPGs. My examples stand, and I find them to be rather positive limitations. Not very narrow limitations, sure, but limits nonetheless. If you go overboard with the limits, sure, they become something to be avioded, but certain limitations can be a major boon. "Give your character some weakness" is a limitation, for example, but one that majorly enhances play experience in the Larps I play in.
And, no, I don't think you wouldn't have. Why the hell would you not have been able to, except if you were before playing beneath the "floor"? I do not think everyone needs these mechanics. I just think they can be useful for certain people and for producing certain situations and experiences.
Oh, I have never played DnD and probably never will - if for the dice mechanic, mostly. I still, from sitting on the sidelines, find alignment to be a particularly poor system, except for describing characters in very, very broad strokes, and then not their personality, but their roundabout morality. But just because it can be done badly does not mean the idea is bad.

I will grant that as consumers of media we must work backwards.
But as someone who has done writing, establishing the most important basic tenants of a character's motivations allows you to extrapolate the rest.

That's not only common writing practice, but good writing practice. And it also ties into, according to the very few actor friends I have, the way actors put on their characters. Roleplaying being a fusion of Author and Actor, I'm really not surprised that there are common points in characterization with those two worlds.

Maybe this is a better phrasing of what I mean by the benefits of keeping characters simple. It is pretty much exactly what I mean, and maybe no coincidence, that the place I got it from was the RPG "system" closest to actual acting.

Suppose D&D combat had always been resolved with padded weapons. Further, suppose that's one of the major draws of the game for me. Then, after decades of fun, someone comes along, and decides to implement combat resolution via dice. No. A tactical combat minigame is just not the same as (mock) combat. It doesn't scratch the same itch.

Similarly, a lot of proposed role-playing aids are really just emotion simulators, that don't scratch the same itch as role-playing does.

I actually agree with this assessment quite I lot. Yes, they don't scratch the same itch. At all. I just find TRPGs are actually rather good at scratching the simulator itch, and sub-par in scratching the "I am in a reasonably close approximation of the situation" itch. At least for me.
So in that I am arguing that since TRPGs are very good at a fun, simulated "I get to roll dice and accomplish insane things impossible IRL", maybe improving and expanding their simulating side (In that respect, not in respect of actual "simulationism") might be a good idea. At least to have as an option. I think it has value, and that maybe instead of discussing whether or not it SHOULD be done, a more productive discussion might arise on how it COULD be done (better). Where, of course, the people who have no interest in them, are sadly excluded. But barging into a discussion about tactical approaches to MMO PvP with "I don't think PvP in MMOs is worthwhile" is a rather foolish thing. Not to say those people can't discuss, but the basic premise of this discussion ("Should they exist") strikes me as rather unproductive.

Very good point in there -- what happens when you have a character with multiple conflicting "axioms"?

What if a character has both "Truth" and "Compassion", and they find themselves in a situation where telling the truth will cause great suffering?

If a system asked me to roll dice to determine that a PC did in that situation, I'd find a different system. Let the player play out the conflict in their head, or openly.

E: same thing if a system started giving out cookies... I'd rather see players ignore the cookies and take the course of action that they arrive at on their own.

As Segev and I pointed out: Then you, ideally, have two different cookies you might give out - one for following each of the conflicting things. Each coming with its own benefits and drawbacks.

Not at all. However, you're ignoring that the notion isn't "oh, you didn't RP well, so you get punished" or "oh, you RP'd well, so you get rewarded."

The notion is, "The mechanically optimal choice here is to take the loot and kill the kid, but in character your PC has a soft spot for kids and suspects this one might even be related to him, making his familial instincts kick in. It's a harder decision for him, if you play him true to personality."

In most systems, the emotional turmoil is meaningless, and the mechanical system encourages players to ignore it completely because there is naught but punishment for choosing the non-optimal path. After all, the optimal path is "getting an A+," while the non-optimal path is "getting an A" or even "getting a C or and F."

What I've been suggesting is that there should be mechanical incentives and disincentives to playing according to and against the character's desires and drives.
[Some examples]
Where emotional drives and personal weaknesses need more mechanical support is the area that Talekeal raised with the original post in this thread: when the emotional pull is to do something purely "bad decision," mechanically. Following that foreign femme fatale to her chambers overnight is likely to expose the PC to blackmail or extortion, to potential disease, to being ambushed while devoid of his gear, to being drugged or assaulted in his sleep, to kidnapping, etc. If the only promise is her charming company and "cultural exchange," then, as Max_Killjoy puts it, the player isn't going to feel the emotional pull. Nor the more visceral urge.

The player is punished for making the potentially-in-character choice of letting his PC be seduced.

This can be rectified by either taking it out of his hands (making the social manipulation of the seduction into a kind of "mind control" that the PC is compelled by his desires to follow), or by creating mechanical incentives to go along with it.

This isn't "you'll be rewarded for RPing well." This is a cost-benefit analysis tool. Now there are rewards or punishments either way: go along, and you risk all that's listed above, but might get these other perks as well; refuse, and you avoid those risks, but you don't get the perks and, perhaps, suffer some denied-desire-based penalties.

This way of looking at it kinda nails down about what I think. The same chapter at least, if not the same page, to steal the quote.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-28, 02:41 PM

Since I explicitly refuted that I ever suggested people only act for mechanical reward/punishment, this is a pointless response if it is meant to in any way relate to my comments. I respond here thusly because this was in response to a response to my comments, which I refuted.

I was responding purely to the idea itself, in the discussion as a whole, not to your comment in particular.

It has been at least implied by some statements that reward/punishment built into the system is necessary to get RP out of players, because otherwise they'll just go with the rewards of the "cold utility" outcome. At least one person has flatly said so.

No mechanical system can emulate physical conflict. Either the character's player feels like his character is threatened, or he doesn't.

It's a different thing. One player can't punch another player or hit him with a sword -- it's not safe and most players don't have the skills to even approach it, or an accurate understanding to simulate it (thanks, Hollywood).

I'm not trying to directly emulate emotions, here. I'm trying to point out that we can stop punishing players for looking to their characters' emotions through the mechanics.

Is the view here that not advantaging them is the same as punishing them?

So, too, is any mechanical system to emulate physical capability. This argument is specious.

Quite simply, I disagree.

Not at all. However, you're ignoring that the notion isn't "oh, you didn't RP well, so you get punished" or "oh, you RP'd well, so you get rewarded."

The notion is, "The mechanically optimal choice here is to take the loot and kill the kid, but in character your PC has a soft spot for kids and suspects this one might even be related to him, making his familial instincts kick in. It's a harder decision for him, if you play him true to personality."

In most systems, the emotional turmoil is meaningless, and the mechanical system encourages players to ignore it completely because there is naught but punishment for choosing the non-optimal path. After all, the optimal path is "getting an A+," while the non-optimal path is "getting an A" or even "getting a C or and F."

What I've been suggesting is that there should be mechanical incentives and disincentives to playing according to and against the character's desires and drives.

In my experience...

If the player cares about the character's emotional state, then no system is needed.
If the player doesn't care about the character's emotional state, then no system is going to make them care.
In both cases, the player is going to resent the system intruding on their character's "internals".

And if the game setting isn't just a movie-set facade for character shenanigans, the character who "kills the kid and takes the loot" risks in-setting, in-game consequences for those sorts of actions.

I've never needed mechanical encouragement to play my character as a person, as opposed to as a pile of stats driven by loots and XPs. The "mechanical disadvantage" has never been an issue in games I've been involved in. But then, I don't look at the real world or the "world" inside an RPG in anything like a "cost benefit" manner.

Quertus

2016-11-28, 02:44 PM

I have a request, could you describe one? Not so much their 20 year history (although mention it where it is important) but the things that you would keep in mind if you were about to sit down and play them.

I think this wasn't directed at me, but, speaking for myself, I, uh, can't speak for myself. That is, like how some actors will play a particular song, or go through a particular mantra to get "in character", I more go for the "feel" of the character than any particular detail, and then the details fall into place one I'm in the right place.

Kinda like how trying to grab at facts to remember a dream is counterproductive. You have to put your mind in the right place to listen to the dream.

As to what facts I need... All of them. Any event in that 20 year history could tie into and influence how the character interprets current events.

Whenever your character makes an unusual decision based on their personality, get 1XP.

Now, I can tell you right now that there are issues with this rule. For instance it may encourage crazies a bit too much. But one problem it does not have is encouraging simple characters. Every single detail of a character's personality can be used, not matter how small. Every contradiction can be examined for its importance. And if you adjust "unusual" for broad archetypes it actually punishes caricatures. If you adjust for narrow archetypes than people have perhaps a too strong incentive to keep there characters changing, so overdoing that might be a bad idea.

Hmmm... Sounds a bit like, "whenever you're character's personality has your character make an unusual / unexpected decision, discuss why". Which was one of the best RP-inducing play styles I've gotten to enjoy.

On Burning Wheel: I clicked on some buttons and I ended up with a Born Slave->Field Labourer->Leper->Trapper girl who has the hope trait and is a mother. I kind of want to play this character now.

I like it when the character sheet is enough to get an idea of who the character actually is. As opposed to 8 9 10 15 17 7.

While it is more data, I suspect if we both played that character, our results would be nearly as diverse as if we both played Lg human cleric of Pelor with the other stats above. Which is to say, certainly not the same character.

Segev

2016-11-28, 03:01 PM

I was responding purely to the idea itself, in the discussion as a whole, not to your comment in particular.

It has been at least implied by some statements that reward/punishment built into the system is necessary to get RP out of players, because otherwise they'll just go with the rewards of the "cold utility" outcome. At least one person has flatly said so.
I haven't seen that, and my fear is that somebody's misinterpreting what I've said as that. Because what I HAVE said is that the cold utility outcome is the optimal path in most games, and that since it is a punishment to receive fewer rewards (cake, but not ice cream, since you didn't get the A+), failure to follow the cold utility path is actively punished.

It's a different thing. One player can't punch another player or hit him with a sword -- it's not safe and most players don't have the skills to even approach it, or an accurate understanding to simulate it (thanks, Hollywood).Honestly? Players can't seduce each other, either (or at least, really, REALLY shouldn't be trying, because ew), and many who play Smooth McCool the silver-tongued Bard don't have the faintest idea how to be charming enough to talk a princess into sneaking off with him away from her guards, or to talk a King into giving them an Earldom instead of "just" a pile of gold. Let alone how to talk a guard into letting him out of a cell. All of which are genre-appropriate things for most silver-tongued smarmasets to be able to pull off.

Is the view here that not advantaging them is the same as punishing them?It has been phrased thus, yes, and I've accepted that premise for sake of argument.

Even if you reject that premise, however, many social encounters hinge on convincing somebody to make a decision which has a negative (not merely non-positive) result. It is almost never the case that anything good comes from a hero falling for a femme fatale's charms, at least in the medium-term. If the choice is "do the good RP thing and 'feel torn' over whether to let her have her way with your PC, or do the mechanically optimal thing that costs nothing other than refusing that," and you know the consequences of giving in are going to be actively detrimental, yes, you're being punished for "good RP" at that point.

By any standard, if "good RP" leaves you worse off than before you performed it (when alternative behaviors that aren't "good RP" would have ensured you were no worse off than before), you're being punished for "good RP."

In my experience...

If the player cares about the character's emotional state, then no system is needed.
If the player doesn't care about the character's emotional state, then no system is going to make them care.
In both cases, the player is going to resent the system intruding on their character's "internals". Missing the point. The point is that the player who cares about the character's emotional state feels like he's being overall punished for doing so when the player who doesn't is just plain better off than he is, because he's playing the game more mechanically optimally. Unless "down on his luck and in rough shape most of the time" is part of the good RPer's concept, this swiftly ceases to be fun. I say this from experience.

And if the game setting isn't just a movie-set facade for character shenanigans, the character who "kills the kid and takes the loot" risks in-setting, in-game consequences for those sorts of actions.Perhaps. But that's when the "temptation" is to actively commit evil for immediate gain. What about when the "temptation" is its own reward, and comes at the cost of immediate or medium-term mechanical gain?

"Sir, buy this gold-leaf gilded armor; sure, it's only +4 just like this other, plainer set, and it costs more, but it's gorgeous!"

"You simply MUST have this delicious food and stay at this luxurious inn! It's the best in town! Sure, it costs 10x as much, but you've got the gold for it, and it's much nicer than that tawdry one that's merely clean and serviceable."

...heck, for a story that brushes on this, I recommend looking into a fanfic called Harry Potter and the Natural 20. It has an insert PC who is a wizard from a D&D setting, and while it tragically is unfinished and on terminal hiatus, it's oft funny and decent portions of it are devoted to looking at things through the eyes of a PC whose mindset was established by an optimizer. He refuses to eat anything but trail rations for the longest time, for instance, for optimization reasons that make sense if you aren't actually living them.

I've never needed mechanical encouragement to play my character as a person, as opposed to as a pile of stats driven by loots and XPs. The "mechanical disadvantage" has never been an issue in games I've been involved in. But then, I don't look at the real world or the "world" inside an RPG in anything like a "cost benefit" manner.
Perhaps so, but the fact remains that you have paid a cost for it, unless the whole party pays similar costs along the way and/or the GM compensates you behind the scenes (possibly just with a "gotta keep everybody roughly on-par" algorithm he uses for passing out rewards).

I've been in games where making the in-character decision costs me mechanical resources with no recompense, and been the weaker and less capable overall because of it. It has generally diminished my fun. Which is why I try to design my PCs to be hyper-capable, so that when I do make IC "bad" decisions (mechanically), I can afford it without falling behind.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-28, 03:45 PM

I haven't seen that, and my fear is that somebody's misinterpreting what I've said as that. Because what I HAVE said is that the cold utility outcome is the optimal path in most games, and that since it is a punishment to receive fewer rewards (cake, but not ice cream, since you didn't get the A+), failure to follow the cold utility path is actively punished.

Honestly? Players can't seduce each other, either (or at least, really, REALLY shouldn't be trying, because ew), and many who play Smooth McCool the silver-tongued Bard don't have the faintest idea how to be charming enough to talk a princess into sneaking off with him away from her guards, or to talk a King into giving them an Earldom instead of "just" a pile of gold. Let alone how to talk a guard into letting him out of a cell. All of which are genre-appropriate things for most silver-tongued smarmasets to be able to pull off.

It has been phrased thus, yes, and I've accepted that premise for sake of argument.

Even if you reject that premise, however, many social encounters hinge on convincing somebody to make a decision which has a negative (not merely non-positive) result. It is almost never the case that anything good comes from a hero falling for a femme fatale's charms, at least in the medium-term. If the choice is "do the good RP thing and 'feel torn' over whether to let her have her way with your PC, or do the mechanically optimal thing that costs nothing other than refusing that," and you know the consequences of giving in are going to be actively detrimental, yes, you're being punished for "good RP" at that point.

By any standard, if "good RP" leaves you worse off than before you performed it (when alternative behaviors that aren't "good RP" would have ensured you were no worse off than before), you're being punished for "good RP."

Missing the point. The point is that the player who cares about the character's emotional state feels like he's being overall punished for doing so when the player who doesn't is just plain better off than he is, because he's playing the game more mechanically optimally. Unless "down on his luck and in rough shape most of the time" is part of the good RPer's concept, this swiftly ceases to be fun. I say this from experience.

Perhaps. But that's when the "temptation" is to actively commit evil for immediate gain. What about when the "temptation" is its own reward, and comes at the cost of immediate or medium-term mechanical gain?

"Sir, buy this gold-leaf gilded armor; sure, it's only +4 just like this other, plainer set, and it costs more, but it's gorgeous!"

"You simply MUST have this delicious food and stay at this luxurious inn! It's the best in town! Sure, it costs 10x as much, but you've got the gold for it, and it's much nicer than that tawdry one that's merely clean and serviceable."

...heck, for a story that brushes on this, I recommend looking into a fanfic called Harry Potter and the Natural 20. It has an insert PC who is a wizard from a D&D setting, and while it tragically is unfinished and on terminal hiatus, it's oft funny and decent portions of it are devoted to looking at things through the eyes of a PC whose mindset was established by an optimizer. He refuses to eat anything but trail rations for the longest time, for instance, for optimization reasons that make sense if you aren't actually living them.

Perhaps so, but the fact remains that you have paid a cost for it, unless the whole party pays similar costs along the way and/or the GM compensates you behind the scenes (possibly just with a "gotta keep everybody roughly on-par" algorithm he uses for passing out rewards).

I've been in games where making the in-character decision costs me mechanical resources with no recompense, and been the weaker and less capable overall because of it. It has generally diminished my fun. Which is why I try to design my PCs to be hyper-capable, so that when I do make IC "bad" decisions (mechanically), I can afford it without falling behind.

What game systems was this in?

To me, this "razer's edge of character advancement" where each decision that's even the slightest bit "suboptimal" sets the character behind, sounds like a D&D thing, and I gave up on D&D a long time ago, sometime between 2nd and 3rd.

It's likely less of an issue in some other systems, certainly not much of an issue in any campaign using HERO 4th/5th, oWoD, etc.

Segev

2016-11-28, 04:10 PM

D&D, L5R, various White Wolf games, mostly. L5R is a particular culprit, probably because I did the most "living campaign" playing in it, where there are multiple different judges and you take your character from session to session with the continuity controlled thereon. Most of the others, it's been mitigated by house rules or GM action to balance things out in the long run.

White Wolf games have led me to the other side of the problem more often: inability to adequately play social characters, because while the games offer mechanics to invest in to be good at it, their systems are not good enough for it. (D&D, at least, doesn't really pretend you can do it; if you want it, you play a bard and treat it like mind-control.) This was especially egregious with an ST who took the Exalted 2E "mental influence" rules as overtly hostile, so any attempt to invoke social mechanics (e.g. to get somebody to like you) could lead to them spending willpower to resist, and "forcing" somebody to spend willpower or be "mind controlled" was so hostile that it warranted them hating you and probably resorting to violence.

Now, that's an ST doing it wrong, in my opinion, but the fact is that the mechanics do offer that view as a pretty straight-forward one, so they're an example of a try at social mechanics that failed miserably.

At the same time, I've tried in other games to play a social character and found that other players, who are more adept at social stuff than I am IRL, played "better" social PCs despite worse stats (or not even being focused on them) because they could talk the GM into their arguments being persuasive, while mine came off, to various GMs, as "too blunt" or "too manipulative" and thus made my social rolls useless due to me "doing it wrong."

Heck, my general unpersuasiveness despite (or perhaps because of) my sesquipedalian loquaciousness in this and other threads discussing topics like this should be pretty evidentiary of my lack of social skill IRL. ^^;

Edit: One example from L5R: There was a point where a ronin girl picked out a strapping young samurai to be the guy she wanted to bed. I made the IC decision that my PC would be flattered by this attention, and acquiesce. This came with nothing but negative consequences (under most circumstances). It was painfully obvious, too, but I figured it was in character. Other situations that are similar involved flat-out seduction rolls by the NPCs which forced the "bad choice" on the PCs (though I didn't directly experience that) because, again, nothing mechanically good could come from it and potential for much mechanical bad was present.

Given that there are entire Schools in L5R centered around catering to, inspiring, and exploiting people's vices, lacking mechanics to reward "giving in" (or punish "resisting") means you have to resort to "mind control" mechanics...or punish people for validating those kinds of characters as meaningful challenges.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-28, 04:21 PM

D&D, L5R, various White Wolf games, mostly. L5R is a particular culprit, probably because I did the most "living campaign" playing in it, where there are multiple different judges and you take your character from session to session with the continuity controlled thereon. Most of the others, it's been mitigated by house rules or GM action to balance things out in the long run.

White Wolf games have led me to the other side of the problem more often: inability to adequately play social characters, because while the games offer mechanics to invest in to be good at it, their systems are not good enough for it. (D&D, at least, doesn't really pretend you can do it; if you want it, you play a bard and treat it like mind-control.) This was especially egregious with an ST who took the Exalted 2E "mental influence" rules as overtly hostile, so any attempt to invoke social mechanics (e.g. to get somebody to like you) could lead to them spending willpower to resist, and "forcing" somebody to spend willpower or be "mind controlled" was so hostile that it warranted them hating you and probably resorting to violence.

Now, that's an ST doing it wrong, in my opinion, but the fact is that the mechanics do offer that view as a pretty straight-forward one, so they're an example of a try at social mechanics that failed miserably.

At the same time, I've tried in other games to play a social character and found that other players, who are more adept at social stuff than I am IRL, played "better" social PCs despite worse stats (or not even being focused on them) because they could talk the GM into their arguments being persuasive, while mine came off, to various GMs, as "too blunt" or "too manipulative" and thus made my social rolls useless due to me "doing it wrong."

Heck, my general unpersuasiveness despite (or perhaps because of) my sesquipedalian loquaciousness in this and other threads discussing topics like this should be pretty evidentiary of my lack of social skill IRL. ^^;

I was focusing more on the experience issue and character advancement being "held back" by those mechanically suboptimal decisions -- which honestly shouldn't have been a problem in the oWoD games unless the GM/ST was handing out XP based on combat encounters or something. I've never played Exalted, so that might have worked differently than the oWoD standard.

Segev

2016-11-28, 04:23 PM

I was focusing more on the experience issue and character advancement being "held back" by those mechanically suboptimal decisions -- which honestly shouldn't have been a problem in the oWoD games unless the GM/ST was handing out XP based on combat encounters or something. I've never played Exalted, so that might have worked differently than the oWoD standard.

Given that I have not once addressed the XP-reward suggestions except to say "I don't think it's the best way to try such things" (or some variant thereon...if even that much), I don't think I can adequately argue to support it. Nor would I.

All I've been suggesting are mechanical incentives. The closest I've come to XP-type advancement is discussing loot acquisition or loss. In that equipment is one way to advance. And even that isn't directly applicable except that you could wind up losing out on it if you make the "good RP" choice.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-28, 04:56 PM

Given that I have not once addressed the XP-reward suggestions except to say "I don't think it's the best way to try such things" (or some variant thereon...if even that much), I don't think I can adequately argue to support it. Nor would I.

All I've been suggesting are mechanical incentives. The closest I've come to XP-type advancement is discussing loot acquisition or loss. In that equipment is one way to advance. And even that isn't directly applicable except that you could wind up losing out on it if you make the "good RP" choice.

OK, I admit that I'm now confused.

You were discussing mechanically suboptimal decisions negatively impacting the character, in a way that seemed related to the character's mechanical progression, and to "loot".

Loot and gear is a big deal in a game like D&D, but not in many other systems. And in those other systems, XP/progression isn't tied to the minutia of combat encounters.

Segev

2016-11-28, 05:19 PM

OK, I admit that I'm now confused.

You were discussing mechanically suboptimal decisions negatively impacting the character, in a way that seemed related to the character's mechanical progression, and to "loot".

Loot and gear is a big deal in a game like D&D, but not in many other systems. And in those other systems, XP/progression isn't tied to the minutia of combat encounters.

Okay.

Let's go for a rock trivial example. Because I am apparently really bad at communicating.

If you have a choice between allowing somebody to tie you up such that you are denied whatever "able to move" bonuses to your "not getting hit with attacks" stat your system of choice allows, and not allowing them to tie you up that way, then the mechanically optimal choice will tend to be not to allow somebody to deny you your "don't get hit by attacks" stat bonuses for being able to move around.

There's no "character advancement" here. This is a tactical decision. Let yourself be nearly helpless, or remain able to defend yourself to your full capacity. There is no mechanical incentive to let yourself be nearly helpless.

Now, you might say, "Sure, but who WOULD let themselves be tied up like that?"

Except I've seen enough spy shows where the femme fatale tricks a mark into letting her handcuff him to a bed or something in preparation for what he thinks is obviously going to be an enjoyable experience, while she plans to render him helpless and vulnerable to less-than-nice-things. Murder, or threat thereof, being quite common.

So let's say that the sexy bar wench is trying to get you to let her tie your PC to the bed upstairs. In theory, a sufficiently skilled seductress should have a reasonable chance of tricking at least some adventurers into this kind of thing, and that most of the time such things come out more or less as the seduced individual expects. But since, to you, the player, there's really no way you're feeling the temptations the PC is feeling, it's just plain a stupid idea to let your PC be tied up that way.

Again, there is no "character advancement" associated, here. The negatives are the consequences of what can happen while your PC is tied up and unable to prevent it. The positives are...RP only, to put it mildly.

Now, in a "real life" version of this, where the PC is actually a person experiencing the...experience...the temptation would be real, where it's not for the player. The PC may know it's a bad idea on some level, but he's weighing risk that THIS bar wench is the sort who both can and will take advantage of his helpless state in ways he wouldn't like vs. the rewards of her taking advantage of him in ways he WOULD like. Maybe he's weighing how well he's able to fake being helpless when he isn't, really, and to keep himself non-helpless while appearing to submit. But again, he's weighing that against the rewards of her taking advantage of his apparent helplessness in ways he wants her to, because to the player, the risks involved (that he couldn't really prevent her from rendering him truly helpless, if he played along sufficiently to fool her) aren't worth the total lack-of-rewards the player is getting.

So if you go along with it "for RP," you're risking being punished for being true to your character and having him be successfully tempted.

Once more: note that there's no XP or other "character advancement" involved, here. Please also note that this is not the only possible example, and is in fact a blatantly obvious one chosen to try to illustrate the "punished for RPing rather than taking the obvious optimal path" point, and that such things need have nothing to do with XP or character advancement mechanics. (At least, no more so than "character not being put in progressively worse situations" is 'advancement mechanics.')

If this example makes sense, I can try to proceed from there. I don't want to proceed to make any points based off of it until I'm sure I've been clear, this time, however.

Cluedrew

2016-11-28, 08:05 PM

While it is more data, I suspect if we both played that character, our results would be nearly as diverse as if we both played Lg human cleric of Pelor with the other stats above. Which is to say, certainly not the same character.Probably, but I found the information (in my 3 minutes poking at it) to hint at the who of your character is (as opposed to what) more than some other systems. In D&D, for example, you can reach the point of "Don't assume the rouge is a thief", so that makes it a non-statement on the character.

There are probably other things I missed in all the recent posts. But one thing I would like to say is that the mechanics being talked about right now seem to be mostly about aligning the best (or better) tactical decision with the best story/role-play decision. Sort of bridging the gap between a narrative and tactical game.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 12:55 AM

Okay.

Let's go for a rock trivial example. Because I am apparently really bad at communicating.

If you have a choice between allowing somebody to tie you up such that you are denied whatever "able to move" bonuses to your "not getting hit with attacks" stat your system of choice allows, and not allowing them to tie you up that way, then the mechanically optimal choice will tend to be not to allow somebody to deny you your "don't get hit by attacks" stat bonuses for being able to move around.

There's no "character advancement" here. This is a tactical decision. Let yourself be nearly helpless, or remain able to defend yourself to your full capacity. There is no mechanical incentive to let yourself be nearly helpless.

Now, you might say, "Sure, but who WOULD let themselves be tied up like that?"

Except I've seen enough spy shows where the femme fatale tricks a mark into letting her handcuff him to a bed or something in preparation for what he thinks is obviously going to be an enjoyable experience, while she plans to render him helpless and vulnerable to less-than-nice-things. Murder, or threat thereof, being quite common.

So let's say that the sexy bar wench is trying to get you to let her tie your PC to the bed upstairs. In theory, a sufficiently skilled seductress should have a reasonable chance of tricking at least some adventurers into this kind of thing, and that most of the time such things come out more or less as the seduced individual expects. But since, to you, the player, there's really no way you're feeling the temptations the PC is feeling, it's just plain a stupid idea to let your PC be tied up that way.

Again, there is no "character advancement" associated, here. The negatives are the consequences of what can happen while your PC is tied up and unable to prevent it. The positives are...RP only, to put it mildly.

Now, in a "real life" version of this, where the PC is actually a person experiencing the...experience...the temptation would be real, where it's not for the player. The PC may know it's a bad idea on some level, but he's weighing risk that THIS bar wench is the sort who both can and will take advantage of his helpless state in ways he wouldn't like vs. the rewards of her taking advantage of him in ways he WOULD like. Maybe he's weighing how well he's able to fake being helpless when he isn't, really, and to keep himself non-helpless while appearing to submit. But again, he's weighing that against the rewards of her taking advantage of his apparent helplessness in ways he wants her to, because to the player, the risks involved (that he couldn't really prevent her from rendering him truly helpless, if he played along sufficiently to fool her) aren't worth the total lack-of-rewards the player is getting.

So if you go along with it "for RP," you're risking being punished for being true to your character and having him be successfully tempted.

Once more: note that there's no XP or other "character advancement" involved, here. Please also note that this is not the only possible example, and is in fact a blatantly obvious one chosen to try to illustrate the "punished for RPing rather than taking the obvious optimal path" point, and that such things need have nothing to do with XP or character advancement mechanics. (At least, no more so than "character not being put in progressively worse situations" is 'advancement mechanics.')

If this example makes sense, I can try to proceed from there. I don't want to proceed to make any points based off of it until I'm sure I've been clear, this time, however.

First, I simply misread your comments as having to do with character progression, in the sense that the decisions would leave the character behind the rest of the group -- I might have been dragging in some comments others have made into my reading, but at this point tracking that down would be a tangent I don't have the mental energy for.

Second, your example situation and less extreme examples are exactly the sort of thing I endeavor to have my own RPG characters avoid, and the sort of "genre appropriate" cliches I try very hard to avoid both in my writing and in games that I'm GMing. If a character-of-appropriate-gender comes on to a PC, it's very rarely if ever a setup, because frankly, I loath worn-out tropes and cliches and the like. "Character is seduced and betrayed", "character's new love interest exists to create drama by being put in danger", "combat-competent girl character suddenly disabled by having her arm grabbed", "characters go alone into the basement one by one even though the first four disappeared down there", etc, are all incredibly hackneyed at this point.

So, I think part of the disconnect here is that I'm specifically, as a player and as a GM, doing everything I can to avoid "genre emulation" along those lines. I don't care how "dramatically useful" or "genre appropriate" foolishness is, it's still foolishness, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps I'm seeing all these examples of "things a character would do that's really disadvantageous but completely in character" not something that allows the option of that sort of foolishness, but rather something that would require it of my own PCs when it's the last sort of character I'd ever want to play or be comfortable playing.

Floret

2016-11-29, 05:51 AM

Quertus

2016-11-29, 08:14 AM

I don't wanna play "character simulator", put in character points and see how the system decides that character acts and develops (Though that would be an AWESOME program to have), I want the system to encourage going certain ways that align with "the character" as previously defined.

So, I think the issue some of us are having is, how can one successfully incentivize playing a character, without effectively deincentivizing playing a character more complex and more realistic than the system's rewards system? Well, that, and, what about the people who just want to play undead Battletech, for whom this layer discourages their participation, let alone those smart enough to mock the whole idea of role-playing based on the inevitable failings of the rewards system?

I actually agree with this assessment quite I lot. Yes, they don't scratch the same itch. At all. I just find TRPGs are actually rather good at scratching the simulator itch, and sub-par in scratching the "I am in a reasonably close approximation of the situation" itch. At least for me.
So in that I am arguing that since TRPGs are very good at a fun, simulated "I get to roll dice and accomplish insane things impossible IRL", maybe improving and expanding their simulating side (In that respect, not in respect of actual "simulationism") might be a good idea. At least to have as an option. I think it has value, and that maybe instead of discussing whether or not it SHOULD be done, a more productive discussion might arise on how it COULD be done (better). Where, of course, the people who have no interest in them, are sadly excluded. But barging into a discussion about tactical approaches to MMO PvP with "I don't think PvP in MMOs is worthwhile" is a rather foolish thing. Not to say those people can't discuss, but the basic premise of this discussion ("Should they exist") strikes me as rather unproductive.

So, I'd like to discuss ways to pollute the world, to make it poisonous to all life. Discussing whether one should do this is unproductive?

And, several posters, myself included, are questioning whether one even can do so, or just blatantly stating that it's impossible.

This way of looking at it kinda nails down about what I think. The same chapter at least, if not the same page, to steal the quote.

:)

Missing the point. The point is that the player who cares about the character's emotional state feels like he's being overall punished for doing so when the player who doesn't is just plain better off than he is, because he's playing the game more mechanically optimally. Unless "down on his luck and in rough shape most of the time" is part of the good RPer's concept, this swiftly ceases to be fun. I say this from experience.

Perhaps. But that's when the "temptation" is to actively commit evil for immediate gain. What about when the "temptation" is its own reward, and comes at the cost of immediate or medium-term mechanical gain?

"Sir, buy this gold-leaf gilded armor; sure, it's only +4 just like this other, plainer set, and it costs more, but it's gorgeous!"

"You simply MUST have this delicious food and stay at this luxurious inn! It's the best in town! Sure, it costs 10x as much, but you've got the gold for it, and it's much nicer than that tawdry one that's merely clean and serviceable."

Quertus and the PbtA crowd seem to have plenty of fun with suboptimal decisions. Heck, they both seem to be saying that they derive most of their fun from suboptimal decision making. So, sounds like people are saying from experience that it can be done.

Perhaps so, but the fact remains that you have paid a cost for it, unless the whole party pays similar costs along the way and/or the GM compensates you behind the scenes (possibly just with a "gotta keep everybody roughly on-par" algorithm he uses for passing out rewards).

I've been in games where making the in-character decision costs me mechanical resources with no recompense, and been the weaker and less capable overall because of it. It has generally diminished my fun. Which is why I try to design my PCs to be hyper-capable, so that when I do make IC "bad" decisions (mechanically), I can afford it without falling behind.

Sounds like Quertus (albeit by design, rather than by accident). What's the problem? :smallconfused:

As Segev and I pointed out: Then you, ideally, have two different cookies you might give out - one for following each of the conflicting things. Each coming with its own benefits and drawbacks.

Given that I have not once addressed the XP-reward suggestions except to say "I don't think it's the best way to try such things" (or some variant thereon...if even that much), I don't think I can adequately argue to support it. Nor would I.

All I've been suggesting are mechanical incentives. The closest I've come to XP-type advancement is discussing loot acquisition or loss. In that equipment is one way to advance. And even that isn't directly applicable except that you could wind up losing out on it if you make the "good RP" choice.

Okay.

Let's go for a rock trivial example. Because I am apparently really bad at communicating.

the femme fatale

Second, your example situation and less extreme examples are exactly the sort of thing I endeavor to have my own RPG characters avoid, and the sort of "genre appropriate" cliches I try very hard to avoid both in my writing and in games that I'm GMing. If a character-of-appropriate-gender comes on to a PC, it's very rarely if ever a setup, because frankly, I loath worn-out tropes and cliches and the like. "Character is seduced and betrayed", "character's new love interest exists to create drama by being put in danger", "combat-competent girl character suddenly disabled by having her arm grabbed", "characters go alone into the basement one by one even though the first four disappeared down there", etc, are all incredibly hackneyed at this point.

So, I think part of the disconnect here is that I'm specifically, as a player and as a GM, doing everything I can to avoid "genre emulation" along those lines. I don't care how "dramatically useful" or "genre appropriate" foolishness is, it's still foolishness, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps I'm seeing all these examples of "things a character would do that's really disadvantageous but completely in character" not something that allows the option of that sort of foolishness, but rather something that would require it of my own PCs when it's the last sort of character I'd ever want to play or be comfortable playing.

This does seem to be a hangup of yours, yes. The systems, as I understand them, are to take the usually disadvantageous thing and make it a legitimate option, on par (But not above!) the "mechanically best", so as to not punish people for in-character decisions. If the system "forces" your PC to do such a thing by making the "mechanically best" option suddenly be worse, then that is probably a failing of the system - or the system does actively want for such a thing, and then it would not be for you, I imagine.
(Though I can imagine it having value. One of the Larp campaigns I play in has "Play to struggle" as their tagline - meaning actively play a flawed character, in a way that might get them in trouble, don't overthink, and just let the events play out. Mind you, it does not force you to do this (how could you in a free-form Larp), and it does not require you to act like an idiot (Just a character with less-than perfect oversight over the situation), but it produces much more interesting play than if everyone was constantly treading on safe ground and making optimal decisions. Every In-game character being played by a real person, and the thing being a good bit of PvP with lots of participants far beyond a regular gaming group does provide a different playing field than a homegroup, granted. But I think extreme cases can tell us something about the entire group they belong to.)

I also don't think it is fair to boil "suboptimal decisions from the standpoint of a logically thinking and somewhat disconnected being" (Aka. a player; though depending on the type of game both logic and disconnect can, to a certain degree, fly out the window) to "foolishness". I mean, we are trying to play believable characters here, right? So characters that could be real people, or at least somewhere close to it. Real people have vices (Alcohol, sex), character traits that affect them in negative ways (Quick to anger, superstitions, greed) and emotional connections to people that can be exploited. Those aren't all just people being stupid, those are people being people. If you know the right (person-specific, mind you) buttons, you can get a lot of people to do a lot of stupid ****. Why would RPG characters be any different? (Because they are, ultimately, not real people, but characters being played by a more logical and disconnected entity, would be the answer, yes. I find that answer to be rather unsatisfactory, however.)
And to exclude all that from a game in an effort to "avoid tropes" (I feel the need to point out that tropes are not inherently bad, but given your phrasing you do seem to understand it already. Though I do find even the most worn-out tropes can, if used rightly, benefit a story, however more difficult it would be. I like that challenge - you might not.) and "foolish decisions" seems to me to limit your range of possible stories and characters to an insane degree - and, really for what gain? To avoid making suboptimal decisions? That would be exactly the purpose of such a system, if well designed. Because it would no longer BE the "suboptimal" decision, from a meta-standpoint, the one you as the player reside at.

Ok, let me see if I can define these two camps, so that I can explain my third camp.

One camp says, I don't wanna be punished for being stupid / making the correct RP decision. I want to be rewarded for being stupid, equivalent to how I would have been rewarded for being smart. So, when Quertus chooses a suboptimal spell (or to just read his book) in combat, the system gives him / the party some reward for me role-playing Quertus' tactical stupidity, roughly equivalent to the difference between Quertus' action and the optimal one. When Quertus (yeah, I'm picking on my signature character a lot here) chooses to keep the 22 Balor Vorpal Blades as his share of the loot, because they're cool / for RP reasons, he / the party should receive some reward equivalent to the combat (or out-of-combat) effectiveness lost by Quertus making this suboptimal / RP-based decision.

The second camp says, I don't wanna be punished for not holding the idiot ball. In fact, I'd like to stop seeing people holding the idiot ball in cliched ways.

My camp says... Hmmm... I'm old-school. Holding the idiot ball gets you dead, make new character. Unless you are good enough (system mastery / munchkin) to build a character who can survive holding the idiot ball (Quertus). But you don't have to hold the idiot ball - doing so speaks to the type of game you want to play as surely as taking teleport does.

See, I hear both other camps as trying to get everyone else to drink their Kool-Aid. My camp says, drink what you like. Want to have fun disadvantaging yourself, like the PbtA or RP crowds? Great! Have fun! Want to not disadvantage yourself, like the war gamer or cliche-hating crowds? Great! Have fun! Want to build a game that encourages a theme (like, say, holding the idiot ball in a horror movie appropriate way), and not mislabel that as role-playing? Some of us might not play, but have fun!

I just can't see the downside to getting to play the type of game you want to play.

IMO, the problems both camps are having is that there is a disconnect at their table between their playstyle and that of the other players and/or the GM. The solution to this problem is not, IMO, to force everyone to play your way. The solution I'll advocate, as usual, is to talk with your group about your problems, and see if there is a valid solution. For your table.

And, to circle back to the original topic, apparently, in Bizarro World, role-playing is frowned upon. Happily, as in most of the world, getting player buy-in at/before the start of the game for things, like characters holding the idiot ball, sounds plausible.

Still, T~, if you were playing with the same group - and perhaps even with other groups in the future - I'd recommend building characters with smaller idiot balls. At least while you're feeling the group out. :smalltongue:

Berenger

2016-11-29, 08:30 AM

One camp says, I don't wanna be punished for being stupid / making the correct RP decision. I want to be rewarded for being stupid, equivalent to how I would have been rewarded for being smart. So, when Quertus chooses a suboptimal spell (or to just read his book) in combat, the system gives him / the party some reward for me role-playing Quertus' tactical stupidity, roughly equivalent to the difference between Quertus' action and the optimal one. When Quertus (yeah, I'm picking on my signature character a lot here) chooses to keep the 22 Balor Vorpal Blades as his share of the loot, because they're cool / for RP reasons, he / the party should receive some reward equivalent to the combat (or out-of-combat) effectiveness lost by Quertus making this suboptimal / RP-based decision.

The second camp says, I don't wanna be punished for not holding the idiot ball. In fact, I'd like to stop seeing people holding the idiot ball in cliched ways.

Yeah, that seems like a fair and balanced summary, straight to the point. Not.

Floret

2016-11-29, 08:53 AM

So, I think the issue some of us are having is, how can one successfully incentivize playing a character, without effectively deincentivizing playing a character more complex and more realistic than the system's rewards system? Well, that, and, what about the people who just want to play undead Battletech, for whom this layer discourages their participation, let alone those smart enough to mock the whole idea of role-playing based on the inevitable failings of the rewards system?
[...]
Quertus and the PbtA crowd seem to have plenty of fun with suboptimal decisions. Heck, they both seem to be saying that they derive most of their fun from suboptimal decision making. So, sounds like people are saying from experience that it can be done.

Pretty much, yeah. But this is the issue of "how", not "if". This is the point where discussing if this sort of thing has value at all gets us nowhere to answer the question. "I don't find its worth it, it works fine for me without" is a perfectly legit way. And, to be fair, a way that most of my groups actually commit to and go on without a second thought. Not arguing there needs to be such a system. But for an "ideal" RPG for my tastes? Having one might be a good idea.
Though I do take issue with the "smart enoug to mock" bit.

So, I'd like to discuss ways to pollute the world, to make it poisonous to all life. Discussing whether one should do this is unproductive?

And, several posters, myself included, are questioning whether one even can do so, or just blatantly stating that it's impossible.

C'mon, now this is arguing in bad faith. Sure, you should discuss in some places if something should be done - not in the one in your example, mind you, that should go with a resounding "No, what the ****?".
But for things like different approaches to roleplaying, where no side actually harms anyone? Why would we need to debate if it should be done AT ALL?
The statement that it is impossible seems to me to be disproven by people actually doing it.

Ok, let me see if I can define these two camps, so that I can explain my third camp.

One camp says, I don't wanna be punished for being stupid / making the correct RP decision. I want to be rewarded for being stupid, equivalent to how I would have been rewarded for being smart. So, when Quertus chooses a suboptimal spell (or to just read his book) in combat, the system gives him / the party some reward for me role-playing Quertus' tactical stupidity, roughly equivalent to the difference between Quertus' action and the optimal one. When Quertus (yeah, I'm picking on my signature character a lot here) chooses to keep the 22 Balor Vorpal Blades as his share of the loot, because they're cool / for RP reasons, he / the party should receive some reward equivalent to the combat (or out-of-combat) effectiveness lost by Quertus making this suboptimal / RP-based decision.

The second camp says, I don't wanna be punished for not holding the idiot ball. In fact, I'd like to stop seeing people holding the idiot ball in cliched ways.

My camp says... Hmmm... I'm old-school. Holding the idiot ball gets you dead, make new character. Unless you are good enough (system mastery / munchkin) to build a character who can survive holding the idiot ball (Quertus). But you don't have to hold the idiot ball - doing so speaks to the type of game you want to play as surely as taking teleport does.

See, I hear both other camps as trying to get everyone else to drink their Kool-Aid. My camp says, drink what you like. Want to have fun disadvantaging yourself, like the PbtA or RP crowds? Great! Have fun! Want to not disadvantage yourself, like the war gamer or cliche-hating crowds? Great! Have fun! Want to build a game that encourages a theme (like, say, holding the idiot ball in a horror movie appropriate way), and not mislabel that as role-playing? Some of us might not play, but have fun!

I just can't see the downside to getting to play the type of game you want to play.

Nah. If you sort that as your camp, then you gotta get me in there as well - I have repeatedly said and pointed out that "No, this might not be for everyone, and that is okay". I am not trying to get anyone to drink anything here. I don't actually think anyone would agree with a statement of "everyone has to play my way", actually. All we are (or at least I am) trying to do, is try to get others to see why we think these systems can have value/Can be a hindrance.
I am obviously failing to see how they can be a hindrance, so far. Which is why I continue arguing. I am seeing that they seem to BE a hindrance to some people, I just don't get WHY.
(I am, on the other hand, heavily in support of the first camp and second camp, at least in theory. I don't want there to be no punishment, I just want the punishment be counterweighed by something else of equal value. But this might be arguing semantics. Both points are perfectly compatible, in my way, you just gotta get the system right. I find the "second camp" I see to be more about "I want to be in control of my character, and am against everything that tries to take it away", with them seeing such mechanics as taking control away. I don't agree with their position, but I think this might be a fairer representation then what you have given.)

(Tbh, your games also sound rather restrictive to me. "Do something suboptimal and get killed, except if you minmaxed enough to survive it" doesn't sound like a very enjoyable experience where I would like to play to the weaknesses of a character, if that gets them killed/severely left behind. And I like playing to the weaknesses of characters. It produces great experiences and situations. I also like playing to the strengths of characters. It is great for solving situations. And, given that I am talking mostly from a GM perspective, this goes for NPCs as well as PCs.)

Also, as ever, this is not about "being stupid", and mischaracterising it as that leads me to believe either you have a very different definition of stupid as I do, or you should reread my previous post.

IMO, the problems both camps are having is that there is a disconnect at their table between their playstyle and that of the other players and/or the GM. The solution to this problem is not, IMO, to force everyone to play your way. The solution I'll advocate, as usual, is to talk with your group about your problems, and see if there is a valid solution. For your table.

Nah. You are quite mistaken there. I have no problem at my table, the players are all mostly on the same playstyle, with only minor differences in this or that direction, and frequent talks about if they are having fun, why, why not, and what might be done to improve it for everyone. If I have a problem with a groups playstyle, I just leave the game. I don't wanna force everyone in any given game to play my way, I want there to be such systems that encourage certain things, because I find it enables a kind of gameplay I like.
Just as I like certain dice mechanics better than others, and therefor enjoy playing in games that have them over playing in those that don't. Doesn't mean I only ever want every system to have dicepools.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 10:45 AM

The second camp says, I don't wanna be punished for not holding the idiot ball. In fact, I'd like to stop seeing people holding the idiot ball in cliched ways.

Pretty much. If someone else wants their character to hold the idiot ball, and they find that fun, within moderation, then that's fine -- but don't ask me to have my character hold the idiot ball, ever.

Note: "holding the idiot ball" is NOT the same as "roleplaying", and is not a synonym for or a matched set with "making character-driven decisions". I have no patience for this notion that's seeped into fiction writing/criticism, and then on into RPGs, that a character is only made "real" by being an utter F-up, that any sort of actual competence or lasting success is "escapist" and "shallow".

Also note: can we please avoid the false dichotomy that would claim that rejecting the above notion means you want characters to be perfect and flawless and omnicompetent, and face no challenges, and always get their way.

My camp says... Hmmm... I'm old-school. Holding the idiot ball gets you dead, make new character. Unless you are good enough (system mastery / munchkin) to build a character who can survive holding the idiot ball (Quertus). But you don't have to hold the idiot ball - doing so speaks to the type of game you want to play as surely as taking teleport does.

See, I hear both other camps as trying to get everyone else to drink their Kool-Aid. My camp says, drink what you like. Want to have fun disadvantaging yourself, like the PbtA or RP crowds? Great! Have fun! Want to not disadvantage yourself, like the war gamer or cliche-hating crowds? Great! Have fun! Want to build a game that encourages a theme (like, say, holding the idiot ball in a horror movie appropriate way), and not mislabel that as role-playing? Some of us might not play, but have fun!

My concern is not getting anyone else to drink anything.

My concern is that RPG systems and "culture" seem to be bifurcating between "keep your RP out of the way of my tactical decisions" / "ultra-gamist-crunchy" versus "true RP involves holding the idiot ball at least X often" / "story uber alles". At least, the systems I sample and the discussions I peruse keep giving the impression of that bifurcation.

My concern is that those of us who aren't interested in either side of that dichotomy, who are left caught between the optimizers and the idiot ball, are being left to piece together the scraps into something we can kinda use.

Quertus

2016-11-29, 11:07 AM

Yeah, that seems like a fair and balanced summary, straight to the point. Not.

Well, half the reason I made the camps was to give people the opportunity to tell me how I had misinterpreted what they were saying. So, care to provide more useful feedback?

Pretty much, yeah. But this is the issue of "how", not "if". This is the point where discussing if this sort of thing has value at all gets us nowhere to answer the question. "I don't find its worth it, it works fine for me without" is a perfectly legit way. And, to be fair, a way that most of my groups actually commit to and go on without a second thought. Not arguing there needs to be such a system. But for an "ideal" RPG for my tastes? Having one might be a good idea.
Though I do take issue with the "smart enoug to mock" bit.

I feel like I need a familiar telling me they are surprised how often I miscommunicate by not using enough words.

Any sufficiently simple system will have flaws emulating / rewarding something as complex as role-playing a reasonable facsimile of a human personality.

If said flaws happen to be aligned with a particular individual's biases, they may not be able to see said flaws (as easily, at least).

Thus, for any given simple system, there will (or theoretically could) exist those "smart" enough (biased in the correct way) to perceive the system's flaws.

I was merely pointing out the possibility that any role-playing system theoretically could be used as a straw man against role-playing in general. The better the system, the harder to recognize the straw nature of the attack.

C'mon, now this is arguing in bad faith. Sure, you should discuss in some places if something should be done - not in the one in your example, mind you, that should go with a resounding "No, what the ****?".
But for things like different approaches to roleplaying, where no side actually harms anyone? Why would we need to debate if it should be done AT ALL?

The worst impediment to role-playing I've experienced is the existence of D&D's alignment system. Further, my experience is that people will confuse "gaming the RP aid" with role-playing. Also, even simple systems can discourage the war gamer crowd. I've already seen simpler systems as detrimental to role-playing, so I'm leary of people assuming there's no harm done.

I want people to go into this with their eyes open, to be able to weigh the actual costs against the potential benefits - including the cost that such a system will likely only offer detriment to me.

The statement that it is impossible seems to me to be disproven by people actually doing it.

Well, I won't go maximum pedantic just yet; for now, I'll just say that we may want to check and make sure everyone is using their words to mean the same thing.

Because, as... you?... said, one doesn't scratch the same itch as the other.

Nah. If you sort that as your camp, then you gotta get me in there as well - I have repeatedly said and pointed out that "No, this might not be for everyone, and that is okay". I am not trying to get anyone to drink anything here. I don't actually think anyone would agree with a statement of "everyone has to play my way", actually. All we are (or at least I am) trying to do, is try to get others to see why we think these systems can have value/Can be a hindrance.

Yay! By defining the camps wrong, I got an instant convert! I'm being rewarded for being stupid! I'm almost sold in the idea already. :smallwink:

I am obviously failing to see how they can be a hindrance, so far. Which is why I continue arguing. I am seeing that they seem to BE a hindrance to some people, I just don't get WHY.

Hmmm... I like lists. Let me start a list. Playable systems are oversimplifications. Enticement towards an oversimplification provides a boost for some, a penalty for others (like me).
Distancing the war gamer crowd. The more rules you bake into a system that people view as a tax to play, the less appeal the system has.
[/i]Felicitas in Eternis Est[/i]. I want to focus on improving me role-playing, not on making the system get out of my way better at understanding role-playing.
Any system will be imperfect. Hard-coding a system makes it a static target. This produces many problems:
Slow to change. The system must be house ruled for any given group, and cannot really be reprinted in new books vs how quickly the rules should change.
Over-reacting edition changes. 4e D&D. Imagine putting your role-playing enjoyment in the hands of the ****s who brought you those rules as the same game title as previous editions. Need I say more?

And I'm sure I'll come up with more.

Which of these do you need more details on?

(I am, on the other hand, heavily in support of the first camp and second camp, at least in theory. I don't want there to be no punishment, I just want the punishment be counterweighed by something else of equal value. But this might be arguing semantics. Both points are perfectly compatible, in my way, you just gotta get the system right. I find the "second camp" I see to be more about "I want to be in control of my character, and am against everything that tries to take it away", with them seeing such mechanics as taking control away. I don't agree with their position, but I think this might be a fairer representation then what you have given.)

Yeah, I figured my camp slogans needed some work. In that regard, I side towards the second camp in practice.

(Tbh, your games also sound rather restrictive to me. "Do something suboptimal and get killed, except if you minmaxed enough to survive it" doesn't sound like a very enjoyable experience where I would like to play to the weaknesses of a character, if that gets them killed/severely left behind. And I like playing to the weaknesses of characters. It produces great experiences and situations. I also like playing to the strengths of characters. It is great for solving situations. And, given that I am talking mostly from a GM perspective, this goes for NPCs as well as PCs.)

Well, that's just how old-school D&D worked, IME. Not that that exactly describes my games... but that background certainly helps understand my PoV. And some of my characters were around in and thereby came from that era.

But, yes, I play by the rules, let the dice fall where they may, stupidity (including not preparing for bad luck) can be fatal.

Also, as ever, this is not about "being stupid", and mischaracterising it as that leads me to believe either you have a very different definition of stupid as I do, or you should reread my previous post.

Yeah, I'm defining stupid... in such a way that it should probably be blue, or italicized, or something. Probably akin to suboptimal.

I used my signature character as an example to help indicate this / to help define by example.

Nah. You are quite mistaken there. I have no problem at my table, the players are all mostly on the same playstyle, with only minor differences in this or that direction, and frequent talks about if they are having fun, why, why not, and what might be done to improve it for everyone. If I have a problem with a groups playstyle, I just leave the game. I don't wanna force everyone in any given game to play my way, I want there to be such systems that encourage certain things, because I find it enables a kind of gameplay I like.
Just as I like certain dice mechanics better than others, and therefor enjoy playing in games that have them over playing in those that don't. Doesn't mean I only ever want every system to have dicepools.

Fair enough. Sounds like I misjudged your motives. I guess it's a sign it's an issue I'm prickly on.

PersonMan

2016-11-29, 11:57 AM

Ok, let me see if I can define these two camps, so that I can explain my third camp.

One camp says, I don't wanna be punished for being stupid / making the correct RP decision. I want to be rewarded for being stupid, equivalent to how I would have been rewarded for being smart. So, when Quertus chooses a suboptimal spell (or to just read his book) in combat, the system gives him / the party some reward for me role-playing Quertus' tactical stupidity, roughly equivalent to the difference between Quertus' action and the optimal one. When Quertus (yeah, I'm picking on my signature character a lot here) chooses to keep the 22 Balor Vorpal Blades as his share of the loot, because they're cool / for RP reasons, he / the party should receive some reward equivalent to the combat (or out-of-combat) effectiveness lost by Quertus making this suboptimal / RP-based decision.

The second camp says, I don't wanna be punished for not holding the idiot ball. In fact, I'd like to stop seeing people holding the idiot ball in cliched ways.

Here's a tip: If you're describing different positions in a discussion, saying one side wants to "be stupid" is a terrible way of getting the idea across that you're a neutral or third party that is trying to sum up different sides of the debate.

ComradeBear

2016-11-29, 12:30 PM

Floret

2016-11-29, 12:49 PM

Note: "holding the idiot ball" is NOT the same as "roleplaying", and is not a synonym for or a matched set with "making character-driven decisions". I have no patience for this notion that's seeped into fiction writing/criticism, and then on into RPGs, that a character is only made "real" by being an utter F-up, that any sort of actual competence or lasting success is "escapist" and "shallow".
Also note: can we please avoid the false dichotomy that would claim that rejecting the above notion means you want characters to be perfect and flawless and omnicompetent, and face no challenges, and always get their way.

My concern is that RPG systems and "culture" seem to be bifurcating between "keep your RP out of the way of my tactical decisions" / "ultra-gamist-crunchy" versus "true RP involves holding the idiot ball at least X often" / "story uber alles". At least, the systems I sample and the discussions I peruse keep giving the impression of that bifurcation.
My concern is that those of us who aren't interested in either side of that dichotomy, who are left caught between the optimizers and the idiot ball, are being left to piece together the scraps into something we can kinda use.

Hm. I have not actually seen anyone claim the latter, to be quite honest. Now, sure, I don't doubt there are examples, but I haven't quite seen them. In fact, I have seen a system that explicity states for the opposite: FATE, while rewarding playing to your weaknesses/Holding the idiot ball, if your weaknesses lie that way, also says it expects COMPETENT characters.
And I also must say I like that mix. I like quite a bit of gamism, and I can sort of understand both sides you build here. Playing to your characters weaknesses is fun! But always loosing is not. One of the reasons I am staying away from Cthulhu. Too little opportunity to gain competence, there.
I don't actually think what has been suggested here is necessarily at odds with your stated goals, though. If you divorce "role-playing aids" from "gettin people to hold the idiot ball", in much the same way you want to divorce "role-playing" from "holding the idiot ball", which is a distinction I would agree on. You can roleplay a character that is competent at what they do. (In fact, the only character I was kind of getting tired was the one with the least clear competences, and my solution to give her more competence and confidence.)
Minor note: I find you might be overinterpreting what some people are saying, when they say good characters have weaknesses. I have never seen it as "characters have just weaknesses and fail at everything ever", just as "add weaknesses to a character to spice them up, round them out, make them a real person, it can make for lots of interesting storys and twists". The latter of which my experience tells me is excellent advice.
(Also, out of curiosity: Was it the phone autocorrect or the brain switching to german there?^^)

I feel like I need a familiar telling me they are surprised how often I miscommunicate by not using enough words.
Any sufficiently simple system will have flaws emulating / rewarding something as complex as role-playing a reasonable facsimile of a human personality.
If said flaws happen to be aligned with a particular individual's biases, they may not be able to see said flaws (as easily, at least).
Thus, for any given simple system, there will (or theoretically could) exist those "smart" enough (biased in the correct way) to perceive the system's flaws.

Meh. I can see flaws in systems I like. I can also judge that they don't affect me negatively, but might with others. Liking something doesn't make you blind to its shortcomings, at least not in and of itself.

The worst impediment to role-playing I've experienced is the existence of D&D's alignment system. Further, my experience is that people will confuse "gaming the RP aid" with role-playing. Also, even simple systems can discourage the war gamer crowd. I've already seen simpler systems as detrimental to role-playing, so I'm leary of people assuming there's no harm done.

I want people to go into this with their eyes open, to be able to weigh the actual costs against the potential benefits - including the cost that such a system will likely only offer detriment to me.

I don't consider alignment to be much of a system, to be honest, but then again I have never played DnD and no interest in doing so, so what do I know. But why would people "confusing" the two be so bad? Because they "roleplay" in a badwrong way? Roleplaying can take many forms, and I don't find the discussion about which "count" to be particularly worthwhile. This seems to me to be a sideeffect of your very limited definition, incidentally. Where exactly do you draw the border between "roleplaying" and "pretending to roleplay/confusing something else for it"?
And not to sound insensitive, but... so what? I don't want to share a table with the wargamer crowd. I mean, not while playing RPGs. It is their own choice to play what they want, and I would be the last to discourage, but it is not my style, and getting them disinterested in playing the same games as I am... does not strike me as a particularly worrysome event. There are enough systems out there that we can optimise them to each cater to a different crowd and to scratch different urges (Or the same urges in different ways). Why have two that do it the same, undefined way?
Discouraging you, personally... I mean, truthfully I also don't quite care :smallwink: One person half a world away doesn't really affect my gaming group size, to be honest.

Hmmm... I like lists. Let me start a list. Playable systems are oversimplifications. Enticement towards an oversimplification provides a boost for some, a penalty for others (like me).
Distancing the war gamer crowd. The more rules you bake into a system that people view as a tax to play, the less appeal the system has.
[/i]Felicitas in Eternis Est[/i]. I want to focus on improving me role-playing, not on making the system get out of my way better at understanding role-playing.
Any system will be imperfect. Hard-coding a system makes it a static target. This produces many problems:
Slow to change. The system must be house ruled for any given group, and cannot really be reprinted in new books vs how quickly the rules should change.
Over-reacting edition changes. 4e D&D. Imagine putting your role-playing enjoyment in the hands of the ****s who brought you those rules as the same game title as previous editions. Need I say more?

And I'm sure I'll come up with more.
Which of these do you need more details on?

To be honest... all of them, except maybe the second.
Hm. Your first point I am still not sold on, since I STILL doubt the automatic birth of a ceiling by introducing a floor.
Your second, see above.
This strikes me as a... weird point, to be honest? I actually don't get what you are trying to say, other then "for me introducing any system at all hinders me" which I still don't understand HOW.
I very much doubt the automatic necessity for houseruling. I mean, rules for combat and everything else face the same problems of imperfection, yet they don't have to be houseruled in every given group, and are just as slow to change? Really don't get the specific problem here.
Yeah, since, as I mentioned numerous times: No experience or interest in DnD. For the rest of my answer to this, see point above.

Well, that's just how old-school D&D worked, IME. Not that that exactly describes my games... but that background certainly helps understand my PoV. And some of my characters were around in and thereby came from that era.
But, yes, I play by the rules, let the dice fall where they may, stupidity (including not preparing for bad luck) can be fatal.
Yeah, I'm defining stupid... in such a way that it should probably be blue, or italicized, or something. Probably akin to suboptimal.

To be honest... sounds terrible. If the slightest mistake can get my character killed, I'd go to a system with an easier reset button. CRPGs, for example. Now I don't have any interest in Dark Souls, but it sounds like a much better fit for scratching THAT itch.
Though, I want to also insist I am playing by the rules, and let the dice fall as they may. There is no need to cheat or fudge the dice to produce less deadly situations. Granted, I also don't do much combat in my games.
And, again with the conflicting definitions, this time (from my perspective) yours being too broad instead of too limited.^^

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 12:55 PM

Here's a tip: If you're describing different positions in a discussion, saying one side wants to "be stupid" is a terrible way of getting the idea across that you're a neutral or third party that is trying to sum up different sides of the debate.

For clarity, "the idiot ball (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall)" is a term from TVTropes. It's not intended as accusation of actual stupidity against the player or writer of a character.

Quertus

2016-11-29, 12:55 PM

Here's a tip: If you're describing different positions in a discussion, saying one side wants to "be stupid" is a terrible way of getting the idea across that you're a neutral or third party that is trying to sum up different sides of the debate.

Good call.

I could take a cop out, and say I was posting from my phone, and the site likes to eat my posts, so I didn't do due diligence, and make sure that camp had used those words to describe their actions.

Or I could eat crow, and admit I was just plain wrong.

I'm not sure which stance I'll take, but I obviously should do one of those.

Apologies if anyone was offended by my use of the word "stupid".

Talakeal

2016-11-29, 01:05 PM

A couple of things:

Someone implied that I have a problem with mind control mechanics in games. I do not, if they are in "in-game" thing rather than a meta-game thing, and in the former case I am allowed to react appropriately (like the afore mention character trying to become mortal in Scion). That said though, a GM who constantly uses mind control to railroad the characters is, imo, violating the social contract.

Also, I think some of the disconnect once again comes down to GDS and player types. Gamist players want people to make the tactical decision, Dramatist / Narrativist players want people to make the genre appropriate decision, and Simulationist players want to make character appropriate decisions. Its a 3(+) sided argument rather than a binary, which I think might be causing a lot of the disconnect.

The game is about beliefs, in that the GM's job is to test and challenge the beliefs of everyone in the group and make the game about them. Put obstacles in the way of achieving those beliefs, tempt the characters to break them, keep pushing and pushing until the characters either succeed, fail, or realize that they don't believe that any more.

Actually I kind of don't like this part either. I get that Burning Wheel is a very anti-GM game (someone once told me that the game would work just fine without one), but this is really taking away too much of their freedom.

I have a request, could you describe one? Not so much their 20 year history (although mention it where it is important) but the things that you would keep in mind if you were about to sit down and play them.

I can, and now that I have been called out I suppose I have to, but its finals week right now so you are going to have to wait until I get some free time on my hands.

My problem with these systems is that the "give in" cost is often much greater than the "re-roll" benefit can make up for.

"Let the sneaky guy bribe you to look the other way for a re-roll later this session. Oh, by the way, what he did while you weren't looking is something that will cost you...and recovering from it involves a lot more difficult rolls during which you'll likely expend that re-roll and still come out behind."

This is why I suggest longer-term rewards and penalties, but on a smaller overall scale.

Again, super hard to balance though. You really do need a human arbiter to get anywhere close to trying to find appropriate mechanical cost vs. rewards.

Also depends on what you mean longer scale.

Personally I can't think of a temporary reward that is strong enough to motivate me to act out of character, so it would have to be a permanent reward. And I am enough of a perfectionist that I am not going to be able to turn down every opportunity for a permanent reward; which means that I am always going to be making decisions contrary to my character, which means I am not having fun, which means I am probably going to leave the game.

That's kind of my point. I think you're assuming too much, here, of what I'm trying to encourage. Or you're ignoring that there already exist mechanical incentives to behave certain ways, but that the lack of incentives to behave other ways creates a distorted sort of incentive structure.
No, not really. That implies that "if you get an A, you get cake and ice cream" means that those who would get an A+ for its own sake now are punished for getting an A+.

In this analogy the people who get an A get treats, the people who get an A+ get nothing. If the treats are good enough to motivate a B student to work hard and get an A, then the are also going to be strong enough to motivate an A+ student to intentionally sabotage their great to get an A.

Again, the argument isn't that rewarding good RP is bad, its that it is impossible to come up with a system which is able to detect good RP except at the most basic levels.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-29, 01:11 PM

A couple of things:Actually I kind of don't like this part either. I get that Burning Wheel is a very anti-GM game (someone once told me that the game would work just fine without one), but this is really taking away too much of their freedom.

No part of this is actually true. :smallconfused:

Edit for actual content:

I mean you could theoretically run Burning Wheel without a GM in the same way that you could theoretically run D&D without a DM. But nothing in the system supports it in any way.

I don't view gameplay revolving around Beliefs as being anti-GM in the slightest. It's an invaluable tool for GMs. It's a clear way, written into the game rules, for players to tell the GM what is important to their characters right now. You know what really sucks as a GM? Preparing something and having the players go "Eh. Whatever. We're gonna go over here and do this other totally unrelated thing instead because we don't care about what you're throwing at us." That's where the temptation for GMs to railroad comes from in the first place. Beliefs tell you what the players want to focus on in the near future and lets you prepare accordingly. If three people have beliefs about Duke Roderick then you can prepare stuff revolving around Duke Roderick with a guarantee that it's going to be used.

But yes the default assumption of BW is that it's a character driven game. Characters are supposed to be people with strong beliefs about the world and drive and ambition who want to go out and accomplish things. But even then, the game doesn't break if you play reactively instead of proactively. If you want a game where the characters sit around and wait for the GM to throw problems at them and then write beliefs about dealing with those problems you can do that too. It seems like a waste to me, but the system is flexible enough to accommodate it if that's where your fun lies.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 01:26 PM

Hm. I have not actually seen anyone claim the latter, to be quite honest. Now, sure, I don't doubt there are examples, but I haven't quite seen them. In fact, I have seen a system that explicity states for the opposite: FATE, while rewarding playing to your weaknesses/Holding the idiot ball, if your weaknesses lie that way, also says it expects COMPETENT characters.

And I also must say I like that mix. I like quite a bit of gamism, and I can sort of understand both sides you build here. Playing to your characters weaknesses is fun! But always loosing is not. One of the reasons I am staying away from Cthulhu. Too little opportunity to gain competence, there.

I don't actually think what has been suggested here is necessarily at odds with your stated goals, though. If you divorce "role-playing aids" from "gettin people to hold the idiot ball", in much the same way you want to divorce "role-playing" from "holding the idiot ball", which is a distinction I would agree on. You can roleplay a character that is competent at what they do. (In fact, the only character I was kind of getting tired was the one with the least clear competences, and my solution to give her more competence and confidence.)

Minor note: I find you might be overinterpreting what some people are saying, when they say good characters have weaknesses. I have never seen it as "characters have just weaknesses and fail at everything ever", just as "add weaknesses to a character to spice them up, round them out, make them a real person, it can make for lots of interesting storys and twists". The latter of which my experience tells me is excellent advice.
(Also, out of curiosity: Was it the phone autocorrect or the brain switching to german there?^^)

(If you mean the "story uber alles" bit, it was use of Americanized slang, based on a deliberate WW2 mistranslation of "uber alles" as "over everything" -- so it would be shorthand for "story over everything, more important than anything, including continuity, consistency, and coherence, including characters and setting". There's a certain subbranch of the "narrative" focus that seems to believe that everything in an RPG should bend to emulating the genre and creating a "good story".)

I don't think I'm over-interpreting it, this is based on things I've read and conversations I've had. I'm not saying the notion (of fatally flawed characters who always end up being their own worst enemy as some sort of gold standard) is universal, but it's out there. It's more common in lit-crit circles, admittedly, but I'm seeing more and more of it in speculative fiction, and baked into the design assumptions of some RPGs.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 01:31 PM

Quertus

2016-11-29, 01:51 PM

I gotta agree with Personman.

At this point the argument seems to have devolved to:
"If you like RP mechanics its because you are or want to be stupid and play idiots."
And/or other variations of the theme that we are lowly creatures incapable of crafting proper characters without training wheels and other such ideas is the vibe that I'm consistently getting.

I expect to get that from Max. Ad Hominem and attacks on his opponent's character rather than their argument are not uncommon. (I'm a favorite target, anyways.)

I didn't expect to get this from Quertus, and at this point I feel that once the only way a person has to word their idea involves insults, they have no further real points to make.

So I'm gonna bow out of this discussion now. If I want to be called stupid for liking certain games with certain rules, I'll go back to highschool.

I'm glad you expected better from me, and I'm sorry to appear to disappoint you.

As an Ad Hominem attack, which was not it's intent, it's probably one of the strangest in history, since I'd be attacking myself. I make "stupid" / suboptimal decisions all the time in the name of role-playing, and only used myself as an example.

Still, it was bad form, however unintentional. I'll try harder to live up to your expectations.

Meh. I can see flaws in systems I like. I can also judge that they don't affect me negatively, but might with others. Liking something doesn't make you blind to its shortcomings, at least not in and of itself.

I don't consider alignment to be much of a system, to be honest, but then again I have never played DnD and no interest in doing so, so what do I know. But why would people "confusing" the two be so bad? Because they "roleplay" in a badwrong way?

You deserve a much longer response; for now, let me hit these two points.

It's not a matter of "like", it's a matter of style. It's why you get someone else to edit your work, fit a fresh perspective.

Because they think anything which doesn't match the system is bad wrong role-playing.

Talakeal

2016-11-29, 01:54 PM

No part of this is actually true. :smallconfused:

Edit for actual content:

I mean you could theoretically run Burning Wheel without a GM in the same way that you could theoretically run D&D without a DM. But nothing in the system supports it in any way.

I don't view gameplay revolving around Beliefs as being anti-GM in the slightest. It's an invaluable tool for GMs. It's a clear way, written into the game rules, for players to tell the GM what is important to their characters right now. You know what really sucks as a GM? Preparing something and having the players go "Eh. Whatever. We're gonna go over here and do this other totally unrelated thing instead because we don't care about what you're throwing at us." That's where the temptation for GMs to railroad comes from in the first place. Beliefs tell you what the players want to focus on in the near future and lets you prepare accordingly. If three people have beliefs about Duke Roderick then you can prepare stuff revolving around Duke Roderick with a guarantee that it's going to be used.

But yes the default assumption of BW is that it's a character driven game. Characters are supposed to be people with strong beliefs about the world and drive and ambition who want to go out and accomplish things. But even then, the game doesn't break if you play reactively instead of proactively. If you want a game where the characters sit around and wait for the GM to throw problems at them and then write beliefs about dealing with those problems you can do that too. It seems like a waste to me, but the system is flexible enough to accommodate it if that's where your fun lies.

A few years ago this board went through a huge "player empowerment" phase for some reason. "http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?191678-There-is-no-quot-Rule-Zero-quot-!" being pretty much the height of it.

One of the things that was often repeated was that newer story driven games would throw off the shackles of DM tyranny, and Burning Wheel (especially Burning Empires, which I think is a spin off?) were the pinnacle of games which empower the players. I remember someone insisting that the game rules limited the GM so much that they could not screw over the players even if they wanted to and that, in fact, you could simply show the GM the door and easily continue playing without them because of the way the game was set up.

I couldn't understand it at the time, being totally unfamiliar with "story games", and I haven't ever fully read the rules, so I can't be sure how much of that was actually true vs. internet rhetoric, but it has still stuck in my mind as being an example of an "anti-GM" system as a result.

ComradeBear

2016-11-29, 02:04 PM

I'm glad you expected better from me, and I'm sorry to appear to disappoint you.

As an Ad Hominem attack, which was not it's intent, it's probably one of the strangest in history, since I'd be attacking myself. I make "stupid" / suboptimal decisions all the time in the name of role-playing, and only used myself as an example.

Still, it was bad form, however unintentional. I'll try harder to live up to your expectations.

It wasn't that example. But rather the "let alone those smart enough to mock the whole idea of role-playing based on the inevitable failings of the rewards system?"

As if those of us who enjoy reward systems for rp are too stupid to know better and failed to achieve your lofty position of superiority.

THAT'S where I have a problem. Because that is also Ad-Hominem.

Floret

2016-11-29, 02:07 PM

(If you mean the "story uber alles" bit, it was use of Americanized slang, based on a deliberate WW2 mistranslation of "uber alles" as "over everything" -- so it would be shorthand for "story over everything, more important than anything, including continuity, consistency, and coherence, including characters and setting". There's a certain subbranch of the "narrative" focus that seems to believe that everything in an RPG should bend to emulating the genre and creating a "good story".)

I don't think I'm over-interpreting it, this is based on things I've read and conversations I've had. I'm not saying the notion (of fatally flawed characters who always end up being their own worst enemy as some sort of gold standard) is universal, but it's out there. It's more common in lit-crit circles, admittedly, but I'm seeing more and more of it in speculative fiction, and baked into the design assumptions of some RPGs.

Huh. Didn't know the "alles" had also translated over into American slang. Just was aware of the "uber" (It's Über, dammit! Why do you never put the Umlaute where they belong?). (I am aware of the meaning and history of the phrase. Being German comes with things like that :smalltongue: )
I mean, sure, out there. There are a lot of things out there. But really, fatally flawed as a gold standard? I really have never, ever seen this, which is why your assertion of it being common surprises me - I am also a writer, a GM and a German major (Think English major, but in Germany), as well as generally interested in the topic so I am being faced with quite a lot of writing critique and advice in my life. Despite this, I have never seen anything that actually says this. The closest I have come is the (Somewhat frequent, but also quite possibly right) assertion that interesting characters NEED flaws. But that is of course not a statement that they not have strengths, or their flaws be fatal.

And there's evidently a further split in the "narrativist" camp as to whether they're genre & story driven, or character driven -- I've seen both claims made repeatedly, by people who self-describe as "narrativist".

I don't think those two are necessarily evident of a further fullborn split. The best stories are character-driven, so you could get both. Now there are probably people who want only one and don't care about the other, but to me it looks like the "character-driven" group might be a subset of the other, and not entirely seperate camps. One would have to actually look into preferenes here, instead of looking at statements that could just be misunderstandings by putting the same concept into different words (or using the same word for different contexts). I personally think that with well-designed, setting- and genre-appropriate characters an interesting story will naturally form itself.

Segev

2016-11-29, 03:02 PM

Second, your example situation and less extreme examples are exactly the sort of thing I endeavor to have my own RPG characters avoid, and the sort of "genre appropriate" cliches I try very hard to avoid both in my writing and in games that I'm GMing. If a character-of-appropriate-gender comes on to a PC, it's very rarely if ever a setup, because frankly, I loath worn-out tropes and cliches and the like. "Character is seduced and betrayed", "character's new love interest exists to create drama by being put in danger", "combat-competent girl character suddenly disabled by having her arm grabbed", "characters go alone into the basement one by one even though the first four disappeared down there", etc, are all incredibly hackneyed at this point.

So, I think part of the disconnect here is that I'm specifically, as a player and as a GM, doing everything I can to avoid "genre emulation" along those lines. I don't care how "dramatically useful" or "genre appropriate" foolishness is, it's still foolishness, as far as I'm concerned.

Perhaps I'm seeing all these examples of "things a character would do that's really disadvantageous but completely in character" not something that allows the option of that sort of foolishness, but rather something that would require it of my own PCs when it's the last sort of character I'd ever want to play or be comfortable playing.It's not about "dramatically useful" or "genre appropriate."

It's about verisimilitude and playing realistic characters without being punished for it, rather than the only rewards going to the robot-optimizing-behavior characters. And trying to do this by connecting the incentives real people experience to make sub-optimal life choices to the incentives that motivate players.

So let's say that 999/1000 times, the seductress really is just thinking you look like a fun time in bed and wants to legitimately engage in some R- or X-rated activities behind a fade-to-black, with varying levels of "kink." As you said, most such "one night stand" encounters IRL probably are along those lines: guy meets girl; both are willing consenting adults; they go find a place to engage in some mutually-enjoyable comparative anatomical studies.

But Bob isn't actually getting anything good out of his PC getting laid. Maybe he has a slight PG-13 thrill over knowing sexy funtimes happened off-screen, but that's hardly going to hold a candle to the irritation and frustration that 1 time out of 1000 that a GM springs the honeypot trap on him. Or the (much more realistic) exposure to an STD. Or the pregnancy subplot.

Unless you "do everything you can to avoid all clichés" to the point where you literally don't have complications arise from any "in character" choice a PC makes, you're not going to avoid all of these potential problems.

Another way I could take what you wrote - and I'm not sure whether you mean it this way or not, but I bring it up for completeness - is in the "old school" sense another poster (who I think I multiquote later in this post) mentioned: don't hold the "idiot ball" so you don't have these problems.

The trouble is that you're now saying that the "right" way to play a character is to either ignore RP or to build somebody who is "above" any vices, temptations, etc., because to have vices or give in to temptation is to hold the idiot ball.

The idiot ball in TV Tropes isn't just about doing stupid things. Somebody who is legitimately fooled or who is manipulated according to character flaws that are well established is not necessarily holding an idiot ball. Holding an idiot ball is essentially being stupid for plot convenience's sake. All of a sudden, the hero who was too smart to be fooled by anybody can't see through a bald-faced lie. Or the guy who's been so focused on his goal that he didn't notice the Team Mom crushing on him all this time suddenly gives up his best opportunity to get his goal because a random bar maid batted her eyes at him.

If the barbarian adventurer with a quick temper who spends his gold on ale and whores is tricked into abandoning his post to fight a street tough over the attentions of a woman, that's not holding the idiot ball. That's the guy's established vices and flaws coming to bear.

In contrast, what I'm talking about is making it so that you, the player who gets literally nothing except "kudos" for playing "in character" if you have your character do something sub-optimal but completely reasonable for a real person in the situation to do (e.g. be seduced by the innkeep's hot kid about your own IC age), has reason to consider the CHARACTER's preferences and urges over the smarter, longer-term wisdom of "no, getting laid makes me vulnerable in a number of ways, and I get nothing out of it, so why would I do it?"

Since the PC does get something out of it (satiation of lust and immediate pleasure), and that temptation is why a real person in that situation would consider (or even act on) it rather than doing the safe thing, it makes sense to have mechanics which allow the player to feel like he's making a real choice. He isn't being purely punished for playing IC.

Personally I can't think of a temporary reward that is strong enough to motivate me to act out of character, so it would have to be a permanent reward. And I am enough of a perfectionist that I am not going to be able to turn down every opportunity for a permanent reward; which means that I am always going to be making decisions contrary to my character, which means I am not having fun, which means I am probably going to leave the game.
Note that I've not once suggested rewarding acting out of character. Quite the contrary.

I have suggested that the permanent debilitating effects of making IC choices that only yield mechanical downsides (but are 100% in character and something that, in a story, nobody would bat an eye at being real temptations for the character despite the obvious long-term risks and costs) should be offset by mechanical rewards for doing the IC thing.

Done right, the player will see the two mechanical reward/punishment pairings for the two choices as being within the same realm, so that picking one is a game play move to decide HOW to advance the PC's adventure and resources, rather than a choice between "put your king in check for no reason, or make a move that doesn't do that."

In this analogy the people who get an A get treats, the people who get an A+ get nothing. If the treats are good enough to motivate a B student to work hard and get an A, then the are also going to be strong enough to motivate an A+ student to intentionally sabotage their great to get an A.Uh...wha? Since when?

The argument was that the introduction of ice cream created an inherent ceiling. When you have to introduce that people who go above the ceiling lose the ice cream, of course you've introduced a ceiling. That's not inherent to "anybody who gets at least an A gets ice cream," though. That's IMPOSING a ceiling.

I... really can't see any way you can interpret anything anybody's said as "people who get A+s don't get ice cream." This is literally the first I've seen of it.

Every example of rewarding ice cream for an A has said nothing about not getting ice cream if you get an A-and-then-some. If you are rewarded for playing in character up to a certain point, and you would have gone beyond that, you still get the reward for going up to that point. There just isn't anything more beyond it available. Only if "going beyond an A" came with a cost would you have any grounds to argue the ceiling is there, and then you're just arguing that the ceiling is there anyway, and it's been elevated by rewarding the As to offset the cost paid for an A.

Again, the argument isn't that rewarding good RP is bad, its that it is impossible to come up with a system which is able to detect good RP except at the most basic levels.
The idea is to create mechanics which reflect emotions and drives and thus allow rewards and penalties to make it so that playing in-character by making choices in character for the PC aren't punished by virtue of having no mechanical upside compared to making the optimal, non-in-character choices.

To make it so that paying for a "rich lifestyle" has mechanical perks to offset the wealth spent on such opulence, so it isn't purely punishing any PC who plays such a character by denying him more useful in-game items he COULD have purchased.

To make it so that rolling over and going back to sleep rather than getting up and hammering out that extra 2nd level spell scroll might be tempting to the PLAYER the way it could be to the CHARACTER.

To make it so that agreeing to help the little orphan find his lost puppy in the dark forest is an actual choice without metagaming "well, maybe there's loot because the GM created this adventure hook," especially if it's a choice between that and staying in the tavern to wait for the quest-giver with your reward for that last quest who should be here any minute.

To make it so that paying for ale and whores really is something that tempts the player as much as the character, despite the money being better spent on equipment and the risks involved in promiscuity.

And, because this goes to influencing and playing on drives, urges, and emotions, it also points to ways to make social-focused PCs more effective. Whether it's in having better mechanical hooks to hang manipulation of NPCs, or in having ways to bolster the party against such blandishments (or in the face of hardship), the richer mechanics for urges, drives, emotions, and desires (as well as for the same being denied or deprived) gives such characters more mechanical space in which to work, the same way a more richly-developed combat system gives fighters and combat-focused mages more mechanical space, or item-creation rules give item-crafters more room in which to work.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 03:22 PM

Huh. Didn't know the "alles" had also translated over into American slang. Just was aware of the "uber" (It's Über, dammit! Why do you never put the Umlaute where they belong?). (I am aware of the meaning and history of the phrase. Being German comes with things like that :smalltongue: )

I mean, sure, out there. There are a lot of things out there. But really, fatally flawed as a gold standard? I really have never, ever seen this, which is why your assertion of it being common surprises me - I am also a writer, a GM and a German major (Think English major, but in Germany), as well as generally interested in the topic so I am being faced with quite a lot of writing critique and advice in my life. Despite this, I have never seen anything that actually says this. The closest I have come is the (Somewhat frequent, but also quite possibly right) assertion that interesting characters NEED flaws. But that is of course not a statement that they not have strengths, or their flaws be fatal.

For all I know, it's more common in English-language literary-criticism circles.

Here are some snippets that come up if you search for "character fatal flaws".

"Fatal flaws are essential, because these characters have to suffer if there's going to be any kind of triumph at the end of the book."
"The Fatal Flaw - The Most Essential Element for Bringing Characters to Life"
"In fact, you might make your character as flawed as you can manage."
"I was reading through Fate character creation recently when I realised something about how I create my characters. Namely that I define my characters by their flaws, I define them by what is broken about them."

I could go on and on, the hits are endless and often come down to "characters are defined by their flaws, the more and worse the flaws the better."

I don't think those two are necessarily evident of a further fullborn split. The best stories are character-driven, so you could get both. Now there are probably people who want only one and don't care about the other, but to me it looks like the "character-driven" group might be a subset of the other, and not entirely separate camps. One would have to actually look into preferences here, instead of looking at statements that could just be misunderstandings by putting the same concept into different words (or using the same word for different contexts). I personally think that with well-designed, setting- and genre-appropriate characters an interesting story will naturally form itself.

It is a full split when character and setting consistency/coherence are considered secondary to "the story" that someone wants to tell. Consider episodic fiction wherein a character is capable of something in one episode or issue, because the writer "needs" it so in order to tell the story they want to tell, but in a later episode, the character conveniently can't do that same thing, because the writer "needs" that inability in order to tell the story they want to tell in that episode. In episode 21, there's a technological solution to a problem. In episode 95, the same solution could easily be adapted, but everyone has magically forgotten about it, because it would make "THE STORY" of episode 95 last about five minutes, and the writers just can't have that.

Similarly, I see gaming discussions in which it's made quite clear that there's a sort of gaming group who sees "THE STORY" as primary over all other things. The PC who can easily best multiple skilled opponents even when surprised in a past session, is easily captured by a couple of thugs in a later session, "because it makes for the best story". Ugh.

Segev

2016-11-29, 03:35 PM

It is a full split when character and setting consistency/coherence are considered secondary to "the story" that someone wants to tell. Consider episodic fiction wherein a character is capable of something in one episode or issue, because the writer "needs" it so in order to tell the story they want to tell, but in a later episode, the character conveniently can't do that same thing, because the writer "needs" that inability in order to tell the story they want to tell in that episode. In episode 21, there's a technological solution to a problem. In episode 95, the same solution could easily be adapted, but everyone has magically forgotten about it, because it would make "THE STORY" of episode 95 last about five minutes, and the writers just can't have that.

Similarly, I see gaming discussions in which it's made quite clear that there's a sort of gaming group who sees "THE STORY" as primary over all other things. The PC who can easily best multiple skilled opponents even when surprised in a past session, is easily captured by a couple of thugs in a later session, "because it makes for the best story". Ugh.

I agree with all of this.

What confuses me is that I get the impression you say all of this as if it then makes having mechanics in place to transform purely punishing in-character choices into genuine choices between two options based on the character's goals (often long-term vs. short-term) or drives/urges (eating that dessert even though he's trying to lose weight, or sneaking off to make out with his girlfriend rather than studying for that test).

A PC in those situations, where mechanics reward "losing weight" and "passing the test" with better outcomes but there's no real benefit to making out or eating dessert, would have a player making optimal decisions choose to avoid the temptation. After all, the player isn't going to taste the dessert (and might be eating a twinkie right then and there), and isn't going to get whatever physical and emotional pleasure there is in making out with his (character's) girlfriend, but he will endure the failure to achieve whatever mechanical benefit there is to lowered weight (maybe fitting into that magical belt) or passing the test (perhaps he doesn't get into a particular character class next level).

None of this is "stupid tropes" requiring the PC to have inconsistent motivation nor ability. In fact, by having mechanics in place to represent the drives, the drives' influence is made more consistent.

Quertus

2016-11-29, 04:55 PM

It wasn't that example. But rather the "let alone those smart enough to mock the whole idea of role-playing based on the inevitable failings of the rewards system?"

As if those of us who enjoy reward systems for rp are too stupid to know better and failed to achieve your lofty position of superiority.

THAT'S where I have a problem. Because that is also Ad-Hominem.

Wow. I'm failing all over the place today.

This was also, if anything, an attack on myself, although harder to see that way. I've explained what I meant earlier, but, as an attack on myself, I was trying to say that, while I might not personally be able to see the flaws in any given RP aid, by virtue of the differences in complexity between "playable rules" and "human personality", such flaws must exist. And, therefore, there could also exist someone smarter than me who could see such flaws (even if, say, I've vetted the system).

And, since I've seen it happen before, someone who sees the flaws in those rules could attack those rules as a straw man for attacking role-playing.

So, "smart enough to see the flaws", smarter than me; then, because they're a ****, "use those flaws to attack role-playing".

Hope that makes more sense.

Glad you didn't just throw me on ignore for my mistake!

EDIT: I just re-read the way I worded that originally. Wow. Total fail. I completely see why people were upset. Not what I meant. At all.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 04:56 PM

I agree with all of this.

What confuses me is that I get the impression you say all of this as if it then makes having mechanics in place to transform purely punishing in-character choices into genuine choices between two options based on the character's goals (often long-term vs. short-term) or drives/urges (eating that dessert even though he's trying to lose weight, or sneaking off to make out with his girlfriend rather than studying for that test).

A PC in those situations, where mechanics reward "losing weight" and "passing the test" with better outcomes but there's no real benefit to making out or eating dessert, would have a player making optimal decisions choose to avoid the temptation. After all, the player isn't going to taste the dessert (and might be eating a twinkie right then and there), and isn't going to get whatever physical and emotional pleasure there is in making out with his (character's) girlfriend, but he will endure the failure to achieve whatever mechanical benefit there is to lowered weight (maybe fitting into that magical belt) or passing the test (perhaps he doesn't get into a particular character class next level).

None of this is "stupid tropes" requiring the PC to have inconsistent motivation nor ability. In fact, by having mechanics in place to represent the drives, the drives' influence is made more consistent.

It's a bit of a tangent to the conversation, admittedly, related to the GDS/GNS issue as it was tied into this topic.

ComradeBear

2016-11-29, 05:14 PM

Wow. I'm failing all over the place today.

This was also, if anything, an attack on myself, although harder to see that way. I've explained what I meant earlier, but, as an attack on myself, I was trying to say that, while I might not personally be able to see the flaws in any given RP aid, by virtue of the differences in complexity between "playable rules" and "human personality", such flaws must exist. And, therefore, there could also exist someone smarter than me who could see such flaws (even if, say, I've vetted the system).

And, since I've seen it happen before, someone who sees the flaws in those rules could attack those rules as a straw man for attacking role-playing.

So, "smart enough to see the flaws", smarter than me; then, because they're a ****, "use those flaws to attack role-playing".

Hope that makes more sense.

Glad you didn't just throw me on ignore for my mistake!

I don't throw people on ignore at all, period.
I find the practice childish and petty. The forum equipment of "well then you're not invited to my birthday party!"

It makes slightly more sense, but even that isn't particularly salient as a point.
Of course the systems are simplified and flawed compared to reality. Literally all of them are. Pointing out that our model is simpler than reality is like pointing out that the plastic model of a skyscraper is too small and has no furniture or air conditioning. Of course it doesn't. It's a model. It needs to be good enough to do its job and that's all it needs to do.

What changes is what we use the model for. Some people like certain bells and whistles on their models. Others don't.

I sell cars for a living and understanding divergent needs is like 90% of my job.
Guess what, some people want a Chevy Tahoe. Maybe it's not the fastest car in the world. But it does what they need/want it to do. Maybe its got seat warmers. Or maybe it has enough room for their kids. Maybe they just like big cars. Maybe they want leather seats. Maybe they want cloth.

RPGs are bundles of features, mechanics, genre signals, and dice rolling that appeals to certain groups who like certain things. If you don't happen to like RP mechanics, that's ok. Not everyone cares about having leather seats. There are advantages and disadvantages to leather seats, after all. (Easier to clean, but expensive to repair and they get HOT in sunny weather and not particularly more comfortable, IME.)

It's the same thing, different flavor.

Cluedrew

2016-11-29, 07:04 PM

I can, and now that I have been called out I suppose I have to, but its finals week right now so you are going to have to wait until I get some free time on my hands.Of course, put time where it needs to go.

Burning Wheel (especially Burning Empires, which I think is a spin off?)That's what it was called... and it does exist and does appear to be a spin off based off of Iron Empires. Thank-you.

To Max_Killjoy: I share your frustration. From my view: what people forget is that the story (no quotes) really is the sum of its parts, which includes setting. So if you trade off one part for another you are not actually making a better story so much as you are shifting its strengths and weaknesses around.

Talakeal

2016-11-29, 07:26 PM

Stuff.

Honestly I think a lot of this comes down to what people want out of the game.

What are your goals? What are your characters goals?

For example, if I am playing a ladies man, a one night stand IS my goal (or at least, one of my goals) so any complications that arise from it are simply more challenges on the way to my goal.

I think a lot of people get into a "war-gamer" mentality where they equate "beating up anyone who stands in your way," with "winning" the game.

Maybe I am weird in that regard; but I didn't seem to be alone. In my last group we spent way more time coordinating our outfits than we ever did planning tactics.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-29, 08:45 PM

A few years ago this board went through a huge "player empowerment" phase for some reason. "http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?191678-There-is-no-quot-Rule-Zero-quot-!" being pretty much the height of it.

One of the things that was often repeated was that newer story driven games would throw off the shackles of DM tyranny, and Burning Wheel (especially Burning Empires, which I think is a spin off?) were the pinnacle of games which empower the players. I remember someone insisting that the game rules limited the GM so much that they could not screw over the players even if they wanted to and that, in fact, you could simply show the GM the door and easily continue playing without them because of the way the game was set up.

I couldn't understand it at the time, being totally unfamiliar with "story games", and I haven't ever fully read the rules, so I can't be sure how much of that was actually true vs. internet rhetoric, but it has still stuck in my mind as being an example of an "anti-GM" system as a result.

Yeah, they don't know what they're talking about and/or they're full of hyperbole. BW is not a GM-less game in any sense. It does have a few useful tools for preventing the more insidious forms of railroading, which is probably what they're thinking of.

Say you want to sneak into a princess' bedchambers. A DM might make you roll a stealth test to get up to the curtain wall, then a climbing test to get over it, then another stealth test to get into the keep, then another stealth test to get up to the floor with a princess, then another stealth test to get to her door. And oh no you failed at some point so that's when you get jumped by the guards. Making multiple tests for achieving the same thing is a useful tool for subtly railroading the players because you can keep asking for tests until they fail and you get the result they want. You can even do it unintentionally.

BW says work out how hard it's going to be to sneak into the princess' bedchambers at the start, set the obstacle, and then roll once and only once for it. If DM tyranny is your thing there's nothing stopping the GM from going "Sneaking into the princess' bedchambers?! Ha ha, **** you! Ob 20!" and laughing maniacally. It just forces them to be open about it.

And yes Burning Empires is a spin-off based on Iron Empires.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 09:24 PM

Yeah, they don't know what they're talking about and/or they're full of hyperbole. BW is not a GM-less game in any sense. It does have a few useful tools for preventing the more insidious forms of railroading, which is probably what they're thinking of.

Say you want to sneak into a princess' bedchambers. A DM might make you roll a stealth test to get up to the curtain wall, then a climbing test to get over it, then another stealth test to get into the keep, then another stealth test to get up to the floor with a princess, then another stealth test to get to her door. And oh no you failed at some point so that's when you get jumped by the guards. Making multiple tests for achieving the same thing is a useful tool for subtly railroading the players because you can keep asking for tests until they fail and you get the result they want. You can even do it unintentionally.

BW says work out how hard it's going to be to sneak into the princess' bedchambers at the start, set the obstacle, and then roll once and only once for it. If DM tyranny is your thing there's nothing stopping the GM from going "Sneaking into the princess' bedchambers?! Ha ha, **** you! Ob 20!" and laughing maniacally. It just forces them to be open about it.

And yes Burning Empires is a spin-off based on Iron Empires.

Is that also one that talks about "conflict resolution" instead of "task resolution", and argues that your "conflict" is with, say, the lord of the castle where the princess is located, and not with the guards you need to sneak past or the walls you have to climb or the locks you need to pick?

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-29, 09:45 PM

Is that also one that talks about "conflict resolution" instead of "task resolution", and argues that your "conflict" is with, say, the lord of the castle where the princess is located, and not with the guards you need to sneak past or the walls you have to climb or the locks you need to pick?

You roll stealthy versus the observation of the thing you're being stealthy against, climbing against the wall you're climbing, and lock pick against the door you're picking. The Let it Ride rule just says you only roll each skill once in the whole process.

If you want to bring in a curtain wall to climb over what you do is you make it what's called a linked test. Let's say in this case the main part of the task is judged to be the stealthy skill, but there's also a wall to climb.

First you'd roll climbing. If you fail the climbing test then the difficulty for the next test in the chain is 1 higher, and you get an additional complication. In this case it probably represents not being able to climb the wall, so you're forced to sneak in through the main gate instead and someone might have caught a glimpse of you in the process, not enough to sound the alarm, but enough that they might be able to give a vague description of you later to investigators.

If you pass the climbing test then you move on to the stealthy test.

If you pass the climbing test by exceeding the difficulty then you get a bonus to the stealthy test after that. You were capable of making a more difficult climbing into a place where you have an easier shot towards your objective.

Next you roll stealthy, and because stealthy was judged to be the main part of the linked test this is where you determine if you succeeded at your intent or failed. In this case getting caught by the guards would be entirely fair.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 10:17 PM

You roll stealthy versus the observation of the thing you're being stealthy against, climbing against the wall you're climbing, and lock pick against the door you're picking. The Let it Ride rule just says you only roll each skill once in the whole process.

If you want to bring in a curtain wall to climb over what you do is you make it what's called a linked test. Let's say in this case the main part of the task is judged to be the stealthy skill, but there's also a wall to climb.

First you'd roll climbing. If you fail the climbing test then the difficulty for the next test in the chain is 1 higher, and you get an additional complication. In this case it probably represents not being able to climb the wall, so you're forced to sneak in through the main gate instead and someone might have caught a glimpse of you in the process, not enough to sound the alarm, but enough that they might be able to give a vague description of you later to investigators.

If you pass the climbing test then you move on to the stealthy test.

If you pass the climbing test by exceeding the difficulty then you get a bonus to the stealthy test after that. You were capable of making a more difficult climbing into a place where you have an easier shot towards your objective.

Next you roll stealthy, and because stealthy was judged to be the main part of the linked test this is where you determine if you succeeded at your intent or failed. In this case getting caught by the guards would be entirely fair.

Maybe someone was piggybacking their "conflict resolution" argument off of BW, then, because that's not really where they went with their explanation at all.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-29, 10:44 PM

Maybe someone was piggybacking their "conflict resolution" argument off of BW, then, because that's not really where they went with their explanation at all.

Well I mean, it's conflict resolution in the sense that the player makes it clear what they want out of the test in advance: "I want to get into the princess' chambers." says how they're going to accomplish that intent: "by sneaking in" and the GM sets an obstacle based on that intent and task. If the roll is passed the character gets his intent, no backsies.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-29, 10:52 PM

Well I mean, it's conflict resolution in the sense that the player makes it clear what they want out of the test in advance: "I want to get into the princess' chambers." says how they're going to accomplish that intent: "by sneaking in" and the GM sets an obstacle based on that intent and task. If the roll is passed the character gets his intent, no backsies.

It sounds like another one of those gaming, um, innovation s that's solving a problem I'd never encountered, so it seems odd to me. Never had a GM do the sorts of things that are being addressed.

Many medicines sound harsh to one who is not afflicted.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-29, 11:06 PM

It sounds like another one of those gaming, um, innovations that's solving a problem I'd never encountered, so it seems odd to me. Never had a GM do the sorts of things that are being addressed.

Like literally an hour ago my friend was telling me a story of an inexperienced DM he just encountered. They were interrogating a goblin and she was making them roll intimidate against it. They ended up rolling intimidate four times until she decided that they'd rolled high enough to succeed. Infuriating.

Let it Ride isn't some great new development in roleplaying. But it is a good thing to have in the rulebook to help people who have a tendency to do things like that because they don't know any better.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-29, 11:47 PM

Actually, on reflection, I think you might object to the rulebook encouraging the "say yes, and" approach, which I think originally comes from improv? That is to say, when a failure would stall out the story in an uninteresting way, say yes they succeeded AND there's an interesting complication. Fail at picking a lock and maybe it pops open just as the guard patrol arrives.

To be clear, in my opinion "say yes, and" is just good GMing practice in general and most games should be played this way. However, BW doesn't go further than making a suggestion to use this sometimes. Just always using the failure stake "you don't open the door, try something else or go home in defeat" isn't forbidden or even hindered by the system. It's flexible enough that the group in general and GM in specific can decide how they want to play it. The game can be played as task based resolution as you want.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-30, 07:47 AM

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-30, 08:24 AM

To me, not piling on a ton of rolls/checks unless the situation absolutely demands it, sometimes having complications instead of outright failures, sometimes having rolls made to see how long it takes or how well it's done instead of pass-fail... those are just good general GMing habits that don't necessarily need formalized names or to be encoded in the rules or pushed with some of the high-handed snootiness that they've been pushed with by some. I think the case for each as an absolute, or the way they've been presented as great revelations, can put GMs/players off as much as the bad practices that they're meant to address.

I'm in favour of rulebooks putting best GMing practices in them. There's a lot of really terrible GMing practices ingrained in the hobby from bad advice that certain books have given out in the past, looking at you early D&D DMGs. Good practices being in rulebooks helps new GMs who mean well and are looking for guidance how to do it well. And it can help experienced players coming from, say, a D&D background, reexamine some things they do unconsciously because that's how they've always played.

Cluedrew

2016-11-30, 08:33 AM

Considering how little of the game is actually rules when it comes to most role-playing games; I would say good GM & player advice (or the good habits they can create) can be important as the rules themselves.

ComradeBear

2016-11-30, 09:09 AM

Games that tell you how they're supposed to be GM'd and provide solid GMing tools are my favorite systems. I learn many styles of GMing to import to games that give no advice or help, and many of those tools are extremely portable. (Fronts from Apocalypse World, Faction Turn from Stars Without Number, etc.)

Encoding good GM practice into the rules is good game design practice, IME. It leads to the creation of better GMs, which the hobby needs. It makes new GMs feel more confident, because they get a legitimate guide to GMing, not just "Good luck." And with the tools, new GMs have a easier time with prep.

Once you're experienced with GMing the system, you get to go into the unusual corners and start bending things around.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-30, 09:33 AM

I'm in favour of rulebooks putting best GMing practices in them. There's a lot of really terrible GMing practices ingrained in the hobby from bad advice that certain books have given out in the past, looking at you early D&D DMGs. Good practices being in rulebooks helps new GMs who mean well and are looking for guidance how to do it well. And it can help experienced players coming from, say, a D&D background, reexamine some things they do unconsciously because that's how they've always played.

Fair enough, but I do think presentation matters.

Personally, I didn't care for the "our way or badwrongfun" snobbery from some of the hipster-goths at White Wolf back in the day, and I don't care for the way Ron Edwards and his disciples do things (such as liken RPGing that's not done his way to "brain (http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/marginalia/3777) damage (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=18707.0)"), as two examples.

I greatly dislike the "covert's fallacy", in which someone discovers something that works far better for them than what they were doing, and then assumes that the world is divided into people who have also converted, and people who are suffering terribly because they have not converted -- and I've seen that happen with many of the "new things" in gaming over the decades.

My suggestion to anyone writing GMing/playing advice into their game would be to present it as a toolkit, along the lines of "here's what worked for us and might work for you too", instead of trying to hit people over the head with it.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-11-30, 09:44 AM

My suggestion to anyone writing GMing/playing advice into their game would be to present it as a toolkit, along the lines of "here's what worked for us and might work for you too", instead of trying to hit people over the head with it.

Depends what the thing is, really. Let it Ride isn't an optional suggestion for a reason, the game will break immediately if you ignore it because you advance a skill by using it. Making someone roll the same thing multiple times to accomplish something will screw up progression dramatically.

There's room for suggestions too though, certainly.

Talakeal

2016-11-30, 01:39 PM

Uh...wha? Since when?

The argument was that the introduction of ice cream created an inherent ceiling. When you have to introduce that people who go above the ceiling lose the ice cream, of course you've introduced a ceiling. That's not inherent to "anybody who gets at least an A gets ice cream," though. That's IMPOSING a ceiling.

I... really can't see any way you can interpret anything anybody's said as "people who get A+s don't get ice cream." This is literally the first I've seen of it.

Every example of rewarding ice cream for an A has said nothing about not getting ice cream if you get an A-and-then-some. If you are rewarded for playing in character up to a certain point, and you would have gone beyond that, you still get the reward for going up to that point. There just isn't anything more beyond it available. Only if "going beyond an A" came with a cost would you have any grounds to argue the ceiling is there, and then you're just arguing that the ceiling is there anyway, and it's been elevated by rewarding the As to offset the cost paid for an A.

That has been my point the entire time; the ceiling exists because once you get past a certain level of complexity the system cannot tell the difference between RP extremely well and not RPing at all.

I have never seen an RPG system that enforces / rewards RPing that has complexity built into it, that can handle conflicting goals, personal motivation or opinions, acting subtly, or occasionally acting inconsistently / intentionally acting against one's nature for whatever reason.

Take for example the paladin in 3.X D&D. It has a very strict system of enforcing role-play.

Now, imagine a paladin who is in conflict. The world faces impending doom, an invasion from legions of demons that will scour all human life from the planet and drag their souls screaming back to the Abyss. The paladin can think of no way to defeat them on his own, but his old enemy, the Lich King of Doom, has offered a temporary truce, and together the warriors of light and the undead hordes might just be able to hold back the demons. After a long period of soul searching and inner turmoil the paladin eventually agrees to accept the Lich King's offer to save the world. He knows that he will likely be tainted in the act, but if his purity is the price of salvation for all the world's innocents then that is a sacrifice he is willing to make.

I would say this is fairly good roleplaying. However, mechanically, the system will treat him exactly the same as a paladin who one day decided to start murdering and robbing random townsfolk because it is way easier than going to the dungeon.

Now, D&D is a fairly bad system for mechanically assisting RP, but it is by no means the worst, and I have never seen one (and would have trouble believing there is one) that doesn't reach some point where it will stop rewarding you / start punishing you because you are RPing at a level beyond what the system can detect.

While such a system could, in theory, exist, it would be an unwieldy behemoth of a system just shy of a program capable of true AI.

Or it would require constantly stopping the game to have long OOC conversations about everyone's intentions. And while Quertus might enjoy this, I certainly do not. I don't like the feeling of being judged or of being a "magician explaining how my tricks are done," and the inevitable arguments and debates that will follow. Game time is really precious to me, and it is hard enough to keep everyone focused without having to constantly stop the game to reevaluate everyone's motivations and the reward structure thereof.

Quertus

2016-11-30, 01:52 PM

It sounds like another one of those gaming, um, innovation s that's solving a problem I'd never encountered, so it seems odd to me. Never had a GM do the sorts of things that are being addressed.

Many medicines sound harsh to one who is not afflicted.

... How does this medicine sound harsh?

Of course the systems are simplified and flawed compared to reality. Literally all of them are. Pointing out that our model is simpler than reality is like pointing out that the plastic model of a skyscraper is too small and has no furniture or air conditioning. Of course it doesn't. It's a model. It needs to be good enough to do its job and that's all it needs to do.

What changes is what we use the model for. Some people like certain bells and whistles on their models. Others don't.

RPGs are bundles of features, mechanics, genre signals, and dice rolling that appeals to certain groups who like certain things. If you don't happen to like RP mechanics, that's ok.

Considering how little of the game is actually rules when it comes to most role-playing games; I would say good GM & player advice (or the good habits they can create) can be important as the rules themselves.

Hmmm... While I dislike the idea of baking certain mechanics into the rules, I do like the idea of making them one of several optional systems given in an optional section on advice to tailor the game to your group.

Thinking about why I feel that way, I think it's because I have a Goal to make games as broadly playable as possible. I don't want to plunk down $50 on a game if there's about a 1% chance I can play it with any given group. And I certainly don't want someone to go in blind - not knowing how the system works, or not possessing the language to discuss gaming preferences with their group - only to discover that they've wasted $50 on a game they'll never play. I suppose I have a Belief that reality in general, and gaming in particular, shouldn't require a high level of system mastery to enjoy... which fuels my dislike of creating trap options.

EDIT:

Or it would require constantly stopping the game to have long OOC conversations about everyone's intentions. And while Quertus might enjoy this, I certainly do not. I don't like the feeling of being judged or of being a "magician explaining how my tricks are done," and the inevitable arguments and debates that will follow. Game time is really precious to me, and it is hard enough to keep everyone focused without having to constantly stop the game to reevaluate everyone's motivations and the reward structure thereof.

I'm not surprised many or even most people wouldn't like one of my favorite styles. But, so you understand, it probably only works in a non-judgmental, non-dysfunctional group. Or maybe replace "non-" with "minimally-". Admittedly, I've never disliked being judged fairly, even (or perhaps especially) in areas where I'm horrible, so I probably wouldn't dislike using that system with a judgemental group.

To understand the feel of the experience... you could view it as a simple Pavlovian reward, actually: extra time in the limelight for building a complex character. The questions are expressed with simple curiosity: I thought your character was a ruthless, bloodthirsty killer - why is he helping the orphan girl? Any answer is acceptable, from "*shrug*" or "because he felt like it" to revealing that the character was an orphan, had a sister her age, and/or plans to sell her into slavery. Sometimes, esp if people find the answer interesting, it may prompt additional questions about that aspect of the character.

It doesn't have to be long conversations - in fact, it's usually better when it isn't - but it's a nice way to learn about each other's characters, pick up a few characterization techniques, and generally encourage role-playing characters with more complexity than appears on the character sheet.

Now, yes, depending on the group, you might get feedback like, "are you sure? Real viking culture blah blah blah," at which point is very important that an answer of either "yes" or "no" be acceptable to the group. It's important that the culture isn't about being correct, or role-playing this exact way, but about encouraging and enabling as much - or as little! - role-playing as each individual wants to do, in whatever style they prefer, and providing whatever tools and feedback most gently provide the opportunity for the individual to grow.

But, yeah, not everyone's cup of tea. Heck, it took me a bit of... adjustment... myself. :smallwink:

ComradeBear

2016-11-30, 03:24 PM

... How does this medicine sound harsh?

Hmmm... While I dislike the idea of baking certain mechanics into the rules, I do like the idea of making them one of several optional systems given in an optional section on advice to tailor the game to your group.

Thinking about why I feel that way, I think it's because I have a Goal to make games as broadly playable as possible. I don't want to plunk down $50 on a game if there's about a 1% chance I can play it with any given group. And I certainly don't want someone to go in blind - not knowing how the system works, or not possessing the language to discuss gaming preferences with their group - only to discover that they've wasted $50 on a game they'll never play. I suppose I have a Belief that reality in general, and gaming in particular, shouldn't require a high level of system mastery to enjoy... which fuels my dislike of creating trap options.

Most highly focused systems are relatively cheap.
For 50 dollars I can get:
Apocalypse World
Dungeon World
Engine Heart
And Blades in the Dark
(If we don't include tax.)

And a lot of PbtA hacks are free. Meaning that once you know how to play PbtA games, it will be either 10 bucks or free (usually the latter) to get a different genre.

That's why I like my highly focused systems. They're really cheap.

Segev

2016-11-30, 03:52 PM

Honestly I think a lot of this comes down to what people want out of the game.

What are your goals? What are your characters goals?

For example, if I am playing a ladies man, a one night stand IS my goal (or at least, one of my goals) so any complications that arise from it are simply more challenges on the way to my goal.

I think a lot of people get into a "war-gamer" mentality where they equate "beating up anyone who stands in your way," with "winning" the game.

Maybe I am weird in that regard; but I didn't seem to be alone. In my last group we spent way more time coordinating our outfits than we ever did planning tactics.If you're playing a high school/socialite game where personal goals aren't going to involve much more than that, sure, that works.

But those aren't typical games, and saying "If I'm playing a ladies' man, then that IS my goal" makes me wonder why your character is involved in the spy action-adventure or the murder mystery or the effort to infiltrate the imperial court or the quest to stop Lord and Lady Badguy from using the Gem of Ominousness to awaken the Apocalypse Beast to use as a weapon for world domination.

Do you really count it a victory to get the one night stand by trading the Gem of Ominousness to Lady Badguy for a night with her and/or her hot daughter? If the one night stand is your goal, I mean.

I bring this up because it feels like you're moving the goalposts on me with the shift in focus from "one night stand as a side thing your character might do" to "the purpose of the character's motivations and goals." I don't want it to feel like I'm moving them, so if it does, it's because we've been talking to cross purposes.

Even if you're NOT playing a ladies' man, though, why does "getting laid in a one night stand" become not an option for your character, should a cute girl take a shine to him? Or should it? Remember, that cute girl might be an agent of Duke dePraave trying to undermine your efforts to infiltrate the imperial court...or she might just be a cute girl. Your character still might view the sexual pleasure as motivation enough to risk it if the odds seem small enough for it to backfire; you, however, may not, since...well, why should you?

And, if you really do view RPing to be your personal goal, and think that good RP would be having that one night stand, why should you be punished in the scope of the larger game, and why should your choice to have "good RP" punish the rest of the party with the difficulties you risk bringing upon you and them, just for making that choice?

That has been my point the entire time; the ceiling exists because once you get past a certain level of complexity the system cannot tell the difference between RP extremely well and not RPing at all.That's patently false. And you fail to offer an actual counter-example to back up the "A+ gets nothing, only A" position, which is what I was directly addressing.

I have never seen an RPG system that enforces / rewards RPing that has complexity built into it, that can handle conflicting goals, personal motivation or opinions, acting subtly, or occasionally acting inconsistently / intentionally acting against one's nature for whatever reason.Given the example rough mechanics I've proposed thus far have done exactly that, providing bundles of rewards and penalties for each choice so that the choices are as attractive and repulsive to the player as they are to the character, I don't see how this argument holds water.

"I haven't seen it, so it cannot be done, and I will dismiss any ideas that are suggested as doing so without examination," is what you're saying here.

Take for example the paladin in 3.X D&D. It has a very strict system of enforcing role-play.

Now, imagine a paladin who is in conflict. The world faces impending doom, an invasion from legions of demons that will scour all human life from the planet and drag their souls screaming back to the Abyss. The paladin can think of no way to defeat them on his own, but his old enemy, the Lich King of Doom, has offered a temporary truce, and together the warriors of light and the undead hordes might just be able to hold back the demons. After a long period of soul searching and inner turmoil the paladin eventually agrees to accept the Lich King's offer to save the world. He knows that he will likely be tainted in the act, but if his purity is the price of salvation for all the world's innocents then that is a sacrifice he is willing to make.

I would say this is fairly good roleplaying. However, mechanically, the system will treat him exactly the same as a paladin who one day decided to start murdering and robbing random townsfolk because it is way easier than going to the dungeon.Frankly, that's a bad DM who was attempting to orchestrate a "paladin falls" scenario with a no-way-out-but-death clause. A good DM would never hold a decision like this against the paladin. At WORST, it might require an atonement spell to wash the stink of having been close to that abhorrent lich away. In the same sense that you'd take a bath after wading through a sewer to rescue a princess from a dragon.

While such a system could, in theory, exist, it would be an unwieldy behemoth of a system just shy of a program capable of true AI.
Not really. It's simply a matter of creating mechanics to represent drives and emotions and their impact on character behavior and motivation.

Or it would require constantly stopping the game to have long OOC conversations about everyone's intentions. And while Quertus might enjoy this, I certainly do not. I don't like the feeling of being judged or of being a "magician explaining how my tricks are done," and the inevitable arguments and debates that will follow. Game time is really precious to me, and it is hard enough to keep everyone focused without having to constantly stop the game to reevaluate everyone's motivations and the reward structure thereof.Why? I don't see how "sleeping with her is something that would give you 1d10 morale points back; refusing to sleep with her will cost you 5 morale points" requires a deep examination of your motives.

I'm sure the PC will have many reasons for refusing: he doesn't want to expose himself to the risks; he doesn't want to abandon his post; he doesn't want to violate his morals; he doesn't want to betray his betrothed; he doesn't want to disappoint his friends by skipping out on game night for a one-night-stand. But the mechanics are just saying how effective she was in making the PC want to sleep with her. Effective enough to reduce his "morale points" if he refuses, and to have the rush of satiation restore some "morale points" if he does.

If there are alternatives, for which "have this one night stand" presents an opportunity cost, those alternatives would also have morale bonuses and/or penalties associated with taking or refusing them. These might be "0" if his emotional investment is neutral (no social influences imposed and no built-in drives leaning towards them). They might even be net negatives for going with them (he really DOES NOT want to spend the evening romancing Lady Fuh Glee, and the only reason he's doing so is to help the party get access to information she has that they need to figure out who is blackmailing them, so it'll cost morale to go through with it). And now he has to weigh the morale costs and gains for each choice against the other net benefits of the choices (getting that blackmailer information).

This doesn't require a powerful artificial intelligence to build up. It just becomes part of the game mechanics, like the decisions made in combat. Calculating bonuses and penalties, damage codes, etc.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-30, 04:13 PM

... How does this medicine sound harsh?

If a side-effect of a medicine was that you'd sweat profusely and all your food would taste funny, would take it if you didn't need to?

If you were already RPing and having fun doing it, would you appreciate being told how to play your character by a bunch of extra rules you don't need?

Segev

2016-11-30, 04:30 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-30, 04:33 PM

Even if you're NOT playing a ladies' man, though, why does "getting laid in a one night stand" become not an option for your character, should a cute girl take a shine to him? Or should it? Remember, that cute girl might be an agent of Duke dePraave trying to undermine your efforts to infiltrate the imperial court...or she might just be a cute girl. Your character still might view the sexual pleasure as motivation enough to risk it if the odds seem small enough for it to backfire; you, however, may not, since...well, why should you?

Personally, I have no idea why the character should. Other people I've gamed with have quite clearly thought/felt differently, because their characters have slept with the cute (person of appropriate gender) on multiple occasions.

I prefer to let the player decide whether their character should or not, would or would not --rather than any of the presented alternatives.

And, if you really do view RPing to be your personal goal, and think that good RP would be having that one night stand, why should you be punished in the scope of the larger game, and why should your choice to have "good RP" punish the rest of the party with the difficulties you risk bringing upon you and them, just for making that choice?

If RPing is one's goal, then RPing is its own reward. If one is in a group of gamers who share or at least appreciate your preferences in gaming, then one is not going to be "punished" for making either choice as long as its in-character for one's character.

My old long-time gaming group had a single ongoing oWoD Vampire campaign for about 15 years, with the same PCs and city and so forth. Somehow, the GM managed to give each player what they really wanted out of the game without anyone feeling punished or deprived. One PC got more mysteries and problems to solve, another PC got more political intrigue, another PC got to more personal drama, another PC got more "exploration of the vampiric condition" (sans wangst and woe-is-the-monster), etc. The GM kept the "endanger NPCs" to a minimum for the player who didn't care for it, didn't slap a bunch of mind control attempts on the PC of the player who didn't care for that, etc. Somehow, we never argued over the differences, no one ever griped because the focus wasn't identical for every PC or that there wasn't an even split of each sort of thing across every PC. XP was awarded for a multiple of things -- good RP, combat effort, solved mysteries, whatever, and it all balanced out.

Given all this hand-wringing about "reward" and "punishment" and conflicts between preferences and making sure there are rules in place for players to cover their butts and prevent game-group conflict and hard feelings... I'm starting to wonder if the problem isn't the game rules, but the gamers.

If you're already having descriptive combats and having fun doing it, would you appreciate being told how to fight with your character by a bunch of extra rules you don't need?

Combat != social interaction != character "internals".

Segev

2016-11-30, 05:04 PM

Personally, I have no idea why the character should. Other people I've gamed with have quite clearly thought/felt differently, because their characters have slept with the cute (person of appropriate gender) on multiple occasions.

I prefer to let the player decide whether their character should or not, would or would not --rather than any of the presented alternatives. Okay. Why is allowing them to make the choice with the same level of weight applied to the choices involved that the character feels so abhorrent to you?

Or, to put it another way: have you never made a sub-optimal choice in how to spend your time based on what you want to do RIGHT NOW vs. what you know is the right long-term choice? Perhaps you've had a drink when you shouldn't have, or stayed in bed a little longer than was wise, or played video games while putting off homework you really should have been doing, or eaten a dessert when you should have been trying to eat healthy, or refrained from exercise you knew you SHOULD be doing for your health/fitness goals, or bought something you didn't need when you could have saved/invested the money.

Or has every decision you've ever made been 100% optimal, never influenced by things that, if you were a PC, your player would have gotten no benefit from in his gameplay experience with you other than the satisfaction of saying "I made a good RP decision, and it was its own r

Given all this hand-wringing about "reward" and "punishment" and conflicts between preferences and making sure there are rules in place for players to cover their butts and prevent game-group conflict and hard feelings... I'm starting to wonder if the problem isn't the game rules, but the gamers.This sounds an awful lot like, "If you feel like making sub-optimal decisions for RP sake is the game punishing you, you're playing the game wrong."

Which is a cute way of insinuating that those who don't share your play style preferences are having badwrongfun.

Combat != social interaction != character "internals".
So the only thing we need mechanics for is combat, because nothing else is like combat. Is that the take-away you intend? Because while I suspect you're trying to say something different, I don't think that's supported by this, and what is supported seems to me to be my opening phrase here.

Again: it's about ensuring that the PLAYER isn't being told, "Yes, there is absolutely no reason for you to have your character make this decision. And yes, that decision is a bad one. But your character will like it. We promise. You won't, and you won't enjoy your character's enjoyment of it, and it will impede your ability to perform in areas where you actually could otherwise make meaningful gameplay decisions. But you should do it because it's good RP. And whining that you're being punished compared to the bad RPer over there who doesn't do it is you being a bad RPer. you bad gamer, you."

That this also allows a player of a socially adept character to have a more usable subsystem for influencing NPCs than "roll to mind control them" or "hope the GM is convinced you're really that persuasive" is a nice side benefit.

Talakeal

2016-11-30, 05:14 PM

If you're playing a high school/socialite game where personal goals aren't going to involve much more than that, sure, that works.

But those aren't typical games, and saying "If I'm playing a ladies' man, then that IS my goal" makes me wonder why your character is involved in the spy action-adventure or the murder mystery or the effort to infiltrate the imperial court or the quest to stop Lord and Lady Badguy from using the Gem of Ominousness to awaken the Apocalypse Beast to use as a weapon for world domination.

Do you really count it a victory to get the one night stand by trading the Gem of Ominousness to Lady Badguy for a night with her and/or her hot daughter? If the one night stand is your goal, I mean.

I bring this up because it feels like you're moving the goalposts on me with the shift in focus from "one night stand as a side thing your character might do" to "the purpose of the character's motivations and goals." I don't want it to feel like I'm moving them, so if it does, it's because we've been talking to cross purposes.

Even if you're NOT playing a ladies' man, though, why does "getting laid in a one night stand" become not an option for your character, should a cute girl take a shine to him? Or should it? Remember, that cute girl might be an agent of Duke dePraave trying to undermine your efforts to infiltrate the imperial court...or she might just be a cute girl. Your character still might view the sexual pleasure as motivation enough to risk it if the odds seem small enough for it to backfire; you, however, may not, since...well, why should you?

And, if you really do view RPing to be your personal goal, and think that good RP would be having that one night stand, why should you be punished in the scope of the larger game, and why should your choice to have "good RP" punish the rest of the party with the difficulties you risk bringing upon you and them, just for making that choice?

That's patently false. And you fail to offer an actual counter-example to back up the "A+ gets nothing, only A" position, which is what I was directly addressing.

Given the example rough mechanics I've proposed thus far have done exactly that, providing bundles of rewards and penalties for each choice so that the choices are as attractive and repulsive to the player as they are to the character, I don't see how this argument holds water.

"I haven't seen it, so it cannot be done, and I will dismiss any ideas that are suggested as doing so without examination," is what you're saying here.

Frankly, that's a bad DM who was attempting to orchestrate a "paladin falls" scenario with a no-way-out-but-death clause. A good DM would never hold a decision like this against the paladin. At WORST, it might require an atonement spell to wash the stink of having been close to that abhorrent lich away. In the same sense that you'd take a bath after wading through a sewer to rescue a princess from a dragon.

Not really. It's simply a matter of creating mechanics to represent drives and emotions and their impact on character behavior and motivation.

Why? I don't see how "sleeping with her is something that would give you 1d10 morale points back; refusing to sleep with her will cost you 5 morale points" requires a deep examination of your motives.

I'm sure the PC will have many reasons for refusing: he doesn't want to expose himself to the risks; he doesn't want to abandon his post; he doesn't want to violate his morals; he doesn't want to betray his betrothed; he doesn't want to disappoint his friends by skipping out on game night for a one-night-stand. But the mechanics are just saying how effective she was in making the PC want to sleep with her. Effective enough to reduce his "morale points" if he refuses, and to have the rush of satiation restore some "morale points" if he does.

If there are alternatives, for which "have this one night stand" presents an opportunity cost, those alternatives would also have morale bonuses and/or penalties associated with taking or refusing them. These might be "0" if his emotional investment is neutral (no social influences imposed and no built-in drives leaning towards them). They might even be net negatives for going with them (he really DOES NOT want to spend the evening romancing Lady Fuh Glee, and the only reason he's doing so is to help the party get access to information she has that they need to figure out who is blackmailing them, so it'll cost morale to go through with it). And now he has to weigh the morale costs and gains for each choice against the other net benefits of the choices (getting that blackmailer information).

This doesn't require a powerful artificial intelligence to build up. It just becomes part of the game mechanics, like the decisions made in combat. Calculating bonuses and penalties, damage codes, etc.

1: About Motivations

This gets into more philosophical territory. I think you (and most people probably) divide character goals into "personal fluff" and "tactical game objectives as handed out by the DM." I don't really distinguish them, my character has goals. Now, some goals are more selfish and others are more altruistic, and some are more urgent. But they are all my character's goals, and if I have to risk one to fulfill another that is my choice; I don't need rules telling me which choice is "correct" or taking away control of my character.

Now, if we are talking about something urgent where people's lives are on the line or "saving the whole world," then yes, of course that takes priority, particularly if failure means automatic failure on all your other goals (kind of hard to have one night stands when all the girls were killed in the Apocalypse after all). For example, if I had twelve hours to stop the bad guy from destroying the planet it would be absolutely moronic of me to take a break to get hammered and pick up girls, regardless of my personal vices that shouldn't even enter into it (assuming I am playing a heroic character rather than a tragic figure or comic relief).

Letting the bad guy destroy the world in exchange with her daughter is not an equivalence; however if it were, say I was playing a romantic character who considered their daughter to be their "one true love" / "girl of their dreams" then yes, that might actually be an acceptable trade.

2: About D&D
Forget about how the situation came up or what the DM's motivations are, that's a whole 'nother tangent. The point is that the D&D alignment rules are written in a black and white manner that absolutely do provide a ceiling for good RP. It doesn't matter why or how a paladin falls, the consequences are the same regardless. It always makes sense for a paladin to toe the line and act within the narrow confines the game provides or they get the stick.

And the Book of Exalted deeds explicitly states that willingly sacrificing your paladin powers for the greater good is amongst the most evil acts in the multiverse and is always the wrong decision regardless of the situation or the outcome.

3: About Proposed System

What is your goal with this system?

Is it a method of encouraging RP? Is it a method of compensating people who make "crunch" sacrifices for "fluff" rewards? Is it to mollify other PCs when you have conflicting goals? Is it a social combat system? Is it a system of representing moral fatigue?

It works better for some of those goals than others; but I still have some major objections to it on all of those fronts. Particularly that is doesn't take preferences or the current situation into account.

jayem

2016-11-30, 05:24 PM

I prefer to let the player decide whether their character should or not, would or would not --rather than any of the presented alternatives.

They do anyway, both at character creation (+any character modifications).
And (unless they've chosen to actually have an addiction/compulsion relating to the decision) at the moment of decision.

Also I think conflicts being overloaded (used in two ways).
Both in terms of 'conflicting emotions', I.E I want to study, but the world needs me. (in which case in theory if there is an apparent opportunity to be more useful by going back to the books, then the pull and push act in the same direction)
And in terms of comparing with 'physical violence'.

To some extent the Paladin example is an example of this. Fighting with the lich isn't the easy choice, in that sense the mechanics saying you don't want to do this is exactly what you want. You also want the mechanics on the opposite choice to say you really don't want to do this. Before he says (to quote Huck in a milder conflict) "Fine, I'll go to hell".
It is in character a question of which unpleasant choice to make. It's not a virtue if the system whitewashes that completely. Though sometimes the situation is clearly beyond the rules (whether the rule is nothing happens, or consequences ensue), and in any case the character has been dealt a bad hand.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-30, 05:34 PM

Okay. Why is allowing them to make the choice with the same level of weight applied to the choices involved that the character feels so abhorrent to you?

Because player character "internals" belong to the player.

Or, to put it another way: have you never made a sub-optimal choice in how to spend your time based on what you want to do RIGHT NOW vs. what you know is the right long-term choice? Perhaps you've had a drink when you shouldn't have, or stayed in bed a little longer than was wise, or played video games while putting off homework you really should have been doing, or eaten a dessert when you should have been trying to eat healthy, or refrained from exercise you knew you SHOULD be doing for your health/fitness goals, or bought something you didn't need when you could have saved/invested the money.

Or has every decision you've ever made been 100% optimal, never influenced by things that, if you were a PC, your player would have gotten no benefit from in his gameplay experience with you other than the satisfaction of saying "I made a good RP decision, and it was its own r

If I decide that's what my character does or does not feel, does or does not chose, does or does not do -- that's my business, not the rules and not the game designer and not the GM and not another player.

You seem to see it as making more options viable -- I see it as an attempt at control and constrain.

This sounds an awful lot like, "If you feel like making sub-optimal decisions for RP sake is the game punishing you, you're playing the game wrong."

Which is a cute way of insinuating that those who don't share your play style preferences are having badwrongfun.

No, it's a very direct way of asking why players need all this cover against other players questioning their decisions.

So the only thing we need mechanics for is combat, because nothing else is like combat. Is that the take-away you intend? Because while I suspect you're trying to say something different, I don't think that's supported by this, and what is supported seems to me to be my opening phrase here.

No, I'm saying that it's a poor analogy because combat, social interaction, and the "internals" of the character are all different things, with different challenges involved in bringing them into an RPG session.

Again: it's about ensuring that the PLAYER isn't being told, "Yes, there is absolutely no reason for you to have your character make this decision. And yes, that decision is a bad one. But your character will like it. We promise. You won't, and you won't enjoy your character's enjoyment of it, and it will impede your ability to perform in areas where you actually could otherwise make meaningful gameplay decisions. But you should do it because it's good RP. And whining that you're being punished compared to the bad RPer over there who doesn't do it is you being a bad RPer. you bad gamer, you."

I'm FAR more concerned by and put off by the mechanics of the game and/or the GM trying to tell me what my character does and does not like, what my character will and will not enjoy, etc.

Max_Killjoy

2016-11-30, 05:41 PM

2: About D&D
Forget about how the situation came up or what the DM's motivations are, that's a whole 'nother tangent. The point is that the D&D alignment rules are written in a black and white manner that absolutely do provide a ceiling for good RP. It doesn't matter why or how a paladin falls, the consequences are the same regardless. It always makes sense for a paladin to toe the line and act within the narrow confines the game provides or they get the stick.

And the Book of Exalted deeds explicitly states that willingly sacrificing your paladin powers for the greater good is amongst the most even acts in the universe and is always the wrong decision regardless of the situation or the outcome.

This is like a page straight out of Why Killjoy Hates D&D's Repulsive Take On "Morality".

ComradeBear

2016-11-30, 06:05 PM

Granted, nobody in this argument has ever argued for D&D having anything approaching functional RP rules. D&D's RP rules are comparable to a large pile of feces for all the good they do.

Citing them as the reason RP rules are always bad is like citing bottlerockets for why we couldn't possibly go to the moon.

No one is arguing that bottlerockets will take us to the moon, nor is anyone arguing that D&D has even anything more than primitive, ugly, and ineffective RP rules.

That, and I sit firmly on the side of player-defined end-of-session bonuses and maybe traits, as well as having a system flexible enough to handle it.

For instance, while not particularly flexible as a system overall, Dogs in the Vineyard can actually do an internal emotional struggle as an extended, battle-like conflict between a character and themself/a demon/the King of Life. It is, at the very least, pretty neat. Perhaps not for everyone, but I declare it to be "Neato-burrito."

Segev

2016-11-30, 07:25 PM

I will try to be more eloquent later, but for now, I just want to suggest that "character internals" are inextricably tied to in-character social interaction. If either are to be mechanical in any way - if either are ever to be something that doesn't require socially manipulating the player to influence or succeed - then both must have some mechanics tied to them.

Cluedrew

2016-11-30, 08:38 PM

To ComradeBear: What gets me with D&D and social rules is that even some people who intellectually accept that things can be done better than D&D still seem to assume that any social rules will make the same mistakes and have the same negative effects. I can never quite figure it out.

Anyways I've been assembling a list of reasons I can think to put personality rules into the game:

Making in character actions more viable: Related to the current topic and a lot has already been said so I will not say much more. Also I don't really care because you can adjust the optimisation level of the game to accommodate. And if only some people are doing it the style miss-match may be the problem.

Source of Challenge: Not only having flaws in a character to make things harder, although I will say that seems to produce a more interesting challenge than "I'll add another 5 orcs". But also that having real social mechanics can create another area of conflict that the characters can exert themselves in creating a new set of challenges. This is where it also starts to overlap with social rules.

Character Expression: Yes, if you are in a group that is good at role-playing you can get the proper actions and re-actions to show off any part of your character. But that isn't quite the same as having it written on you character sheet (although I say this as someone who writes a lot of flavour text on my character sheet). Not to mention if you want it to effect how good your character is at something you will either have to map it yourself (which will probably be an imperfect mapping) or have some personality trait for it.

Those are the three I have so far.

Segev

2016-11-30, 08:45 PM

Okay, I am going to attempt a very rough set of mechanics to illustrate what I'm getting at. I will use d20/D&D 3e as a basis, since it's familiar to most of us. Please note that this is hardly refined and will probably have gaping exploits that could be plowed through with ease; it is constructed for illustrative purposes, not real use. So problems should be raised regarding whether it has the desired effect, or creates undesirable limitations, or encourages undesirable behaviors from players in how they play their characters (admittedly, certain "exploits" would fall in this category).

Let's say that we have morale points. I will structure them similarly to hit points for simplicity's sake; this is not essential and could be altered. Characters have a current number and a maximum number. The maximum is 1d8+(wis mod) morale points per level.

Morale points can be expended for morale bonuses! Spend up to your level in morale points on an activity to represent your "feeling good" just making you have a good day as you make a d20 roll representing it; gain a moral bonus equal to what you spend on the roll. If you already have morale bonuses from other sources, you can spend enough morale points to raise that bonus to equal to your level. You may use this to increase any d20 roll or any static value opposed by a d20 roll, e.g. skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws, armor class, or save DCs.

Certain activities now have an "unpleasantness" rating. This ranges from 1-10, generally, with 1 being "irritating but not too bad on a regular day" and 10 being "absolute misery." This can be anything from a nasty job or task (wading through raw sewage, spending time with an annoying acquaintance or family member, doing homework, or anything else tedious to disgusting to irritating to painful) to enduring specific suffering (running on a sprained ankle, speaking to the crush who just broke your heart, reaching into a fire to pull out something that's starting to catch). Forcing yourself to engage in such an activity costs you morale points equal to its unpleasantness rating. You can spend morale points even if you're at or below zero; this puts you increasingly negative.

When your morale is at or below zero, you are Disheartened. While Disheartened, you suffer a morale penalty to all things to which you could apply a morale bonus by spending morale points. You cannot spend morale points to gain morale bonuses while Disheartened, though other sources of morale bonus can offset or even overcome the penalty on specific rolls or values.

You regain your level in morale points after a good night's sleep (8 hours for most creatures). Additionally, engaging in recreational and uplifting and enjoyable activities can restore morale points. Some activities have specific rewards the first time they're performed in a given day. Individuals plying a skill to lift spirits can grant amounts based on their threshold of success over a base DC. A bard might, for instance, restore 1 morale point for every 5 by which his Perform roll exceeds a base DC of 15 or 20 (depending how balance works out), when performing to lift spirits and energize a crowd.

This also gives some hooks on which to hang social mechanics. Diplomacy checks could create morale point costs to resist requests, or inspire a desire for an activity which could give the activity a positive rating for restoring morale points. (Here we have the ever-present seductress who can make you have a choice between sleeping with her and getting morale back for the pleasure of the activity or rejecting her by paying morale points for denying yourself the same. We also have the salesman who makes you want his luxury item, costing morale points to refuse it. Or the carouser who makes tavern-crawling grant morale points even to those who don't normally like such activities.)

Vices play into this as things which grant bonus morale points but cost extra morale points to resist. Probably rolled together in the same mechanics as psychological addictions.

Now, this is, again, rough. One of the biggest pitfalls is creating open-ended bonus/penalty rolls that could allow a diplomancer to go right back to effective mind control by morale-bombing people with enormous penalties if they don't do what he wants. Assuming scale and repetition can be handled by tweaking and careful design, though, the principle here is what I'm looking for. Heck, the morale cost for resisting things the player wants his PC to abhor could be instead a representation of how exhausting his disgust is at having it presented to him as something he should do.

I'm pretty sure it won't satisfy Max_Killjoy, because I believe he's stated that he prefers that players simply not be able to have PCs more persuasive than themselves, because to him RP doesn't allow for playing somebody with social skills different from one's own. (If I am misremembering, I am sorry.) I know it "attacks internals" which he feels should be sacrosanct, but it's literally impossible to have social influence mechanics that don't.

It does provide a framework for social interaction on a mechanical level, and for measuring desire for certain activities and a will to push through undesirable ones which the player and PC feel are nonetheless important to do.

For it to be truly useful and not just tacked on, the game would need to have the associated mechanics extended throughout it. Class features would have to be designed or re-designed to exploit and utilize the framework. Magic and many spells would need to be invented or reconsidered in ways to interact with it. (Perhaps antipathy should replace its aversion compulsion with a high Unpleasantness rating that recurs every time somebody tries to draw nearer to it or remain in the AoE.) FAR more thought would have to go in to what constitutes a "desirable" activity which can grant morale back. (This would likely tie in to defining things your PC likes and dislikes, at least in broad strokes. Something akin to, but hopefully better executed than, Exalted's "Intimacies.")

But I hope this essay provides at least some better understanding as to the general "shape" of what I think would be good for social/emotion rules. The PC is still under the player's control, but the player both has mechanical insight into just how his character weights short-term temptations vs. long-term gains, and how he feels in general. His gameplay decisions are now meaningful, rather than "Well, my knight stays where your Queen threatens him, despite me knowing it'll just get my knight captured, because my knight trusts your Queen and thinks she'd never harm him because their forbidden love is so true."

Quertus

2016-12-01, 12:26 PM

If a side-effect of a medicine was that you'd sweat profusely and all your food would taste funny, would take it if you didn't need to?

If you were already RPing and having fun doing it, would you appreciate being told how to play your character by a bunch of extra rules you don't need?

Um, perhaps I got confused on the current thread. I thought you were talking about the "declare intention, GM sets difficulty, just roll once" as bad medicine.

Hmmm... I'll have to think about this analogy for RP rules.

Again, I would argue that rules for influencing characters' motivations and drives, and for rewarding following those drives or penalizing resisting them doesn't "tell you how to RP your character" any more than rules about what kinds of dice you have to roll to determine if you hit with an attack, or dodge another's attack, tell you how to fight with your character.

In particular, the mechanics I propose are designed to never FORCE the player to make a decision. Merely to make all available decisions' emotional weight as impactful as they should be compared to the mechanical benefits of alternate choices.

Even if you're NOT playing a ladies' man, though, why does "getting laid in a one night stand" become not an option for your character, should a cute girl take a shine to him? Or should it? Remember, that cute girl might be an agent of Duke dePraave trying to undermine your efforts to infiltrate the imperial court...or she might just be a cute girl. Your character still might view the sexual pleasure as motivation enough to risk it if the odds seem small enough for it to backfire; you, however, may not, since...well, why should you?

And, if you really do view RPing to be your personal goal, and think that good RP would be having that one night stand, why should you be punished in the scope of the larger game, and why should your choice to have "good RP" punish the rest of the party with the difficulties you risk bringing upon you and them, just for making that choice?

Given the example rough mechanics I've proposed thus far have done exactly that, providing bundles of rewards and penalties for each choice so that the choices are as attractive and repulsive to the player as they are to the character,

Why? I don't see how "sleeping with her is something that would give you 1d10 morale points back; refusing to sleep with her will cost you 5 morale points" requires a deep examination of your motives.

Okay, I am going to attempt a very rough set of mechanics to illustrate what I'm getting at.

Let's say that we have morale points. I will structure them similarly to hit points for simplicity's sake; this is not essential and could be altered. Characters have a current number and a maximum number. The maximum is 1d8+(wis mod) morale points per level.

Morale points can be expended for morale bonuses! Spend up to your level in morale points on an activity to represent your "feeling good" just making you have a good day as you make a d20 roll representing it; gain a moral bonus equal to what you spend on the roll. If you already have morale bonuses from other sources, you can spend enough morale points to raise that bonus to equal to your level. You may use this to increase any d20 roll or any static value opposed by a d20 roll, e.g. skill checks, attack rolls, saving throws, armor class, or save DCs.

Certain activities now have an "unpleasantness" rating. This ranges from 1-10, generally, with 1 being "irritating but not too bad on a regular day" and 10 being "absolute misery."

I'm glad you're still using the seduction example, as it helps illustrate some of my points. I, personally, get a morale bonus from resisting seduction attempts. So, for the system to properly model me role-playing, well, myself, it would have to give me morale points for resisting a seduction attempt.

Similarly, different people can feel differently about the same things. To give a really stupid example, "make out with cute girl" might be worth 5 morale points to some people, but it might cost morale points to the gay guy or straight girl or loyal partner. And has certainly been a wash, and provided some people I know with 0 morale points.

Dumb example, sure, but the same issue exists everywhere else. Some people get a morale bonus for listening to music or poetry, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus when around cute kittens or babies, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus for reading or killing animals or playing RPGs, while others take a morale penalty for doing that ****.

If I picked 10 events, from having sex to listening to poetry to acting on stage to killing people, and measured exactly what chemicals each each of us produced in those activities... well, other than the fact that most everyone would probably want to opt out of this experiment, I expect we'd get noticeably different reactions from different people.

So, here's a question: how would your system fair if it were in the hands of the player to say what bonus or penalty their individual character should receive from each option?

And, as a follow-up question, at that point, what benefit does this system provide?

I think focusing on what's left one you put it in the hands of the players, "where it belongs", may yield interesting results.

Because, otherwise, you're left with trying to define sufficient descriptors ahead of time to explain why Quertus likes poetry and wine more than kittens and sports, while one person enjoys stories and babies more than music or RPGs, while another enjoys sports and building things more than reading and babies.

If RPing is one's goal, then RPing is its own reward. If one is in a group of gamers who share or at least appreciate your preferences in gaming, then one is not going to be "punished" for making either choice as long as its in-character for one's character.

My old long-time gaming group had a single ongoing oWoD Vampire campaign for about 15 years, with the same PCs and city and so forth. Somehow, the GM managed to give each player what they really wanted out of the game without anyone feeling punished or deprived. One PC got more mysteries and problems to solve, another PC got more political intrigue, another PC got to more personal drama, another PC got more "exploration of the vampiric condition" (sans wangst and woe-is-the-monster), etc. The GM kept the "endanger NPCs" to a minimum for the player who didn't care for it, didn't slap a bunch of mind control attempts on the PC of the player who didn't care for that, etc. Somehow, we never argued over the differences, no one ever griped because the focus wasn't identical for every PC or that there wasn't an even split of each sort of thing across every PC. XP was awarded for a multiple of things -- good RP, combat effort, solved mysteries, whatever, and it all balanced out.

Given all this hand-wringing about "reward" and "punishment" and conflicts between preferences and making sure there are rules in place for players to cover their butts and prevent game-group conflict and hard feelings... I'm starting to wonder if the problem isn't the game rules, but the gamers.

This is why I've started to push stronger on the stance that these rules belong at the group level, not the game level.

Just like it would be odd if the RPG had baked into the system whether it was kosher to eat while gaming / lay food on someone else's gaming books, roll their dice, or make out with their sister during the game.

It just feels like something the group should hash out for themselves.

I'm FAR more concerned by and put off by the mechanics of the game and/or the GM trying to tell me what my character does and does not like, what my character will and will not enjoy, etc.

Yeah, this is something of an issue for me, too. Who but Max knows the value to Max of a good meal? If everyone valued things equally... well, it would be a very different world.

I will try to be more eloquent later, but for now, I just want to suggest that "character internals" are inextricably tied to in-character social interaction. If either are to be mechanical in any way - if either are ever to be something that doesn't require socially manipulating the player to influence or succeed - then both must have some mechanics tied to them.

Hmmm... How does "I think this is a dumb idea, but <my character> is game" require mechanics or manipulating me? :smallconfused:

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-01, 01:25 PM

Stryyke

2016-12-01, 01:59 PM

Quertus

2016-12-01, 02:56 PM

I just wanted to chime in. It sounds more like a group dynamics thing, rather than a rules thing.

For instance, in a game I am in right now, I was playing an Ogre who was following a Tiefling around because he kept giving him "shiny things." At one point the other player was distracted and told the Ogre "just go find some food for yourself." I had established already that my Ogre LOVED horse meat, so he went out to the nearest stables to get himself a treat. I could tell that I got a bad encounter roll when my DM went "Oh boy." It turned out the horse that I grabbed for dinner was actually a centaur. He survived long enough to call the guards, who then came and killed me (but not before I got 12 of them! Oh yea!) The group was forced to leave the area because they were associated with me, and didn't want the guards to come down on them.

This was a situation that was incredibly negative, and very disruptive to the "storyline;" but no one got even a tiny bit grumpy. In fact, in nearly every session, we laugh about the Ogre and the centaur.

It sounds like there is a disconnect between your expectations, and the groups. It's always difficult to overcome those issues. Either someone has to give, or someone has to leave.

As for the specific instances where RP is "forced" by rolls, I always just think of it like this: I (the player) do not control every action my character takes. Do you actually write out the prayers your Cleric prays? Do you detail every time you pee? Do you detail everything your character eats and drinks? No. The player is only in control of the major decisions, so it is not unprecedented for your character to know or do something the player has no control over.

Anyway, I just thought I would throw my two cents in.

Different people enjoy different things. We usually play the game at a high level of abstraction / with a lot of time skip and/or fade-to-black. OK...

I don't consider alignment to be much of a system, to be honest, but then again I have never played DnD and no interest in doing so, so what do I know. But why would people "confusing" the two be so bad? Because they "roleplay" in a badwrong way? Roleplaying can take many forms, and I don't find the discussion about which "count" to be particularly worthwhile..

The reason people confusing "alignment" and "roleplay" is bad is because it produces people who believe anything which doesn't adhere to their narrow view of alignment are failing at roleplaying. So, kinda the opposite of what you thought I meant.

I want people to be able to roleplay however they want, including not at all. :smallcool:

This seems to me to be a sideeffect of your very limited definition, incidentally. Where exactly do you draw the border between "roleplaying" and "pretending to roleplay/confusing something else for it"?

Where do you draw the limit between "actual combat" and "a dice simulator"?

And not to sound insensitive, but... so what? I don't want to share a table with the wargamer crowd. I mean, not while playing RPGs. It is their own choice to play what they want, and I would be the last to discourage, but it is not my style, and getting them disinterested in playing the same games as I am... does not strike me as a particularly worrysome event. There are enough systems out there that we can optimise them to each cater to a different crowd and to scratch different urges (Or the same urges in different ways). Why have two that do it the same, undefined way?

Why would I want to buy 50 different systems to play with 50 different groups, if I could instead buy one system, and use different exchangeable parts / house rules / whatever to make the focus of the game fit each of my groups?

Fine if that's not your cup of tea, but, unless you're trying to take an elitist PoV, I'm not seeing the benefit to baking the roleplaying incentives into the system in a way that divides and excludes people.

Discouraging you, personally... I mean, truthfully I also don't quite care :smallwink: One person half a world away doesn't really affect my gaming group size, to be honest.

One death is a tragedy, a thousand deaths is a statistic. Apparently, this rhetorical device doesn't work on you. Usually doesn't work on me, either. :smallwink:

Also, it's meant to explain that this is an issue I care about, personally, as well as in principle.

To be honest... all of them, except maybe the second.
Hm. Your first point I am still not sold on, since I STILL doubt the automatic birth of a ceiling by introducing a floor.
Your second, see above.
This strikes me as a... weird point, to be honest? I actually don't get what you are trying to say, other then "for me introducing any system at all hinders me" which I still don't understand HOW.
I very much doubt the automatic necessity for houseruling. I mean, rules for combat and everything else face the same problems of imperfection, yet they don't have to be houseruled in every given group, and are just as slow to change? Really don't get the specific problem here.
Yeah, since, as I mentioned numerous times: No experience or interest in DnD. For the rest of my answer to this, see point above.

All? Fair enough. I'll see if I can expand on these points tonight.

To be honest... sounds terrible. If the slightest mistake can get my character killed, I'd go to a system with an easier reset button. CRPGs, for example. Now I don't have any interest in Dark Souls, but it sounds like a much better fit for scratching THAT itch.
Though, I want to also insist I am playing by the rules, and let the dice fall as they may. There is no need to cheat or fudge the dice to produce less deadly situations. Granted, I also don't do much combat in my games.
And, again with the conflicting definitions, this time (from my perspective) yours being too broad instead of too limited.^^

Most "realistic" combat systems, the slightest bad luck can kill your character in a single roll. :smallfrown::smalleek:

Personally, I prefer the less realistic HP system, to give the character some insulation against bad luck, and a chance to realize they're in trouble and retreat.

But, yes, realistic failure (imprisonment in a modern setting being arguably worse than death in a fantasy setting with resurrection) looms as large as the system indicates in my games.

Different people like different things.

And, while I may not like it, I learned RPGs with hyper-fatal D&D.

jayem

2016-12-01, 03:20 PM

Dumb example, sure, but the same issue exists everywhere else. Some people get a morale bonus for listening to music or poetry, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus when around cute kittens or babies, while others take a morale penalty for sitting through that ****. Some people get a morale bonus for reading or killing animals or playing RPGs, while others take a morale penalty for doing that ****.

If I picked 10 events, from having sex to listening to poetry to acting on stage to killing people, and measured exactly what chemicals each each of us produced in those activities... well, other than the fact that most everyone would probably want to opt out of this experiment, I expect we'd get noticeably different reactions from different people.

So, here's a question: how would your system fair if it were in the hands of the player to say what bonus or penalty their individual character should receive from each option?

Which is exactly what social mechanicalists want to reflect in the characters (and don't see them getting in the single model version).
If in your opinion the character absolutely doesn't get the morale boost when doing/not doing and you've picked the option that absolutely gives/takes the morale boost then you've done something very wrong. It's not the Games fault that you've willfully been stupid.
Of course there are cases that are more borderline, maybe the option 'likes a drink' turned out to be a bit more of an alcoholic trait than you expected. Maybe your alcoholic princess isn't tempted by beer (but is by wine). Conversely maybe you didn't pick that, but now your on the exception, the drink they do like.

If totally free choice, then it would be a bit of a recipe for silliness, in the same way if you had free choice over any stat/equipment.
But:
You'd expect combinations of most options (Your suggestion gives a mere 60k characters). 5 options from 60 strong opinions (I.E 30 pro/30 anti) would give 5m* actively different people (before you consider differences that are dealt with by the player & GM).
Depending on the game, some arrangement for partial implementation might be expected (or even built in), which might be a question of noting severe differences (e.g. drink taste / sexuality / etc...).

*that's a slight overcount as it would include "alcoholic-teetotaller.

And, there's the fact that the same person may not have the same reaction to the same activity depending on the context.

Someone might only be comfortable "making out with a cute girl", and get a "morale boost", if that girl is someone they deeply trust -- otherwise it would be a penalty to moral from the anxiety, etc. Now, if it's someone they actually deeply trust, maybe it is a moral bonus.

Who the HELL is anyone else -- GM, other players, game designer, whoever -- other than the player of that character, to decide whether that character has reached that level of trust with the "cute girl" in question?

In which case you have to treat the exception specially.

It depends what game you want to play and what aspects. If you only play that type of game you get that extra bit of fluffy role play, but never experience a whole range of role play challenges (which can indeed go bad).
If you only play the other type you get that extra bit of dicey role play, but never experience a whole range of role play freedom (which can indeed go bad). If you go the third way your vulnerable to the capriciousness and uncertainty of the GM but have all the flexibility of the second without the capriciousness of the rigid rules.

Segev

2016-12-01, 03:27 PM

I'm glad you're still using the seduction example, as it helps illustrate some of my points. I, personally, get a morale bonus from resisting seduction attempts. So, for the system to properly model me role-playing, well, myself, it would have to give me morale points for resisting a seduction attempt.This is definitely one of those longer-term impacts that my proposed system is hard-pressed to model without a lot more depth to it. The reason I say that is inherent to how you express it:

You say you get a morale boost from resisting a seduction attempt.

I want to really examine that by replacing the "seduction" example for a moment, because I think it will illustrate...something...if not my point, at least a point worth discussing.

You could arguably say that a little kid gets a morale boost from resisting an attempt to get him to eat broccoli. (which, for argument's sake, he doesn't like)

But at that point the resistance is "I am resisting emotional ploys to get me to do something I don't want to do."

Now, I'm not sure if the "resist a seduction attempt" morale boost is because you really don't think you'd find the sexual encounter (of whatever number of proverbial bases) to be pleasant, or if it's because of what I initially took it as being - that you're feeling proud of yourself for turning down a genuine temptation.

Would you say you get a similar morale boost from resisting the offer of a delicious dessert that you genuinely like because you know you shouldn't, for health/diet reasons?

This is an important distinction, because "self-satisfaction after the fact," while a very real thing, isn't what I'm looking to model with this highly simplistic first-order system. I agree that it's worthy of examination for inclusion, but I'm not there yet.

What I'm trying to model right now is the temptation itself. The little kid being "tempted" by broccoli is a silly example because we expect kids to have to be cajoled into eating such things, and (translated to my system here) it would be a task with "unpleasantness" that would cost the kid morale points to force himself to do.

Now, if you genuinely would have to resist the temptation represented by the seduction, it would cost you morale points (or, at least, fail to gain you any you would have gotten from the enjoyment of choosing to partake of the proposed activity). It would be some other mechanic, as-yet unmodeled, which would measure your later self-satisfaction, once the temptation was past, that you'd resisted it. We're getting into second-order morale boosts, here. (Similarly, the addict who gives in to his alcoholism and drinks would get a morale boost from that...and probably later feel worse about himself for having given in and not "held strong" against the nefarious bottle.)

Personally, I have never been subjected to a seduction attempt. (Sadly, my romantic life is nigh non-existent.) My morals are such that I would be pleased with myself after the fact if I did resist such an attempt from anybody to whom I was not married, and would feel bad about my choices if I did have sex outside of wedlock. But knowing how my hormones flow when presented with attractive women with intriguing bits of skin exposed, I imagine the temptation would be real.

The "second-order" morale is a hole in the proposed system. If I were working on developing it in more detail, I'd try to model it, but I actually count the fact that we're discussing it as a hole as a success for making the point of what this is meant to model and how it works. :smallsmile:

Similarly, different people can feel differently about the same things. To give a really stupid example, "make out with cute girl" might be worth 5 morale points to some people, but it might cost morale points to the gay guy or straight girl or loyal partner. And has certainly been a wash, and provided some people I know with 0 morale points.

(...)

So, here's a question: how would your system fair if it were in the hands of the player to say what bonus or penalty their individual character should receive from each option?Ideally, you'd set such things up in advance. Yes, this opens you up to exploits of optimizing character preferences, so it's not yet ideal, but I feel it an improvement to move the decisions as to what a character is "in" to out of the heat of the moment. Clearly, the straight woman isn't going to feel nearly the seductive temptation of the bar wench as the straight guy, and the gay guy is going to be likewise less affected by the seductress.

Building the character's hooks to be unique to them (rather than assuming that emotional manipulation is as universal as physical injury - in that all humanoids react similarly to knife wounds in their Achilles tendons) would be necessary to make it model genuinely distinct characters. This is one of the "hard" areas of design for it.

And, as a follow-up question, at that point, what benefit does this system provide?
If you'll permit me, having demonstrated the core mechanic of it, the liberty of making an assumption that is not yet founded...

Let's assume that the system is developed to have ways of establishing the character "map" such that everyone can reasonably agree on what sorts of things do and do not tempt the character. What avenues of temptation and social "attack" can be used effectively (and which are ineffective or counterproductive - e.g. trying to seduce the straight male teenager with a fat, smelly man is more likely to result in disgust than any urge to engage in sexy funtimes).

With this assumption, the benefits this system provides are greater ability for the PLAYER to make informed decisions about his character's choices, the ability to design "mind-manipulation" mechanics that give the player more freedom to say "I resist," by having graduated consequences of those resistances rather than a straight-bar threshold of "nope, you are mind-controlled." They also make it so that the choice to play to the character's temptations is not going to punish him or the party with no benefit other than a nebulous, OOC warm fuzzy that you played "in character." It makes the temptations as mechanically significant as the rewards of resisting them. (Or at least, gives a metric of mechanical values tied to each choice to help the player evaluate the choice with something closer to the mindset his character has.)

The player is connected more strongly to his character, because the "cost" to his character of being a perfect ascetic who never wastes money or time and never makes bad decisions for pleasure or short-term gain is in the emotional and personal comfort level drives. The player feels none of that, absent some sort of system. With such a system, the player now has a mechanical hook - a cost he pays now for his asceticism's benefits later.

It also gives more mechanical grist for social mechanics. Which, for the same reasons as the "mind control" example above, helps move a character's social prowess from effectively being "I take control of your character away if I 'win' this roll" to being something that genuinely tells all players involved just how persuasive the social efforts are. And the emotional costs and rewards of various choices related to them.

Really in-depth rules would have mechanics for manipulating the likes and dislikes of characters, so that the PC who wants to introduce the young noble to a vice and get him hooked on it (say, gambling) so that he can use it to manipulate him (loans, gambling opportunities, blackmail, etc.) would be able to build a liking for that activity.

Again, though, this is getting a lot more in depth than I already have, and would take much more careful dis

I think focusing on what's left one you put it in the hands of the players, "where it belongs", may yield interesting results.

Because, otherwise, you're left with trying to define sufficient descriptors ahead of time to explain why Quertus likes poetry and wine more than kittens and sports, while one person enjoys stories and babies more than music or RPGs, while another enjoys sports and building things more than reading and babies.There will always be some level of this that is below the level of modeling of the system. Just as we don't model that Segev has a slightly weaker lower back that means it gets sore if he bends over at the waist, but can be ignored or worked out with a bit of effort ahead of time. And we don't model that Segev's brother is missing half the last joint of his right pinkie, even though that might have impact on things like typing speed, because it's just not going to impact things enough at the level the system models.

We model attack bonuses, and don't get into specific maneuvers in D&D without introducing extra subsystems.

So yes, there will be gaps; it won't be complete. But "because it isn't doing everything, it is better to have nothing" is a false dichotomy.

Yeah, this is something of an issue for me, too. Who but Max knows the value to Max of a good meal? If everyone valued things equally... well, it would be a very different world.Sure. But if we just assume that a good meal vs. an okay meal has no impact whatsoever, it punishes Quertus or Segev if they decide their characters like higher-quality meals, since Max, who decides whatever quality of meal is enough to avoid penalties is lal he needs, can afford extra healing potions or an additional +1 equivalent bonus to his armor.

Hmmm... How does "I think this is a dumb idea, but <my character> is game" require mechanics or manipulating me? :smallconfused:
Oh, that's easy.

"I think this is a dumb idea, so obviously my character would not go for it."
"But, Quertus, this is something your character SHOULD like because A, B, C, and D."

Now, perhaps you think that this isn't persuasion nor manipulation. But it is. In fact, it's persuasion by definition. It's manipulation because the person arguing it is trying to get you to change your mind from an obviously optimal decision to a sub-optimal one based on nothing but the implication that you "should" have your character make the dumb decision to go along with the dumb idea. Whether based on an insinuation that you're not RPing well and should feel bad about your metagaming, or a sense (if you care about these things) that the persuader will disapprove of and/or be disappointed in you for the same metagaming.

Conversely, "But, Quertus, you know how dumb this idea is. You're over-exaggerating your character's flaws if you think he wouldn't see just how stupid it is, too," could be said by the others who don't want you to take that choice. They could throw in, "It will probably get your character killed," or "It could lead to a TPK." Or, if the GM, "Quertus, I didn't plan for anybody to do something quite THAT stupid; please have your character realize it's dumb and don't do it because if he does, it's going to probably lead to the game crashing and burning, at least for tonight."

Now, admittedly, if you're bound-determined that Quertus's PC will/won't do X, in spite/because of how stupid it is, my system is just more manipulation of you to change your mind or reinforce it. But it's a mechanical one meant to help you judge just how tempting your PC really does find it.

And I will admit, it isn't going to turn bad RPers or problem players into good RPers and good players. That isn't really its purpose. It's purpose is to empower players to make IC decisions without the system fighting them for it. Without being punished for it. By having the system make the mechanical consequences to the character reflect the pressures a real person might feel in his situation, rather than the pressures only get applied from one side of the choices on a mechanical level (creating an artificial impetus towards less-realistic behavior).

Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm a horrid RPer who plays games wrong when I feel like a game whose mechanics make validating the notion that an NPC is persuasive a purely bad move is punishing me for trying to validate that. Maybe I'm a rotten metagamer for not being able to intuitively evaluate just how good a certain persuasive effort is without mechanics to tell me, and not feeling like the GM's persuasive efforts are necessarily reflective of exactly how persuasive the NPC is.

But I don't think so. I think it reasonable to recognize that mechanics create pressures, and that the "murder-hobo ascetic robot" is a natural consequence of the one-sided pressures endemic to most RPG systems right now that lack mechanics to make things like comfort, luxury, emotional connection, vices, pleasure-seeking, and recreation important.

Heck, when I was a middle schooler, we had an exercise in planning our lives with hypothetical situations. I foolishly was willing to say that I would get no TV, the cheapest apartment, and work 16 hours a day at the highest paying hourly job for 5 years to build up a nest egg before going to college, working and doing homework with no recreation, and maximizing my utility function of "income."

My teacher called me out on this, as nobody lives their lives like that. In truth, I would NEVER live my life like that now, barring extreme need. But if I did, I'd be a millionaire by now based on savings alone.

There is no incentive in an RPG to do anything but optimally use every second of your day for improvement. Nothing beyond rules that say you can't (e.g. you can't spend more than 8 hours a day on item creation). After all, it's not like the person making the decision about how the character spends his time has to actually endure the 16 hours of drudgery; all he's seeing is the high income rate he can expend on cool items for the parts of the game he ACTIVELY controls the character through.

There is no incentive in an RPG for Quertus's PC to be tempted by anything, whether Quertus would be tempted by it IRL or not, other than things which make Quertus's PC better able to do things Quertus will experience him doing.

The benefit of a system like I'm proposing is to provide that benefit, or the converse cost, so that playing your character as other than an optimal robot isn't punished by the system.

If you still can't see why this is a problem, let me ask you this: if you only need 8 hours of sleep per night, but 16 hours of optimally-expended day is "too much to be realistic" for a character, how much IS realistic? 8 hours? Why? Some people can and do work more than 8 hour days on important things. 14 hours? That still seems like a lot; your PC only takes 2 hours off, probably for meals and changing clothes? Without something to measure it, we're left with a gentlemen's agreement. And the persuasive power of your own guilt over being a "dirty metagame optimizer" and the GM and other players vs. your desire to have your character be effective. And when YOU have the reward of "just one more item" (as an example) but only your character has to weigh that against "but no time for anything but work and sleep," you have a harder time judging just how much recreational time he "needs" or would really allow himself to take.

Well, I do. Maybe, again, I'm just a bad RPer.

Floret

2016-12-01, 03:39 PM

As for the specific instances where RP is "forced" by rolls, I always just think of it like this: I (the player) do not control every action my character takes. Do you actually write out the prayers your Cleric prays? Do you detail every time you pee? Do you detail everything your character eats and drinks? No. The player is only in control of the major decisions, so it is not unprecedented for your character to know or do something the player has no control over.

While the rest of your post, from my side, I have already adressed (Short form: No, no disconnect between group and myself, at least for me); I find this to be a very nice note to stress. You are not your character, and perfect control is impossible. It is fair enough if you WANT perfect control in any aspect, but don't act as if that is something inherent to Tabletop gaming.

Hmmm... How does "I think this is a dumb idea, but <my character> is game" require mechanics or manipulating me? :smallconfused:

It is to get you to the "my character is game" part. SOMEHOW you were convinced that they are. This can be done through mechanics (Social mechanics, mostly), or through appealing to you, the player, and moving your opinion to the point of "I know this is gonna bite me, but my character will do it nonetheless". You might not FEEL manipulated, and in fact manipulating has negative connotations that this example might not share, but you could view the GM getting you to the point you say "character is game" as manipulating you into that.

The reason people confusing "alignment" and "roleplay" is bad is because it produces people who believe anything which doesn't adhere to their narrow view of alignment are failing at roleplaying. So, kinda the opposite of what you thought I meant.

I want people to be able to roleplay however they want, including not at all. :smallcool:

Hm. I can see where that might be a problem, yeah. Never thought about it that way. I would still insist that it is, while an example of something done horribly, not something to be taken as proof that such things can't work, only that they sometimes don't.

Where do you draw the limit between "actual combat" and "a dice simulator"?

At the exact point I put my foam weapons down and pick up the dice :smallwink: (Truthfully, when not rolling dice, my players and myself sometimes play around with my foam weapons when gaming at my place, but not for anything relating to the combat, at least not mechanically. Maybe to act out/visualise certain swings or to hit each other for doing stupid ****. But I digress :smalltongue:)
C'mon, this was too easy. I will ask again: Where exactly do you draw the border between "roleplaying" and "pretending to roleplay/confusing something else for it"?

Why would I want to buy 50 different systems to play with 50 different groups, if I could instead buy one system, and use different exchangeable parts / house rules / whatever to make the focus of the game fit each of my groups?

Fine if that's not your cup of tea, but, unless you're trying to take an elitist PoV, I'm not seeing the benefit to baking the roleplaying incentives into the system in a way that divides and excludes people.

Because I want my games to scratch different itches, and to take a system optimised for that will work easier than modifying an existing one with a more broad scope down to the narrower spectrum I might want. And... Dunno if you find that elitist or not, but... everyone shall play everything the way they want, unless they are harming people by it. But playing with people with vastly differing playstyles hinders my enjoyment of the game - especially since I as GM need to cater to too many differing tastes, people get bored, and then I feel bad. Nah, I prefer everyone getting similar things out of the game, with everyone WANTING similar things out of the game. So I really, really couldn't care less if some people I have no interest in playing with have no interest in playing the same things as I do. (This does not make me a better person than them, just means our tastes are different and we are imho better off going separate ways.)

Maybe an extreme example (And the most extreme in my collection), but I own a copy of "A single moment", a 2-player RPG for playing samurai facing each other in a final duel, and told mostly in flashbacks. I like that sort of focussed experience and am willing to invest in it. I just don't want my entire RPG-experience to be that limited, so I play other games as well, that provide different experiences. As you might imagine, I am also very much a fan of setting-specific systems.

So, to elaborate: I see benefits in the system being able to provide a more streamlined experience, and just don't care about that supposed drawback. I don't find excluding people to be a benefit, I just don't care either way :smallwink:

ComradeBear

2016-12-01, 03:41 PM

I'm just gonna reiterate that I don't support systems that do anything other than reward RP that's already happening. Not ones that dictate character behavior.

Apocalypse World saying "you get XP for rolling certain stats" has had, in my groups, a minimal effect on their decisionmaking. Because levelling in AW doesn't mean as much as it does in other games. The History stat encourages characters interacting. Which is excellent for encouraging RP by proxy.

Belief, Instinct, and Goal have also not done much beyond people learning how to write them well to match what their character usually does in every session.

Systems like these impose minimally, don't affect decisionmaking (or barely do) and don't, therefore introduce a ceiling. For Belief, Instinct, and Goal you either have to purposefully write them so they have nothing to do with your character's behavior/situation or actively try to avoid getting any points to somehow not get points from them.

Systems that say "You will sometimes lose control of your character" require player buy-in. They can be fun if you're signed on for them, but if you're not then there's no convincing that will work.

So that's where I sit.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-01, 05:12 PM

There is no incentive in an RPG to do anything but optimally use every second of your day for improvement. Nothing beyond rules that say you can't (e.g. you can't spend more than 8 hours a day on item creation). After all, it's not like the person making the decision about how the character spends his time has to actually endure the 16 hours of drudgery; all he's seeing is the high income rate he can expend on cool items for the parts of the game he ACTIVELY controls the character through.

I just don't see it as a matter of mechanical incentives or pressures.

The character drives the use of the rules, not the other way around. The setting and characters and the NPCs and so on... those are the actual territory. The rules are just a map for getting around that territory.

I'm playing a character, not a construct of rules.

Segev

2016-12-01, 06:13 PM

I just don't see it as a matter of mechanical incentives or pressures.

The character drives the use of the rules, not the other way around. The setting and characters and the NPCs and so on... those are the actual territory. The rules are just a map for getting around that territory.

I'm playing a character, not a construct of rules.

Like I said, maybe I'm just a bad megagamer who can't RP to save his life. But when the rules do reward playing a robot who churns out useful utility of every second of every day he's not required to be asleep, and doesn't reward engaging in recreational activities, I feel incentivized to make "a character" who 'enjoys' being a workaholic over one who would hang out in the evenings, or enjoy a good book, or spend money on luxuries rather than more and better gear.

As I sometimes want to play a fop or a socialite, I would like to have mechanics which actually make that a trade-off of valid options rather than "sure, you can trade effectiveness for fluff; the guys who don't will be better, mechanically, than your PC."

I particularly like that, if I build a social-focused PC, my lack of skill in persuading people that their characters should be persuaded by mine is overcome by actual mechanics which demonstrate how persuasive my character is at any given point, and let the other players (and GM) measure a real cost-benefit analysis of in-game resources as to how the characters mine is influencing might respond. And, if they don't respond how my character would LIKE, at least my character's efforts cost them ability to be more effective in the opposition they are now going to present.

Talakeal

2016-12-01, 07:04 PM

I particularly like that, if I build a social-focused PC, my lack of skill in persuading people that their characters should be persuaded by mine is overcome by actual mechanics which demonstrate how persuasive my character is at any given point, and let the other players (and GM) measure a real cost-benefit analysis of in-game resources as to how the characters mine is influencing might respond. And, if they don't respond how my character would LIKE, at least my character's efforts cost them ability to be more effective in the opposition they are now going to present.

Ok, I am not sure if that is what you meant, but this sounds actively anti-social.

Would you fell the same way if I said "I like playing a combat monster because I can force the other players to do what I want, otherwise I can just kill their characters. And even if the do band together and defeat me, I will still do enough damage to them first that they won't survive the rest of the dungeon, so I get my revenge on those who dared to defy me."

As for the specific instances where RP is "forced" by rolls, I always just think of it like this: I (the player) do not control every action my character takes. Do you actually write out the prayers your Cleric prays? Do you detail every time you pee? Do you detail everything your character eats and drinks? No. The player is only in control of the major decisions, so it is not unprecedented for your character to know or do something the player has no control over.

There is a difference between abstracted / glossed over and not having control.

Just because the DM doesn't require you to declare bathroom breaks doesn't mean it isn't up to you when it matters. I think most people would be quite miffed if the DM declared that they peed in their pants during their big speech because "you have no control over when you character goes to the bathroom".

Stryyke

2016-12-01, 07:51 PM

Segev

2016-12-01, 10:26 PM

Ok, I am not sure if that is what you meant, but this sounds actively anti-social.

Would you fell the same way if I said "I like playing a combat monster because I can force the other players to do what I want, otherwise I can just kill their characters. And even if the do band together and defeat me, I will still do enough damage to them first that they won't survive the rest of the dungeon, so I get my revenge on those who dared to defy me."I did not mean that, any more than asking for a combat system that would let you demonstrate that your character is, in fact, able to fight that dragon is asking for what you outlined as a negative bullying thing in the above quote.

What I'm looking for is the ability to have my PC be skilled in areas I am not. At least insofar as this specific aspect of what we're discussing goes. Here, it's social skills (which I sorely lack). My socialite PC, given mechanics for interacting with emotions, urges, drives, and preferences of other characters (NPCs are characters, remember), actually has tools to be capable as a socialite. Much like my fighter PC has tools, with a combat system, to be effective in using "fighting" on that monster. Or that noble duelist fop who tried to bully him.

Talakeal

2016-12-01, 11:28 PM

I did not mean that, any more than asking for a combat system that would let you demonstrate that your character is, in fact, able to fight that dragon is asking for what you outlined as a negative bullying thing in the above quote.

What I'm looking for is the ability to have my PC be skilled in areas I am not. At least insofar as this specific aspect of what we're discussing goes. Here, it's social skills (which I sorely lack). My socialite PC, given mechanics for interacting with emotions, urges, drives, and preferences of other characters (NPCs are characters, remember), actually has tools to be capable as a socialite. Much like my fighter PC has tools, with a combat system, to be effective in using "fighting" on that monster. Or that noble duelist fop who tried to bully him.

Ok, the way you phrased it made me think you were talking about wanting the system to bully other PCs, which I suspected wasn't actually the case. :smallsmile:

I have to ask though, why go to all this trouble for a system to persuade NPCs? Every RPG I can think of, at least those published in the last 25 years, has already included social rules for charming characters to persuade NPCs, and they usually work well enough for what they are (save, as usual, the D&D 3.X RAW implementation...)

Normally for me it boils down to me deciding on the players relationship with the NPC, what the player wants, and what the PC is offering in exchange, and then assign a DC based on that, and then tell the PC to roll Charisma + Expression (or the specific game's equivalent thereof). We can also act out the dialogue as much or as little as the player is comfortable with.

The only time it becomes a real issue is when you have a player who wants to use social skills on another player, an NPC who wants to use social skills on a player, or a player who refuses to say what they want and / or what they are offering the NPC and simply insist that they be allowed to "roll CHA!" to get whatever possible rewards the encounter might yield.

I think I would argue that point. Like the player can know things the character does not, so too can the character know things the player does not. While the player can indeed step into any particular moment of the character's life, I dare say the player controls the character less than 10% of his/her life. I'm not suggesting that this is how it must be viewed; but it's how I, personally, overcome the cognitive dissonance posed by the OP. If I can accept that my character lives 90% of his life without my input; I have no trouble accepting that the results of a die roll could make my character do something I, the player, didn't specifically intend.

P.S. You just gave me a great idea on how to make the next couple encounters a little bit harder! Pee your pants during a big speech. LOL!!

Generally I imagine off-screen PC actions to work like auto-pilot. The system does its best to simulate what the character would do with a person at the helm, and if there is an emergency (or the player just wants to get back in the chair) manual control can be resumed at a moment's notice.

Floret

2016-12-02, 04:23 AM

There is a difference between abstracted / glossed over and not having control.

Just because the DM doesn't require you to declare bathroom breaks doesn't mean it isn't up to you when it matters. I think most people would be quite miffed if the DM declared that they peed in their pants during their big speech because "you have no control over when you character goes to the bathroom".

I would argue that the problem with that example is not the player loosing control, but the GM just taking it. With systems such as the proposed ones you have the player relinquishing control of the character somewhat (While still being the one who determines the CHARACTER, noone is saying the DM should tell you what to do). Not the same thing. And the dice taking my control away feels a lot different then the GM just deciding in a moment disadvantageous to me.

Ok, the way you phrased it made me think you were talking about wanting the system to bully other PCs, which I suspected wasn't actually the case. :smallsmile:

I have to ask though, why go to all this trouble for a system to persuade NPCs? Every RPG I can think of, at least those published in the last 25 years, has already included social rules for charming characters to persuade NPCs, and they usually work well enough for what they are (save, as usual, the D&D 3.X RAW implementation...)

Normally for me it boils down to me deciding on the players relationship with the NPC, what the player wants, and what the PC is offering in exchange, and then assign a DC based on that, and then tell the PC to roll Charisma + Expression (or the specific game's equivalent thereof). We can also act out the dialogue as much or as little as the player is comfortable with.

The only time it becomes a real issue is when you have a player who wants to use social skills on another player, an NPC who wants to use social skills on a player, or a player who refuses to say what they want and / or what they are offering the NPC and simply insist that they be allowed to "roll CHA!" to get whatever possible rewards the encounter might yield.

Two points from me, as I also heavily advocated for social systems:
1) If I like social interactions to be a focus of my gaming experience, I'd like them to be more than just a "yeah, roll that, at that difficulty I just calculated". First of all, I want at the very least some guidelines as GM for how to set the difficulty, and second, I want something more interesting then a single roll. Combat, when it is a focus of the system, will not boil down to a single roll. I want a similarly fleshed-out system to combat, to have the social "combat" be interesting mechanically.
(Minor note, this also fixes the "simply roll charisma for reward" issue, since you take out the "simply" and at the end had just as much effort as a similar combat might have.)
2) "The only time" is really, really stretching it. Sure, players doing it on each other is a grey area and should be discussed for group contract. It can work though. Also, the NPCs using social skills on a player is EXACTLY what I WANT the system to be able to do. Otherwise I as GM have no ability to undermine in rules and stats, which is ultimately the way to define the capabilities of a TRPG character, that a given character is charismatic, charming and very, very good at convincing people. Outside of being convincing myself, which does get around the problem a bit, but not really, and which I do tend to be (IRL at least...), sure, but that only creates the problem of... when am I TOO convincing? Sure I can dial it down, but to the exact level I want it to be at? And what about a GM with medium to low social skills? Should those people just not be allowed to play convincing NPCs? Or to GM at all?
The player who just wants to roll without describing? Is an issue of group contract. I wouldn't allow it anywhere near my groups, I require at least a rough outline of what the PCs do with what intention, but some people might be fine this way. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?

Generally I imagine off-screen PC actions to work like auto-pilot. The system does its best to simulate what the character would do with a person at the helm, and if there is an emergency (or the player just wants to get back in the chair) manual control can be resumed at a moment's notice.

Sounds reasonable, to be honest. Question is though: Does this then not also go for emotions and personality-driven action? And if the system has no way of simulating a personality... how exactly does the system simulate it? Does its best, sure, but without such rules you are adamantly against, there is no way for the system to do it other then resorting to "what an average person would do". And, since we pointed out, people are different... this is bound to run into problems.
I mean, it doesn't. At least not with most people. So appearantly there is some way to, at least for such rough outlines, for other people to understand your character enough to imagine somewhat accurately what that character did "offscreen". If that is possible, however, why would it be impossible to put it into words?

Take for example a situation with the player (deliberately, no worries) relinquishes control to me as GM in my Dark Eye game. He took the "sleepwanderer" flaw, which means every so often, his character will wander off in the night. And for every single time, I describe to the rest of the party that he is missing, and then the situations he got himself into. I go by what I got during game (and from character sheet, there are "personality flaws"/vices in the system you get buildpoints for). So far I have not had a single complaint :smallwink: And this is not the only example of such things I have encountered over the years.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-02, 07:29 AM

Generally I imagine off-screen PC actions to work like auto-pilot. The system does its best to simulate what the character would do with a person at the helm, and if there is an emergency (or the player just wants to get back in the chair) manual control can be resumed at a moment's notice.

As a GM, my policy is always that the character would do or being doing what the player would have them do if the player were actively "driving" at that point, so it's never a question.

Segev

2016-12-02, 10:16 AM

I have to ask though, why go to all this trouble for a system to persuade NPCs? Every RPG I can think of, at least those published in the last 25 years, has already included social rules for charming characters to persuade NPCs, and they usually work well enough for what they are (save, as usual, the D&D 3.X RAW implementation...)Partially because I like mechanics to apply equally to NPCs and PCs, such that there's no "magical PC rule" which changes just because the character in question is (not) controlled by the GM.

In essence, I do want these rules to affect PCs. Not specifically for PvP, but so that the same rules I use to get NPC Guardsman to pal around with me while my buddy sneaks past his now-abandoned post are the rules that NPC Guardsman's girlfriend could use to make me feel guilty for getting him in trouble and get my help to break him out of prison.

I mean, sure, the GM could just resort to his own social skills. "Dude, your PC is neutral with good tendencies, and NPC Guardsman was cool to you. Plus, his girlfriend's in tears, here. Is your PC really that heartless? Just ignore that there's no benefit to you unless NPC Guardsman is useful later on in the game." He's manipulating me, either by making me feel for an NPC, or by making me feel that my character should feel for him strongly enough to take risks that have little to no mechanical rewards.

I appreciate mechanics which actually tell me how effective NPC Guardsman's Girlfriend is at this persuasion. Which show me at least in moderate detail just how strongly my PC is affected by her pleas. That, also, make the emotional cost to my PC of refusing her have some weight compared to the costs and risks of doing what she asks, in a mechanical sense.

Normally for me it boils down to me deciding on the players relationship with the NPC, what the player wants, and what the PC is offering in exchange, and then assign a DC based on that, and then tell the PC to roll Charisma + Expression (or the specific game's equivalent thereof). We can also act out the dialogue as much or as little as the player is comfortable with.And that can work. It's a bit unsatisfying if I built my PC around social interaction; you don't tell the fighter that you're going to decide on what the player wants, what the PC can do vs. the skill of the NPC, and then set a DC based on that and tell the PC to roll Strength + Melee (or the game's equivalent thereof). You have a combat subsystem for playing that out.

A social subsystem for playing out my PC's social skills would be nice.

Talakeal

2016-12-02, 01:43 PM

I would argue that the problem with that example is not the player loosing control, but the GM just taking it. With systems such as the proposed ones you have the player relinquishing control of the character somewhat (While still being the one who determines the CHARACTER, noone is saying the DM should tell you what to do). Not the same thing. And the dice taking my control away feels a lot different then the GM just deciding in a moment disadvantageous to me.

Two points from me, as I also heavily advocated for social systems:
1) If I like social interactions to be a focus of my gaming experience, I'd like them to be more than just a "yeah, roll that, at that difficulty I just calculated". First of all, I want at the very least some guidelines as GM for how to set the difficulty, and second, I want something more interesting then a single roll. Combat, when it is a focus of the system, will not boil down to a single roll. I want a similarly fleshed-out system to combat, to have the social "combat" be interesting mechanically.
(Minor note, this also fixes the "simply roll charisma for reward" issue, since you take out the "simply" and at the end had just as much effort as a similar combat might have.)
2) "The only time" is really, really stretching it. Sure, players doing it on each other is a grey area and should be discussed for group contract. It can work though. Also, the NPCs using social skills on a player is EXACTLY what I WANT the system to be able to do. Otherwise I as GM have no ability to undermine in rules and stats, which is ultimately the way to define the capabilities of a TRPG character, that a given character is charismatic, charming and very, very good at convincing people. Outside of being convincing myself, which does get around the problem a bit, but not really, and which I do tend to be (IRL at least...), sure, but that only creates the problem of... when am I TOO convincing? Sure I can dial it down, but to the exact level I want it to be at? And what about a GM with medium to low social skills? Should those people just not be allowed to play convincing NPCs? Or to GM at all?
The player who just wants to roll without describing? Is an issue of group contract. I wouldn't allow it anywhere near my groups, I require at least a rough outline of what the PCs do with what intention, but some people might be fine this way. Who am I to tell them they are wrong?

Sounds reasonable, to be honest. Question is though: Does this then not also go for emotions and personality-driven action? And if the system has no way of simulating a personality... how exactly does the system simulate it? Does its best, sure, but without such rules you are adamantly against, there is no way for the system to do it other then resorting to "what an average person would do". And, since we pointed out, people are different... this is bound to run into problems.
I mean, it doesn't. At least not with most people. So appearantly there is some way to, at least for such rough outlines, for other people to understand your character enough to imagine somewhat accurately what that character did "offscreen". If that is possible, however, why would it be impossible to put it into words?

Take for example a situation with the player (deliberately, no worries) relinquishes control to me as GM in my Dark Eye game. He took the "sleepwanderer" flaw, which means every so often, his character will wander off in the night. And for every single time, I describe to the rest of the party that he is missing, and then the situations he got himself into. I go by what I got during game (and from character sheet, there are "personality flaws"/vices in the system you get buildpoints for). So far I have not had a single complaint :smallwink: And this is not the only example of such things I have encountered over the years.

When I say "system" I was referring to the autopilot in the analogy. In the game its not the rules, but the collective imaginations of everyone at the table.

Yeah, clearly something like the sleepwalker flaw would be an obvious exception.

Partially because I like mechanics to apply equally to NPCs and PCs, such that there's no "magical PC rule" which changes just because the character in question is (not) controlled by the GM.

In essence, I do want these rules to affect PCs. Not specifically for PvP, but so that the same rules I use to get NPC Guardsman to pal around with me while my buddy sneaks past his now-abandoned post are the rules that NPC Guardsman's girlfriend could use to make me feel guilty for getting him in trouble and get my help to break him out of prison.

I mean, sure, the GM could just resort to his own social skills. "Dude, your PC is neutral with good tendencies, and NPC Guardsman was cool to you. Plus, his girlfriend's in tears, here. Is your PC really that heartless? Just ignore that there's no benefit to you unless NPC Guardsman is useful later on in the game." He's manipulating me, either by making me feel for an NPC, or by making me feel that my character should feel for him strongly enough to take risks that have little to no mechanical rewards.

I appreciate mechanics which actually tell me how effective NPC Guardsman's Girlfriend is at this persuasion. Which show me at least in moderate detail just how strongly my PC is affected by her pleas. That, also, make the emotional cost to my PC of refusing her have some weight compared to the costs and risks of doing what she asks, in a mechanical sense.

And that can work. It's a bit unsatisfying if I built my PC around social interaction; you don't tell the fighter that you're going to decide on what the player wants, what the PC can do vs. the skill of the NPC, and then set a DC based on that and tell the PC to roll Strength + Melee (or the game's equivalent thereof). You have a combat subsystem for playing that out.

A social subsystem for playing out my PC's social skills would be nice.

Are we on a different topic now? I were advocating for rewarding players for making mechanically suboptimal decisions for the sake of RP, but now we seem to be discussing the merits of social combat systems.

Let me counter your combat example with one of your own; what if the DM had the PCs randomly determine their actions in combat to make up for the fact that he just isnt any good at tactics but needs a way to simulate tactically competant opponents?

Honestly I have never felt the need to use social skills on the PCs, so this has never been an issue. Generally if I cant convince the PCs to do something I let it go, it has never been important enough to force the issue, and the boogey-man of the railroading DM is always lurking in players minds as is.

I dont generally use seperate rules for PCs and NPCs, the rolls are useful for determining how persuasive the character is and the controlling player should act accordingly. If I use a social skill on a player I let them now this, but I dont dictate their actions. Likewise the players dont get to mind control NPCs because of a good roll. If its an NPC I dont have a lot of work put into, like a random mook or town guard, I generally just have them do whatever the players want, but if its an important NPC I am going to react to social rolls exactly as a PC would, doing my best to imagine how that particular character would respond to that particular argument given with that particular level of charisma. But the charismatic PC cant just solve the plot by going up to the bbeg who has spent his whole life preparing the scheme and saying "Bro, would you mind, like, not destroying the world?"

Also, if you do implement social combat rules, expect players to treat most every interaction as a combat encounter. They will start considering every NPC to be actively hostile and do their best to kill them befor they have a chance to open their mouths, or at the very least escalate every argument into a fight to the death.

Segev

2016-12-02, 02:29 PM

Are we on a different topic now? I were advocating for rewarding players for making mechanically suboptimal decisions for the sake of RP, but now we seem to be discussing the merits of social combat systems.It's a drift, I admit. But it's the same thing, really: what is the point of a social encounter but to change how involved characters value something?

When the PC is the target, isn't the social encounter trying to convince the PC to do something other than his default "what is most mechanically optimal?" (Okay, that may not be the default, but unless we're back to "the DM has to be at least as persuasive as his NPCs," it amounts to the same thing: the social interaction shifts the character's value judgment of various options. With mechanics behind it, it changes the balance of incentives to the player.)

Let me counter your combat example with one of your own; what if the DM had the PCs randomly determine their actions in combat to make up for the fact that he just isnt any good at tactics but needs a way to simulate tactically competant opponents?I don't see the parallel. Simulating "superior tactics" would be better done with mechanics allowing a "tactician" to whip out reserves at key moments, or to grant a "+2 tactical bonus" to attacks for his troops or something.

Forcing PCs to determine their actions randomly doesn't form any sort of analogy to anything I've discussed, so far as I can tell, so I don't really know how to respond to this.

Honestly I have never felt the need to use social skills on the PCs, so this has never been an issue. Generally if I cant convince the PCs to do something I let it go, it has never been important enough to force the issue, and the boogey-man of the railroading DM is always lurking in players minds as is.You've probably never run a social-heavy game, then. Certainly not of a sort I'm familiar with.

I dont generally use seperate rules for PCs and NPCs, the rolls are useful for determining how persuasive the character is and the controlling player should act accordingly.Not useful enough. It boils down to a player having to somehow separate his own desired PC reaction from the PC's own desires, and setting a DC accordingly. And weighing that against the social pressure from the DM and other players, whether to "be a good RPer" or "not to screw over the party" or what-have-you. Because "She rolled a 30 on her Persuasion roll" is pretty good, but the player really might not like what she's asking his character to do. But it's a high roll, so is he a bad RPer for going with what he wants?

The goal of mechanics such as I propose is to make the weight of the decisions have mechanical oomph either way. If he refuses to give in, he's being no more a "metagaming optimizer" than if he does give in, because the mechanical costs were there that made "holding out" actually cost something more than the player saying, "he feels really bad about it, but after agonizing over it he says 'no.'" It's easy to say "he pushes through the pain" when there's nothing the guy saying he does so has to do or endure other than SAYING it. Especially when the guy making the choice WOULD have to put up with the problems caused by taking the other option.

With this, the cost in morale points would be measured by just how persuasive the NPC was, and the PC can resist and pay the cost or cooperate and keep them (or reap some extra); it no longer makes the investment in a character's social capabilities entirely meaningless.

I mean, imagine if a PC could just say, "Nah, that's a really impressive attack, but my character dodges," for no cost other than enduring being jeered for his no-selling. Would make the investment in the combat stats of that other character kind of pointless, wouldn't it?

If I use a social skill on a player I let them now this, but I dont dictate their actions. Likewise the players dont get to mind control NPCs because of a good roll. If its an NPC I dont have a lot of work put into, like a random mook or town guard, I generally just have them do whatever the players want, but if its an important NPC I am going to react to social rolls exactly as a PC would, doing my best to imagine how that particular character would respond to that particular argument given with that particular level of charisma. But the charismatic PC cant just solve the plot by going up to the bbeg who has spent his whole life preparing the scheme and saying "Bro, would you mind, like, not destroying the world?"And this translates to no social mechanics at all. It's really a question at your table of how well the players can manipulate each other (counting the GM as a player, here). "You SHOULD be persuaded by Sir Pantsenpuper, because he is just so charismatic!"

Also, if you do implement social combat rules, expect players to treat most every interaction as a combat encounter. They will start considering every NPC to be actively hostile and do their best to kill them befor they have a chance to open their mouths, or at the very least escalate every argument into a fight to the death.
I have noticed that's more of a problem when the "social combat" ends with mind control. One way to avoid it, though, would also be to not have morale point COSTS, but only give social mechanics the ability to offer morale point awards. This has its own problems, but you can hardly expect players to view all socialites as hostile beings to be destroyed if the only cost for refusing them is being where they were without the social action at all.

You could also make sure to make it clear that there are consequences for having a reputation of murdering anybody who opens their mouth to speak to you.

The Fair Folk have a reputation for ravenous, soul-devouring monsters. While some Fae will shepherd a herd of mortals like livestock, others raid and rampage wildly, leaving soul-eaten zombies littering villages in their wake.

The mechanical representation of their need to feed is that their mana reserves are actively drained by Creation just by existing. But they also have a vanishingly tiny mana pool. Feeding on a mortal even moderately lightly will fill most Fair Folk's reserves entirely. Even the grandest nobles don't need to devour more than half of a mortal's stats that represent their soul.

But the fluff says it just feels so GOOD to do that Raksha will feed and feed and devour mortals whole in rapid succession, far faster than they could possibly drain their reserves and squandering tons of potential food.

The fluff is nice and all. "It's so wasteful; they're REALLY monstrous!" But...it meant that the raksha were just plain stupid. Not only were they burning food away rapidly, but they draw attention from powerful Exalted who might take exception to their feeding habits.

Playing a Raksha "to type" is not just wasteful, it's punitively stupid.

Now, errata gave their various feeding abilities new stuff you could do with the excess. If your mote pool is already full, you can start pumping up your stats in various ways with excess soul-stuff. This makes devouring multiple mortals in quick succession actually rather...tempting. And gives more credence to the "well-fed powerful fair folk monster" that ravages the countryside. Since the stat-pumping is temporary, they have to KEEP feeding at the engorged levels to maintain them.

This is why you want to design mechanics so that the "urges" supposedly felt by a character are mechanically impactful to the PLAYER and what the PLAYER experiences through gameplay.

Hawkstar

2016-12-02, 04:10 PM

I prefer to let the player decide whether their character should or not, would or would not --rather than any of the presented alternatives.So, what you're saying here is that the entire problem that starts this discussion isn't a problem at all, because the "But that's what my character would do!" guy who takes actions that screws over the rest of the party's goals for personal entertainment/progress is totally fine with you.

Talakeal

2016-12-02, 06:34 PM

I don't see the parallel. Simulating "superior tactics" would be better done with mechanics allowing a "tactician" to whip out reserves at key moments, or to grant a "+2 tactical bonus" to attacks for his troops or something.

In both situations you are taking control of the PCs away from the players to compensate for a perceived lack of skill on the part of the GM.

You've probably never run a social-heavy game, then. Certainly not of a sort I'm familiar with.

That depends on what you mean by social heavy games.

I have both run in and played plenty of sessions where we just sit around and talk in character, often never even breaking out the dice.

I have also run scenes of persuasion, negation, debate, seduction, or deception which had plenty of dice rolls. However, when it is two players competing it is normally used to convince an NPC third party rather than directly on one another.

Typically groups I am in have a rule against PVP, so no one tries to directly use skills on other PCs regardless of whether they are social or physical. We also don't generally have players stealing from one another or otherwise attacking resources, although I will admit I have been in more than a few groups (mostly when I was younger) where people would bully, rob, or otherwise indirectly attack my PC who would then respond physically and only then would the DM intervene. Of course, I think this is more because DM doesn't pick up on the subtler stuff and only realizes PvP is occurring when it is blatant and in his face.

I will say that when it comes to social situations the PCs are usually proactive; they are the one's trying to persuade an NPC to do something. AFAIK I have never had a situation where an NPC was trying to convince a PC to do something that was against their nature or didn't have worthwhile compensation.

With this, the cost in morale points would be measured by just how persuasive the NPC was, and the PC can resist and pay the cost or cooperate and keep them (or reap some extra); it no longer makes the investment in a character's social capabilities entirely meaningless.

Again, it really sounds like you are asking to bully the other players here. NPCs can be persuaded to do things just fine with basic diplomacy rules (as long as you aren't being ridiculous and asking people to give up on their life's work or become your slave for no reason), so how is investing in social capabilities meaningless?

Or are you strictly talking about NPCs? Because actually measuring an NPC's investment in abilities is a level of razor's edge balancing that I have never gotten to. Could you give me an example of this, I am having trouble picturing a situation where it would actually come up.

And this translates to no social mechanics at all. It's really a question at your table of how well the players can manipulate each other (counting the GM as a player, here). "You SHOULD be persuaded by Sir Pantsenpuper, because he is just so charismatic!"

It is a mechanic for setting the scene, not for resolving the conflict. Of course, neither is morale bonuses / penalties. The only way to make a hard social resolution mechanic is with something akin to the 3.X "Diplomacy is mind control!" which just pisses everyone off.

And again, if it is something straightforward like "bluff the guard into letting me past" or "talk the bar wench into coming to bed with me" you really can just resolve it with a simple mechanical die roll. I would say that trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be with a whole social combat situation is just getting in the way of resolution in these cases.

The Fair Folk have a reputation for ravenous, soul-devouring monsters. While some Fae will shepherd a herd of mortals like livestock, others raid and rampage wildly, leaving soul-eaten zombies littering villages in their wake.

The mechanical representation of their need to feed is that their mana reserves are actively drained by Creation just by existing. But they also have a vanishingly tiny mana pool. Feeding on a mortal even moderately lightly will fill most Fair Folk's reserves entirely. Even the grandest nobles don't need to devour more than half of a mortal's stats that represent their soul.

But the fluff says it just feels so GOOD to do that Raksha will feed and feed and devour mortals whole in rapid succession, far faster than they could possibly drain their reserves and squandering tons of potential food.

The fluff is nice and all. "It's so wasteful; they're REALLY monstrous!" But...it meant that the raksha were just plain stupid. Not only were they burning food away rapidly, but they draw attention from powerful Exalted who might take exception to their feeding habits.

Playing a Raksha "to type" is not just wasteful, it's punitively stupid.

Now, errata gave their various feeding abilities new stuff you could do with the excess. If your mote pool is already full, you can start pumping up your stats in various ways with excess soul-stuff. This makes devouring multiple mortals in quick succession actually rather...tempting. And gives more credence to the "well-fed powerful fair folk monster" that ravages the countryside. Since the stat-pumping is temporary, they have to KEEP feeding at the engorged levels to maintain them.

This is why you want to design mechanics so that the "urges" supposedly felt by a character are mechanically impactful to the PLAYER and what the PLAYER experiences through gameplay.

Mechanical rewards for something like that are great; although if they go too far you might have the opposite problem, people might be afraid to play a restrained character because the advantages of overindulgence outweigh any potential consequences.

Honestly I have never really needed mechanics for this though. If I am playing a glutton I will overindulge, if I am playing an ascetic I will take only what I need to survive. Most characters fluctuate between the extremes based on their mood and the specific circumstances. But then again I am a superior gamer.

Seriously though, this really seems to be a solution in search of a problem, I really haven't experienced much need for it as either a player or a DM. Obviously you have had a lot of trouble with it over the years, but it just isn't something I have ever seen a need for.

Segev

2016-12-02, 06:55 PM

I...am clearly failing to communicate what I am saying clearly, because what you're responding to isn't what I mean to get across, and I don't know how to make what I am trying to get across clearer. I am sorry. I might try again later, but for this evening, I think I need to give up, as I am out of ways of trying to say what I mean and what I mean is not being understood.

Sorry for my failure to communicate.

Cluedrew

2016-12-02, 07:36 PM

I'm playing a character, not a construct of rules.And I hope to one day find a system where there is no distinction between the two. That point may be unachievable but I think closer to that point is generally better. (Damaging the character doesn't count.) See below for why.

Again, it really sounds like you are asking to bully the other players here.Anecdote; after a play-test of a system I am developing I was asked to add more social rules because of a scene that played out like this:

P1: "P2, I want you to do this."
P2: "My character doesn't want to do that."
P1: "... OK ... ummm..."

Since I was missing a resolution for that (social) situation they actually had trouble resolving the situation. Sure they could do it without rules, and they did, but it is a little bit jarring. Its a bit like this:

GM: "The thug knocks your knife out of your hands."
P3: "I punch him in the face."
GM: "... There are no rules for unarmed attacks."

Sure you could create a ruling for it, or even homebrew a system for it. But I have never known a system to be complemented for how often it forced you to homebrew fixes for it. The closest is some systems are complemented for making it easy, but that is not the same thing.

There is value in freeform role-play, completely unbounded by any rules except group dynamics, and my role-playing roots are deeply set in that soil. But role-playing games, of the table top and pen & paper variety, are about a different something different to me. It is a game and why should the game part stop when you get to the very core of the experience: role-playing your character?

Talakeal

2016-12-02, 09:05 PM

Talakeal

2016-12-02, 09:39 PM

And I hope to one day find a system where there is no distinction between the two. That point may be unachievable but I think closer to that point is generally better. (Damaging the character doesn't count.) See below for why.

Anecdote; after a play-test of a system I am developing I was asked to add more social rules because of a scene that played out like this:

P1: "P2, I want you to do this."
P2: "My character doesn't want to do that."
P1: "... OK ... ummm..."

Since I was missing a resolution for that (social) situation they actually had trouble resolving the situation. Sure they could do it without rules, and they did, but it is a little bit jarring. Its a bit like this:

GM: "The thug knocks your knife out of your hands."
P3: "I punch him in the face."
GM: "... There are no rules for unarmed attacks."

Sure you could create a ruling for it, or even homebrew a system for it. But I have never known a system to be complemented for how often it forced you to homebrew fixes for it. The closest is some systems are complemented for making it easy, but that is not the same thing.

There is value in freeform role-play, completely unbounded by any rules except group dynamics, and my role-playing roots are deeply set in that soil. But role-playing games, of the table top and pen & paper variety, are about a different something different to me. It is a game and why should the game part stop when you get to the very core of the experience: role-playing your character?

Complete lack of social mechanics is indeed a problem.

Keep in mind thiugh that what you are describing is specifically PvP, so to continue your analogy of stabbing someone with a knife, well if you have PCs stabbing one another you might have bigge problems than fuzzy mechanics.

Cluedrew

2016-12-02, 09:51 PM

Talakeal

2016-12-02, 10:41 PM

Do you count as CvC/PCvPC* as PvP? I generally don't because the dynamics of the out-of-game situation are quite different. If you do then yes, if you don't I'm going to say no it wasn't actually PvP. Honestly it situation probably wouldn't have been much different if it have been a player character and a NPC, in either role (except for a possible default to PC wins situation).

* Those acronyms make sense right?

Yes, yes I do.

Note though, that I don't have a blanket ban on it in my games, but it is treading on very dangerous ground and not something to be undertaken lightly. If one person isn't ok with it, it can easily break up a gaming group or turn into a literal player vs. player fight.

But I have been in plenty of groups that have a zero tolerance policy on PvP. I believe the RPG had strict rules about that sort of thing, if you even so much as catch another player in the blast radius of an AOE you would be expelled from the event IIRC.

ComradeBear

2016-12-03, 12:55 AM

Talakeal

2016-12-03, 01:10 AM

PvP is fine so long as you're not an idiot at handling it. It's literally this easy as a GM:
"Ok. Looks like Tamar and Grundy are getting heated and might get into a fight. Steve, are you chill?"
"Yeah. I figured Grundy would get in trouble."
"Ok. Jim, you chill?"
"No I'm not. I'm feeling frustrated."
"Mk. That's a valid way to feel. Let's take a ten minute break so everyone can cool off. Of Jim still isn't ok with this pvp when we come back, then we'll have cooler heads prevail."

Done. I've been doing this method for years. Never had pvp get out of hand yet.

And having people bought in that pvp might possibly happen is a good place to start anyways.

I also like the Apocalypse World PC-influence rules. They're actually different from NPC rules.

On a miss, nothing.
On a 7-9, you may either offer them XP for going along with your character's convincing, OR you can force them to Act Under Fire (potentially create problems) if they say no.
On a 10+, do both of the above.
The character still has 100% autonomy of choice. Just not autonomy of consequence (which they don't have anways.)

Simple as that. Never had a problem there.

Ideally that is how I would handle it as well (although game-time is pretty precious to me, I am loathe to have to break it up with OOC conversations and breaks to cool off any more than is necessary). The problem is that requires a level of empathy a lot of people just don't have, often people don't even notice there is a problem until it blows up.

For example one of my first games back in high school I was playing a rogue and the party fighter kept mocking me and bullying me for being a coward and a weakling, typical high school jock stuff. I tolerated it, until one time when we came to a place where we had to ford a river. My character, who was strongly hydrophobic, refused to ford it and wanted to look for another way around. The fighter picked me up and threw me into the middle of the river, where I was attacked by the river monsters (because a DM doesn't have the PCs cross water unless he is looking to use a sea monster, am I right :smallwink:) and because I was alone I was almost killed. Now, as a rogue I could never get revenge against the fighter in a straight up fight, so that night I killed him in his sleep. The DM reacted by having a level 20 wizard / cleric teleport into the camp, cast Power Word Kill on my and Ressurection on the fighter, and then I was kicked out of the gaming group.

A classic story of everyone being young and stupid; but the main problem was that everyone lacked the empathy to even realize what was going on until it got the point where the problem was too big to back down from.

Also, your examples where players "make their own sources of XP" are really easily exploitable but you never have problems with them; I think your table runs with a lot more rules than you are giving them credit for, many of them unwritten. I think if I introduced those rules to a new group there would be a lot of tense breaking in before we figured out where the "line" was.

RazorChain

2016-12-03, 01:37 AM

And I hope to one day find a system where there is no distinction between the two. That point may be unachievable but I think closer to that point is generally better. (Damaging the character doesn't count.) See below for why.

Anecdote; after a play-test of a system I am developing I was asked to add more social rules because of a scene that played out like this:

P1: "P2, I want you to do this."
P2: "My character doesn't want to do that."
P1: "... OK ... ummm..."

Since I was missing a resolution for that (social) situation they actually had trouble resolving the situation. Sure they could do it without rules, and they did, but it is a little bit jarring. Its a bit like this:

GM: "The thug knocks your knife out of your hands."
P3: "I punch him in the face."
GM: "... There are no rules for unarmed attacks."

Sure you could create a ruling for it, or even homebrew a system for it. But I have never known a system to be complemented for how often it forced you to homebrew fixes for it. The closest is some systems are complemented for making it easy, but that is not the same thing.

There is value in freeform role-play, completely unbounded by any rules except group dynamics, and my role-playing roots are deeply set in that soil. But role-playing games, of the table top and pen & paper variety, are about a different something different to me. It is a game and why should the game part stop when you get to the very core of the experience: role-playing your character?

The problem with resolving social situations between PC's with rolls is that one feels his agency has been limited. Think of it as your and Darth Ultron characters are arguing about the definition of railroading and you roll your influence skill and Darth Ultron's fails and now his character has come to your line of thought and accepts your definition. Darth Ultron wouldn't be happy about it, he might even say that his character would never do that.

This is why I never use influene rolls, fast talk etc mechanically on characters...I control the world as a GM and the players are easy to deceive already. If the NPC is a bad liar I might lie badly or roll for detect lies if someone has the skill else player have to actively use detect lies to watch the persons facial expressions or body language.

Resolving social conflict between players with die rolls detracts from party roleplaying and banter.

Cluedrew

2016-12-03, 08:47 AM

Note though, that I don't have a blanket ban on it in my games, but it is treading on very dangerous ground and not something to be undertaken lightly.{Has various flashbacks}

Well. I agree with you really, but at the same time the experiences I have had with PCs fighting each other (in a non-player versus play sense) have been... actually universally positive. Now the situations where it actually has been the players fighting it out by proxy have been consistently negative. Which is why I bother to differentiate the two.

Anyways, I'm going to finish the side topic here.

To RazorChain I think you are assuming D&D style resolution. Also I should clarify that it happening between 2 PCs was not actually the important part of the story. However that is how it happened and it did mean the players were in symmetric positions so we couldn't just go with the PC. And it was a short game so it hadn't been established about how persuasive or determined either of these character were, so not a lot to role-play off of.

As for not being like D&D... well it is more similar to the Apocalypse World system, where it creates incentives and disincentives. Part of it is just tying it to a roll so we can see how well the characters did. I avoid hard edges on this kind of thing, because it is a fuzzier thing that is being represented. I think it says more about your character if they turn down boons and take penalties to continue rather that "no, my character doesn't care".

P.S. I like your metaphor.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-03, 09:51 AM

So, what you're saying here is that the entire problem that starts this discussion isn't a problem at all, because the "But that's what my character would do!" guy who takes actions that screws over the rest of the party's goals for personal entertainment/progress is totally fine with you.

No, that's not what I'm saying here.

But thanks for trying.

ComradeBear

2016-12-03, 09:53 AM

Ideally that is how I would handle it as well (although game-time is pretty precious to me, I am loathe to have to break it up with OOC conversations and breaks to cool off any more than is necessary). The problem is that requires a level of empathy a lot of people just don't have, often people don't even notice there is a problem until it blows up.
Believe it or not, the observational skills to tell if a person might be upset can be learned.
AND,
Would you rather lose 10 minutes of game, or have a gaming group fall apart? Easy choice.

A classic story of everyone being young and stupid; but the main problem was that everyone lacked the empathy to even realize what was going on until it got the point where the problem was too big to back down from.

I'm gonna come at you with probably a surprising opiniom given my usual stances on things, but this one was your fault. (The whole getting-expelled-from-the-group part, anyways.)
I sincerely hope you learned the following lessons from your experience:
1. D&D is a group game featuring humans. COMMUNCATE. If something is bothering you, say it sooner rather than later. Save everyone the time.
2. Escalating to nocturnal murder without any sort of warning is bad. (Not just IC warning. OOC warning. "Dude, if you throw him in the water he is going to go from pissed off to actively homicidal. Choose carefully."

Also, your examples where players "make their own sources of XP" are really easily exploitable but you never have problems with them; I think your table runs with a lot more rules than you are giving them credit for, many of them unwritten. I think if I introduced those rules to a new group there would be a lot of tense breaking in before we figured out where the "line" was.
I've never sone anything but politely request that they be reasonable and help them out with writing them in vague terms. Stuff like "Beliefs should be obvious to spot in their behavior," or "An Instinct is something they do habitually." Which are already part of the rules to begin with, I just bring them up again.

It's really, really amazing what happens when you treat your players like grownups and talk things out like sensible adults, and create a safe environment in which to do so. It can be as easy as making a "Fade to Black" rule, (which is my only universal homebrew rule) which allows anyone to skip a description of a scene that makes them feel uncomfortable by saying "skip." The scene immediately fades to black and no questions are asked about why, per the rules.

No one has ever had to use it yet, but it is always there of needed. I almost used it once when a PC and NPC were getting romantic in a closet, so I asked "Are we heading for a fade-to-black sort of moment or...?" And the answer was an awkward laugh, a no, and "It kinda looks like that, huh? No, she was about to leave." And so we carried on..I'm glad I did it because there was an awkward tension and I broke it, and by addressing that it was awkward this time made it less awkward the next time because we all knew that this was a romantic subplot, not a weird sex thing. (I had only been gaming with this group for about 3 months at this point.)

There's seriously not much to it other than talking to your players like they're grownups. Sure, they can try to game Belief, Instinct, and Goal, but the rest of the group can tell when someone is reaching. For instance, trying to use the fact that they DIDN'T burn down the orphanage, which wasn't an option anyone was talking about at the time, and in fact the orphamage was relevant for all of 5 minutes, to justify their Children are Precious belief. That'll get a lot of looks and me laughing jovially and saying "You'll be better off finding a different example of your belief. That one sounds like you're really reaching." Believe it or not, you can call people out on their BS without sounding accusatory or demeaning. Most people know they're full of it when they make the attempt. Acknowledging that we both know they're full of it makes it easier. Usually the response is "Figured I'd try." To which I generally laugh and say something along the lines of "Thanks for the effort," and I discuss options with them. Heck, I might have a moment written down that they forgot, that totally counts. Maybe, maybe not.

But of course, if you don't trust your players as far as you can throw them, then two things:
1. No system will ever help you fix that.
2. Either leave the group, or build trust OOC. Only two options.

Quertus

2016-12-03, 03:51 PM

The site doesn't seem to like me quoting lots of people on my phone, so I apologize in advance for my thoughts seemingly coming out of nowhere.

Who wants tacos?

Armus wants tacos. Armus' puppeteer knows that beans cause gas, and Armus has a big speech to give. Armus' puppeteer thinks Armus having tacos is a terrible idea, but, knowing that Armus didn't know the connection between beans and gas, has Armus eat the tacos. Role-playing a character doing something the player thinks is stupid. Why does this require any more convincing or coercion than what is required to convince the character, which might be just presenting the option in the first place?

And I think a discussion about exactly what bullying is would be warranted. Because, yes, some of these systems come off as an attempt to legitimize bullying in an RPG by baking it into the system. Assuming that we don't want the system to encourage and empower bullying, we should probably discuss exactly what it is, and develop a series of tests and safeguards that a potential social mechanic must pass to be bullying-resistant.

To be honest... all of them, except maybe the second.
Hm. Your first point I am still not sold on, since I STILL doubt the automatic birth of a ceiling by introducing a floor.
Your second, see above.
This strikes me as a... weird point, to be honest? I actually don't get what you are trying to say, other then "for me introducing any system at all hinders me" which I still don't understand HOW.
I very much doubt the automatic necessity for houseruling. I mean, rules for combat and everything else face the same problems of imperfection, yet they don't have to be houseruled in every given group, and are just as slow to change? Really don't get the specific problem here.
Yeah, since, as I mentioned numerous times: No experience or interest in DnD. For the rest of my answer to this, see point above.l

Hmmm... I like lists. Let me start a list. Playable systems are oversimplifications. Enticement towards an oversimplification provides a boost for some, a penalty for others (like me).
Distancing the war gamer crowd. The more rules you bake into a system that people view as a tax to play, the less appeal the system has.
Felicitas in Eternis Est. I want to focus on improving me role-playing, not on making the system get out of my way better at understanding role-playing.
Any system will be imperfect. Hard-coding a system makes it a static target. This produces many problems:
Slow to change. The system must be house ruled for any given group, and cannot really be reprinted in new books vs how quickly the rules should change.
Over-reacting edition changes. 4e D&D. Imagine putting your role-playing enjoyment in the hands of the ****s who brought you those rules as the same game title as previous editions. Need I say more?

And I'm sure I'll come up with more.

Which of these do you need more details on?

Well. Ok then.

For the first point, about oversimplification, let's start with an obviously silly example. Let's say that you get three generic words to describe yourself (like, say, "lawful good human"). Now, everything you say or do has to obviously relate to one of there words - and nothing else - or you fail at role-playing. Could you describe and roleplay yourself under such a system? Or would there be tension between "following the system, getting a reward" and "role-playing your character correctly"?

Hopefully, the answer is obviously the latter.

So, how many pre-built genetic words do you think it would take to fully define your personality, such that anyone evaluating your behavior would be 100% convinced that your behavior is 100% accurately defined by those words?

And, btw, if you happen to be able to pick those words to define yourself, there's a lot of people trying to build a passable AI who would like to speak with you.

Simply put, many highly-trained individuals are being paid big bucks to fail to do something that people are suggesting can be done in my hobby: write rules to emulate personality. :smallconfused:

We're still quite intentionally in straw man territory here, because it's easier to get the feel of my point when working with straw. It doesn't have to be a 100% accurate depiction of the character (my role-playing has flaws), and it doesn't have to be running 100% of the time (many systems require 1/session to get a cookie).

However, even in WoD, which only requires a one per session nod towards role-playing, I've seen people intentionally metagame, and force their established traits to come up in the game to guarantee the RP XP. So, even such a minimalist system has, in my experience, encouraged bad role-playing in the name of role-playing.

Similarly, imagine if a character with a Belief that children are precious suddenly noticed the time, and that they haven't checked off their "act on belief" checkbox, and sent a check to the orphanage in the middle of some unrelated scene.

Now, imagine that I'm playing that character (I'm picking on myself because, well, why not?). I've got a choice: act out of character, by paying attention to metagame concerns, and rushing off a check to the orphanage, or losing out on my Belief bonus. I'm being punished for role-playing. There's your ceiling.

To touch on a few of my other points, that journey of self improvement is something that can be trained, something that I care about, something that laziness says probably won't happen if we automate it. And people will find faults in any of these systems. Then the game developers may eventually make changes in new editions, or overreact and throw away the good with the bad, and create something completely unlike what drew people to their social systems in the first place. No, I really don't want The Man in charge of the role-playing portion of my role-playing experience.

Talakeal

2016-12-03, 05:39 PM

Believe it or not, the observational skills to tell if a person might be upset can be learned.
AND,
Would you rather lose 10 minutes of game, or have a gaming group fall apart? Easy choice.

Yes, they can be learned, but it is a long slow painful process. I have been diagnosed with a literal handicap when it comes to picking up on visual clues, so for me it is a lot harder than most.

Obviously it is worth taking 10 minutes to keep the game together. But a lot of groups don't even want to risk it. For example, in the last group I was in they had a 100% no PvP rule. I honestly felt it was overly restrictive (the DM said no one time when I wanted to kick another PC in the balls for kissing my best friend and another time when a guy wanted to slap me for saying something rude about his girlfriend even though we, as players, were all ok with it) but honestly it worked for them and is a far less risky road than hoping someone has the wherewithal to see where the situation is headed and call a time out.

I'm gonna come at you with probably a surprising opinion given my usual stances on things, but this one was your fault. (The whole getting-expelled-from-the-group part, anyways.)
I sincerely hope you learned the following lessons from your experience:
1. D&D is a group game featuring humans. COMMUNCATE. If something is bothering you, say it sooner rather than later. Save everyone the time.
2. Escalating to nocturnal murder without any sort of warning is bad. (Not just IC warning. OOC warning. "Dude, if you throw him in the water he is going to go from pissed off to actively homicidal. Choose carefully."
.

I was absolutely all fault. All three of us were young, dumb, and stubborn. Now if you are trying to say I was solely at fault and the other two people did nothing wrong I am going to roll my eyes and assume you are just trying to make me look bad to win the "argument," but if you are just saying I did the wrong thing here, I am 100% behind you.

No one has ever had to use it yet, but it is always there of needed. I almost used it once when a PC and NPC were getting romantic in a closet, so I asked "Are we heading for a fade-to-black sort of moment or...?" And the answer was an awkward laugh, a no, and "It kinda looks like that, huh? No, she was about to leave." And so we carried on..I'm glad I did it because there was an awkward tension and I broke it, and by addressing that it was awkward this time made it less awkward the next time because we all knew that this was a romantic subplot, not a weird sex thing. (I had only been gaming with this group for about 3 months at this point.)

There's seriously not much to it other than talking to your players like they're grownups. Sure, they can try to game Belief, Instinct, and Goal, but the rest of the group can tell when someone is reaching. For instance, trying to use the fact that they DIDN'T burn down the orphanage, which wasn't an option anyone was talking about at the time, and in fact the orphamage was relevant for all of 5 minutes, to justify their Children are Precious belief. That'll get a lot of looks and me laughing jovially and saying "You'll be better off finding a different example of your belief. That one sounds like you're really reaching." Believe it or not, you can call people out on their BS without sounding accusatory or demeaning. Most people know they're full of it when they make the attempt. Acknowledging that we both know they're full of it makes it easier. Usually the response is "Figured I'd try." To which I generally laugh and say something along the lines of "Thanks for the effort," and I discuss options with them. Heck, I might have a moment written down that they forgot, that totally counts. Maybe, maybe not.

Ok, like for the goals thing you were talking about earlier. Clearly it would be wrong for someone to say "my goal is to take a step. Now my goal is to take another step. Now my goal is to take another step. Now my goal is to put my hand on the doorknob. Now my goal is to turn the doorknob. Now my goal is to open the door. Now my goal is to go through the door. Now my goal is to take another step..." and so on.

On the other hand I would probably be on the other extreme. I would have maybe half a dozen generic long term goals that will probably never be resolved, and then just have my goals be to go along with the rest of the party and help people whom I come across. This probably wouldn't be enough goals to satisfy the system or the gaming group.

So clearly there is some middle ground about how often people should set goals and what those goals would be, but aside from telling you that it is somewhere between the extremes I wouldn't know where that is, and it would take me months of playing with the group and prodding for the line before I could figure out the unwritten rules that you are all playing by without even being aware of it.

jayem

2016-12-03, 07:53 PM

The site doesn't seem to like me quoting lots of people on my phone, so I apologize in advance for my thoughts seemingly coming out of nowhere.
For the first point, about oversimplification, let's start with an obviously silly example. Let's say that you get three generic words to describe yourself (like, say, "lawful good human"). Now, everything you say or do has to obviously relate to one of these words - and nothing else - or you fail at role-playing. Could you describe and roleplay yourself under such a system? Or would there be tension between "following the system, getting a reward" and "role-playing your character correctly"?

Hopefully, the answer is obviously the latter.

So, how many pre-built genetic words do you think it would take to fully define your personality, such that anyone evaluating your behavior would be 100% convinced that your behavior is 100% accurately defined by those words?

Not with the "and nothing else". That would be stupid. Helping an old lady across the road is lawful and good and related to old people, related to ladies, an action about roads, walking.
Meanwhile a complete dictionary would fulfill all the requirements (add give total freedom) despite permitting complete opposites.
So adding the words is losing the personality

Perhaps (while still trying to keep the silliness) "Everything you say or do has to obviously relate to one of these words. And nothing you say or do can relate to the antonym of one of the words". Which could possibly be possible, but only just (in particular I probably couldn't retrospectively apply it to any day, but could possibly assemble chunks of real days, enough for it to pass the turning(jayem) test*).
I'm guessing probably 10 words of that genericness would be about sufficient then for me to pass to a stranger, and on seeing them roleplay a workday according to those terms sufficiently accurately that, a third party who knows the office then have a half decent chance of identifying the character you were thinking of. (Which of course adds an extra stage, to make it harder)

*note of course we are building a machine to RUN the test, not a machine to PASS the test, and with a tolerable rate of failure (and these do exist, handwriting recognition, typing recognition, facebook-retrospectively)

ComradeBear

2016-12-03, 08:03 PM

The site doesn't seem to like me quoting lots of people on my phone, so I apologize in advance for my thoughts seemingly coming out of nowhere.

Who wants tacos?

Armus wants tacos. Armus' puppeteer knows that beans cause gas, and Armus has a big speech to give. Armus' puppeteer thinks Armus having tacos is a terrible idea, but, knowing that Armus didn't know the connection between beans and gas, has Armus eat the tacos. Role-playing a character doing something the player thinks is stupid. Why does this require any more convincing or coercion than what is required to convince the character, which might be just presenting the option in the first place?

And I think a discussion about exactly what bullying is would be warranted. Because, yes, some of these systems come off as an attempt to legitimize bullying in an RPG by baking it into the system. Assuming that we don't want the system to encourage and empower bullying, we should probably discuss exactly what it is, and develop a series of tests and safeguards that a potential social mechanic must pass to be bullying-resistant.

Well. Ok then.

For the first point, about oversimplification, let's start with an obviously silly example. Let's say that you get three generic words to describe yourself (like, say, "lawful good human"). Now, everything you say or do has to obviously relate to one of there words - and nothing else - or you fail at role-playing. Could you describe and roleplay yourself under such a system? Or would there be tension between "following the system, getting a reward" and "role-playing your character correctly"?

Hopefully, the answer is obviously the latter.

So, how many pre-built genetic words do you think it would take to fully define your personality, such that anyone evaluating your behavior would be 100% convinced that your behavior is 100% accurately defined by those words?

And, btw, if you happen to be able to pick those words to define yourself, there's a lot of people trying to build a passable AI who would like to speak with you.

Simply put, many highly-trained individuals are being paid big bucks to fail to do something that people are suggesting can be done in my hobby: write rules to emulate personality. :smallconfused:

We're still quite intentionally in straw man territory here, because it's easier to get the feel of my point when working with straw. It doesn't have to be a 100% accurate depiction of the character (my role-playing has flaws), and it doesn't have to be running 100% of the time (many systems require 1/session to get a cookie).

However, even in WoD, which only requires a one per session nod towards role-playing, I've seen people intentionally metagame, and force their established traits to come up in the game to guarantee the RP XP. So, even such a minimalist system has, in my experience, encouraged bad role-playing in the name of role-playing.

Similarly, imagine if a character with a Belief that children are precious suddenly noticed the time, and that they haven't checked off their "act on belief" checkbox, and sent a check to the orphanage in the middle of some unrelated scene.

Now, imagine that I'm playing that character (I'm picking on myself because, well, why not?). I've got a choice: act out of character, by paying attention to metagame concerns, and rushing off a check to the orphanage, or losing out on my Belief bonus. I'm being punished for role-playing. There's your ceiling.

To touch on a few of my other points, that journey of self improvement is something that can be trained, something that I care about, something that laziness says probably won't happen if we automate it. And people will find faults in any of these systems. Then the game developers may eventually make changes in new editions, or overreact and throw away the good with the bad, and create something completely unlike what drew people to their social systems in the first place. No, I really don't want The Man in charge of the role-playing portion of my role-playing experience.

There seems to be a lot of conflating of Possible with Inevitable. Which is a logical fallacy in and of itself.

But for the sake of argument:
People can abuse RP systems. Yes.
People can learn how to game ANY system. Name a system, and it can be manipulated by someone with sufficient cleverness and drive. That's a nearly universal rule of game mechanics.
If such weren't the case, we wouldn't have discussions about optimization.

We're also still assuming something IMPOSED and not something self-created. If someone has selected to keep the belief "Children are Precious" while doing a mission that will in no way involve children or their protection, then that's on the player for not thinking ahead, and on the GM for not pointing out that Children probably won't come up this session at all. Beliefs still aren't permanent. Never were. You can change them before the session starts, and beliefs that will very likely not come up at all should be pointed out. For instance, "Tusken raiders are a plague and must be killed" is a great belief!
But not if this mission is on Hoth. And it doesn't matter if your character sends a check to Tusken-Raider-Removal-Made-EZ, because that's about as passive as one could be about their belief while still technically acting in accordance to it. (And honestly, I've never had someone do something that obviously point-grabbing, ever. Most people by late in the game forgot about B.I.G.

But hey, not all groups are equal. I've never had a problem with the rules since we understand their purpose: afterthought xp as a reward for doing the RP we already enjoy doing and would do anyways.

ComradeBear

2016-12-03, 08:31 PM

Yes, they can be learned, but it is a long slow painful process. I have been diagnosed with a literal handicap when it comes to picking up on visual clues, so for me it is a lot harder than most.
Then don't do PvP or risk it.
I'm not going to say it's any less easy GENERALLY, in the same way jogging is quite easy but people with Asthma exist.

Obviously it is worth taking 10 minutes to keep the game together. But a lot of groups don't even want to risk it. For example, in the last group I was in they had a 100% no PvP rule. I honestly felt it was overly restrictive (the DM said no one time when I wanted to kick another PC in the balls for kissing my best friend and another time when a guy wanted to slap me for saying something rude about his girlfriend even though we, as players, were all ok with it) but honestly it worked for them and is a far less risky road than hoping someone has the wherewithal to see where the situation is headed and call a time out.

Less risky, and also far more likely to cause an entirely different sort of RP-restrictive problem, different kinds of OOC immersion-breaking, etc.

I have to stop one session in 20 for a moment to check that everyone is chill. And that's it. Because I only need a heated and violent situation that will be PvP For Realsies to bring it up. Not everything triggers it, and I've taught my group that it's ok (beneficial even) to speak up when you've got a problem.

I was absolutely all fault. All three of us were young, dumb, and stubborn. Now if you are trying to say I was solely at fault and the other two people did nothing wrong I am going to roll my eyes and assume you are just trying to make me look bad to win the "argument," but if you are just saying I did the wrong thing here, I am 100% behind you.

By no means are you 100% at fault.
I try to avoid Ad-Hominem as much as I possibly can. I attack ideas, not those who hold them. Ideas don't have feelings.
Essentially, I was saying that of all the parties you had control over in the situation, you had only yourself to choose from. (As is always the case.) And communication is key. It's a thing that for some reason gets downplayed around here(the forum at large) and that does make me feel a tad... disquieted.

Ok, like for the goals thing you were talking about earlier. Clearly it would be wrong for someone to say "my goal is to take a step. Now my goal is to take another step. Now my goal is to take another step. Now my goal is to put my hand on the doorknob. Now my goal is to turn the doorknob. Now my goal is to open the door. Now my goal is to go through the door. Now my goal is to take another step..." and so on.

On the other hand I would probably be on the other extreme. I would have maybe half a dozen generic long term goals that will probably never be resolved, and then just have my goals be to go along with the rest of the party and help people whom I come across. This probably wouldn't be enough goals to satisfy the system or the gaming group.

So clearly there is some middle ground about how often people should set goals and what those goals would be, but aside from telling you that it is somewhere between the extremes I wouldn't know where that is, and it would take me months of playing with the group and prodding for the line before I could figure out the unwritten rules that you are all playing by without even being aware of it.
I usually help people out in the beginning. And the middle ground is this:
(Ready?)
Something that will take 1-2 sessions to accomplish, and is related to what's going on. (in the case of B.I.G.)
I managed to get pretty close with a single sentence, don't you think?
(And it's the same scale I've already repeated a few times before, and I'm certainly not the only one to recommend this scale of goal.)

In the case of SWN, I usually say to have a big goal, and break it up into easily manageable 1-2 session chunks while keeping the larger goal.

It's really not as hard as you make it out to be.
I can describe most things as being terribly difficult without that actually being true.

"You have to drive all the way to the store, walk through all of the aisles to collect ingredients, lug the ingredients out to your car, drive them home through traffic, lug them into the kitchen, arrange them, find the recipe, get out a bowl...."
Even making cake can seem like a horriblen arduous journey if you describe it as such. (When really it's.... a piece of cake. :smallcool:)

Cluedrew

2016-12-03, 08:57 PM

Congratulations ComradeBear, your managed to say almost everything I was going to. Or some variation on the theme. Well I got two things to add. First off I really like Quertus's dissection of some of the problems of RP XP rewards. But one thing I think should be pointed out is the idea of (for the lack of a better word) sportsmanship. That is people can agree to not push the rules because it is more fun that way.

The best example I can think of is the Power Array in Mutants & Masterminds. I have seen arguments about how that can be used to break the game, including one in a side bar beside the power array rules in the rule book. They told you it could be done, but pointed out that it wasn't fun if you did and so asked you not to.

Talakeal

2016-12-04, 03:14 PM

Then don't do PvP or risk it.
I'm not going to say it's any less easy GENERALLY, in the same way jogging is quite easy but people with Asthma exist.

Less risky, and also far more likely to cause an entirely different sort of RP-restrictive problem, different kinds of OOC immersion-breaking, etc.

I have to stop one session in 20 for a moment to check that everyone is chill. And that's it. Because I only need a heated and violent situation that will be PvP For Realsies to bring it up. Not everything triggers it, and I've taught my group that it's ok (beneficial even) to speak up when you've got a problem.

I handle PvP the same way as you do.

I have also been in groups which outright ban PvP, and given the risks I can see why they do it. It isn't my preferred style, but I can see why you would accept the slight loss of player agency to avoid the risk of hurt feelings OOC or outright implosion of the gaming group.

What I don't like, though, is people who take PvP personally, especially if they don't say anything at the time. They just go through with it, and then they get angry and vindictive after the fact or out of character. This is particularly bad when you have a DM killing off PCs or kicking people from the group because the person chose to engage in PvP and the DM chose not to stop them at the time.

My main point about PvP though, is that it is dangerous ground and needs to be handled as such, and I don't think a rules system that has PvP baked in as a core part of the game is a good idea as so many groups can't / won't deal with it (or at least, be unable to handle it properly without it hurting people out of game).

I usually help people out in the beginning. And the middle ground is this:
(Ready?)
Something that will take 1-2 sessions to accomplish, and is related to what's going on. (in the case of B.I.G.)
I managed to get pretty close with a single sentence, don't you think?
(And it's the same scale I've already repeated a few times before, and I'm certainly not the only one to recommend this scale of goal.)

In the case of SWN, I usually say to have a big goal, and break it up into easily manageable 1-2 session chunks while keeping the larger goal.

It's really not as hard as you make it out to be.
I can describe most things as being terribly difficult without that actually being true.

Ok, I think we got off the same page at some point.

I thought you were using the goal system as an example of a rule that rewards sub-optimal play and encourages people to RP without introducing a ceiling.

What it sounds like, though, is this is more of a system for characters to tell the GM what sort of adventures they want to go on and what activities they want to pursue during their downtime. Which is not a bad system (although I would have some issues with people ending up at different power levels because they (intentionally or not) keep choosing goals that are faster and easier to accomplish than other players); its just not at all what we were talking about.

I thought you meant something like "I know that getting drunk right before our big meeting is a bad idea, but if I assign it as a goal I will get bonus XP for the self imposed disadvantage" which is both super easy to exploit by constantly coming up with new goals at the drop of a hat (hence the unwritten rules part in my previous , does nothing to help create complex or consistent characters, and doesn't do anything to help the other players accept actions which are not "mechanically optimal" to achieving their goals.

Honestly at this point I am not sure we really disagree on anything, we are just trying to hammer out the details :)

flond

2016-12-04, 03:29 PM

My main point about PvP though, is that it is dangerous ground and needs to be handled as such, and I don't think a rules system that has PvP baked in as a core part of the game is a good idea as so many groups can't / won't deal with it (or at least, be unable to handle it properly without it hurting people out of game).

I'd...actually disagree pretty strongly with this. I'd...rather have PvP as a main focus if it's going to be present, and throwing up something like Fiasco lets you know what you're getting into.

Talakeal

2016-12-04, 03:47 PM

I'd...actually disagree pretty strongly with this. I'd...rather have PvP as a main focus if it's going to be present, and throwing up something like Fiasco lets you know what you're getting into.

If its a PvP centered game, sure. I don't think anyone would want to play, say, Warhammer 40,000 without PvP rules.

But just dropping a few PvP rules into a normally team oriented game like Dungeons and Dragons is just asking for trouble.

Cluedrew

2016-12-04, 04:14 PM

... I don't think a rules system that has PvP baked in as a core part of the game is a good idea ...OK, but is having rules that could be used in a PCvPC situation really baking it into the core of the game? I mean you use D&D as an example of a team based game (and I would agree with you) but it has nothing that prevents you from hitting someone else in the party with your sword.

Honestly at this point I am not sure we really disagree on anything, we are just trying to hammer out the details :)I am completely OK with this.

ComradeBear

2016-12-04, 05:22 PM

I handle PvP the same way as you do.

I have also been in groups which outright ban PvP, and given the risks I can see why they do it. It isn't my preferred style, but I can see why you would accept the slight loss of player agency to avoid the risk of hurt feelings OOC or outright implosion of the gaming group.

What I don't like, though, is people who take PvP personally, especially if they don't say anything at the time. They just go through with it, and then they get angry and vindictive after the fact or out of character. This is particularly bad when you have a DM killing off PCs or kicking people from the group because the person chose to engage in PvP and the DM chose not to stop them at the time.

My main point about PvP though, is that it is dangerous ground and needs to be handled as such, and I don't think a rules system that has PvP baked in as a core part of the game is a good idea as so many groups can't / won't deal with it (or at least, be unable to handle it properly without it hurting people out of game).

Cluedrew covered my thoughts on this. Including a rule for "This is how things change when PCs are in conflict" is NOT the same thing as saying "Everyone has a blank check to murder one another."

Ok, I think we got off the same page at some point.

I thought you were using the goal system as an example of a rule that rewards sub-optimal play and encourages people to RP without introducing a ceiling.

What it sounds like, though, is this is more of a system for characters to tell the GM what sort of adventures they want to go on and what activities they want to pursue during their downtime. Which is not a bad system (although I would have some issues with people ending up at different power levels because they (intentionally or not) keep choosing goals that are faster and easier to accomplish than other players); its just not at all what we were talking about.

I thought you meant something like "I know that getting drunk right before our big meeting is a bad idea, but if I assign it as a goal I will get bonus XP for the self imposed disadvantage" which is both super easy to exploit by constantly coming up with new goals at the drop of a hat (hence the unwritten rules part in my previous , does nothing to help create complex or consistent characters, and doesn't do anything to help the other players accept actions which are not "mechanically optimal" to achieving their goals.

Honestly at this point I am not sure we really disagree on anything, we are just trying to hammer out the details :)

At this point you're conflating Belief, Instinct, and Goal into one conglomerate thing rather than three constituent pieces of one larger mechanic.

Belief, Instinct, and Goal change BETWEEN sessions. Not in the middle of them. (I've said this several times before.)

Belief is a thing your character believes and can act upon.
Goal, I just explained.
Instinct is something your character does habitually.

They are three distinct parts combined for afterthought XP, not as the main bulk of your XP.

Talakeal

2016-12-04, 05:26 PM

Cluedrew covered my thoughts on this. Including a rule for "This is how things change when PCs are in conflict" is NOT the same thing as saying "Everyone has a blank check to murder one another."

At this point you're conflating Belief, Instinct, and Goal into one conglomerate thing rather than three constituent pieces of one larger mechanic.

Belief, Instinct, and Goal change BETWEEN sessions. Not in the middle of them. (I've said this several times before.)

Belief is a thing your character believes and can act upon.
Goal, I just explained.
Instinct is something your character does habitually.

They are three distinct parts combined for afterthought XP, not as the main bulk of your XP.

Ok, I guess I did get something mixed up then. I thought you said that in SWN you could change your goal at any time and there was no limit to how many goals you could have? That was the system I was talking about where it is hard to find the unwritten rules, not BIG.

OK, but is having rules that could be used in a PCvPC situation really baking it into the core of the game? I mean you use D&D as an example of a team based game (and I would agree with you) but it has nothing that prevents you from hitting someone else in the party with your sword.

I am completely OK with this.

But hitting your sword is a generic rule that applies to anyone, PC or NPC. I was more referring to specific PvP rules like those from Dungeon World that were mentioned above.

IMO if you are going to have a rule that only applies to PvP in an otherwise group oriented game you should probably label that rule optional and put a sidebar nearby explaining how PvP can affect group dynamics.

Cluedrew

2016-12-04, 05:44 PM

IMO if you are going to have a rule that only applies to PvP in an otherwise group oriented game you should probably label that rule optional and put a sidebar nearby explaining how PvP can affect group dynamics.Probably... but when did such a rule come up? The Apocalypse World example does use a different rule, but they are actually weaker than the NPC case. My example uses the exact same rule if you are targeting a PC or an NPC. ... It did come up in a PCvPC situation in my example, is that what you are talking about?

... Actually ComradeBear seems to have a similar idea. For clarity in my example the reason that there wasn't a rule for that situation was not because I wanted a special one for the PCs, I just didn't have any rule that covered that situation.

Thought I had covered that.

ComradeBear

2016-12-04, 07:09 PM

Ok, I guess I did get something mixed up then. I thought you said that in SWN you could change your goal at any time and there was no limit to how many goals you could have? That was the system I was talking about where it is hard to find the unwritten rules, not BIG.

SWN doesn't have flat Goal rewards.
You can have a goal worth 0xp if it's that easy.
Mostly you have to eyeball it, but it gives an approximation of about 100xp per session it will take to finish, modified based on how difficult it is, etc.
The GM pretty much has to guesstimate, so it's certainly not perfect, but with the near infinite range of possible goals that could exist, the outline they give is as good as you'll get.

But hitting your sword is a generic rule that applies to anyone, PC or NPC. I was more referring to specific PvP rules like those from Dungeon World that were mentioned above.
Apocalypse World*
And Apocalypse World states from session 1 that PvP is possible. Specifically it says:
"Your characters don’t have to be friends, but they do have to know each other, and they should be basically allies. They might become enemies in play, but they shouldn’t start out enemies."
The MC says that out loud at the start. Under a section called "Setting Expectations."
If you don't want any PvP, don't play Apocalypse World. Simple.

IMO if you are going to have a rule that only applies to PvP in an otherwise group oriented game you should probably label that rule optional and put a sidebar nearby explaining how PvP can affect group dynamics.

Or establish the expectation from the start that the system has rules for PvP. Don't want PvP? Don't bother with this game. Because it has PvP.

Talakeal

2016-12-04, 07:22 PM

Apocalypse World*
And Apocalypse World states from session 1 that PvP is possible. Specifically it says:
"Your characters don’t have to be friends, but they do have to know each other, and they should be basically allies. They might become enemies in play, but they shouldn’t start out enemies."
The MC says that out loud at the start. Under a section called "Setting Expectations."
If you don't want any PvP, don't play Apocalypse World. Simple.

Or establish the expectation from the start that the system has rules for PvP. Don't want PvP? Don't bother with this game. Because it has PvP.

Which is pretty much what I said.

Dropping PvP rules into a game built around team work =/= playing a game that is designed for PvP.

Floret

2016-12-04, 08:17 PM

Armus wants tacos. Armus' puppeteer knows that beans cause gas, and Armus has a big speech to give. Armus' puppeteer thinks Armus having tacos is a terrible idea, but, knowing that Armus didn't know the connection between beans and gas, has Armus eat the tacos. Role-playing a character doing something the player thinks is stupid. Why does this require any more convincing or coercion than what is required to convince the character, which might be just presenting the option in the first place?

Because you, the player, might find tacos as tasty as Armus, and be just as uninformed as he is - but then again, your example involves the player being aware, and also: You don't get the tacos. You personally do not get the benefit your character does. Now, sure enough, some people are so in tune with their character that they act "suboptimally" without a second thought. Those are in my experience by far the more interesting people to play RPGs with. But: You, the player require different motivation than your character, because you are getting different things out of it.
To further explain my point: "Manipulating people" can just consist of presenting options to them. If you present the right option at the right time and it feels just so NATURAL to do it - yeah, that isn't malicious, but it is still in a certain way manipulating someone - you move someone to do something they weren't, without your intervention (Offering the taco/The ability to RP your character) going to do.

And I think a discussion about exactly what bullying is would be warranted. Because, yes, some of these systems come off as an attempt to legitimize bullying in an RPG by baking it into the system. Assuming that we don't want the system to encourage and empower bullying, we should probably discuss exactly what it is, and develop a series of tests and safeguards that a potential social mechanic must pass to be bullying-resistant.

I dunno. I think this is a thing best solved by group contract - all people should be communicating, on some level. Sure, obviously exploitative mechanics should probably be patched out, but as many other people have said: Any system can be misused, and bullying people is less an issue of the rules allowing it, but of the person doing it being an asshat. There is, sadly, no cure for asshattery, and if a system invests time to let me play with such a person without them getting the opportunity for doing it, I would call that wasted time - it made it harder to spot the asshat, a person I wouldn't want anything to do with in the first place, let alone RP.

Well. Ok then.

For the first point, about oversimplification, let's start with an obviously silly example. Let's say that you get three generic words to describe yourself (like, say, "lawful good human"). Now, everything you say or do has to obviously relate to one of there words - and nothing else - or you fail at role-playing. Could you describe and roleplay yourself under such a system? Or would there be tension between "following the system, getting a reward" and "role-playing your character correctly"?
Hopefully, the answer is obviously the latter.

So, how many pre-built genetic words do you think it would take to fully define your personality, such that anyone evaluating your behavior would be 100% convinced that your behavior is 100% accurately defined by those words?
And, btw, if you happen to be able to pick those words to define yourself, there's a lot of people trying to build a passable AI who would like to speak with you.
Simply put, many highly-trained individuals are being paid big bucks to fail to do something that people are suggesting can be done in my hobby: write rules to emulate personality. :smallconfused:
We're still quite intentionally in straw man territory here, because it's easier to get the feel of my point when working with straw. It doesn't have to be a 100% accurate depiction of the character (my role-playing has flaws), and it doesn't have to be running 100% of the time (many systems require 1/session to get a cookie).

However, even in WoD, which only requires a one per session nod towards role-playing, I've seen people intentionally metagame, and force their established traits to come up in the game to guarantee the RP XP. So, even such a minimalist system has, in my experience, encouraged bad role-playing in the name of role-playing.
Similarly, imagine if a character with a Belief that children are precious suddenly noticed the time, and that they haven't checked off their "act on belief" checkbox, and sent a check to the orphanage in the middle of some unrelated scene.
Now, imagine that I'm playing that character (I'm picking on myself because, well, why not?). I've got a choice: act out of character, by paying attention to metagame concerns, and rushing off a check to the orphanage, or losing out on my Belief bonus. I'm being punished for role-playing. There's your ceiling.

As has been pointed out by jayem, the only problem with that is the "and nothing else" (Okay, granted, maybe the "human" isn't that good either. That's not a character trait, that is a species. If you include that, you would have to include the class as well. Or the "lawful good", but I don't like alignment to describe personality; just for rough morality approximations.). Construing that clause alone makes this into a caricature of any argument actually brought forth.

And... to be perfectly honest? If you give me enough time, I could probably figure out three words that don't conflict any of what I do, determine quite a lot about me, and are bound to come up most days. Not really that eager to do it on the forum, cause... personal and stuff. Sure, there are things about me that don't fit in there. Facts about my life that just don't do much to my personality, but shape it and my actions in small ways nonetheless (or express them).
(I mean, really, I could be lazy and go with "human", because how the **** would I go about NOT being a human unless you count glueing on ears for Larp - though I'd say deliberately RPing "person that is not me" does not count as breaking character for this thing, otherwise I obviously loose. Too many characters with too much contradiction.)
Small tangent, and a case in point maybe for my method of "Keeping it simple" character creation: For this weekend, I was on a Larp playing a character I never had before, in a setting I had no experience with. With focussing on the handfull of events in my past, the one-word driving force and pretty much one character trait. Getting away the clutter helped me get into character so deep I actually cried real tears from a situation I was only witnessing being too similar to the weakpoints of my char.
I did not make up character traits and decided beforehands that she would react that way in such a situation - truth be told, who would actually think "how would my character react if someone has to decide which of his subordinates to sacrifice in front of her" before it happens - but the reaction came promptly, absolutely appropriately, and with intensity.
(For her, the three words would probably be "Ex-Soldier", "regret", and "brash for her culture", btw. (Totally three words... :smallamused:)

So really, the point isn't perfect simulation. The point is hitting the big notes, and letting accents be accents. It would be more important, in my eyes, to focus on non-contradiction of the traits, then it would be to focus on strict adherence.
And, something where I disagree with other posters: I don't like permanent rewards for this sort of thing. At all. If I were to implement such a system, it would be for bonus dice (or the diceroll being modified positively/negatively in other ways for staying true to/contradicting the established traits)
For more fun controversial opinions: Metagaming is fine, as long as it produces more gameplay than it hinders.
If you undermine gameplay and options by metagaming (Say, "i totally know this fact already and don't need to go trough any trouble to find out")? Meh. Only if there are very good OOC reasons for it being necessary (Sometimes is during Larps, and probably also during TRPGs, if more seldom ime. If I limit my options during interaction with a player because of personal phobias or other triggers they might have, that "might" be a good place to start metagaming.)
If it produces more play than it hinders (Such as "I know OOC that the judge is full of **** when she is saying "you deserve death sentence", and I will prolong the court session and make it more heated and intense if I point it out, even though my character might not quite know")? Why the hell not. So if a player metagames to get scenes where his stuff will come up? Let him. If it is done in a productive way...

And, I will reiterate: I have never. said. that a ceiling is impossible to construct. Merely that it is not a necessary consequence of their being any system. However many examples you construe of specific rules getting in the way does very little to prove your point.

To touch on a few of my other points, that journey of self improvement is something that can be trained, something that I care about, something that laziness says probably won't happen if we automate it. And people will find faults in any of these systems. Then the game developers may eventually make changes in new editions, or overreact and throw away the good with the bad, and create something completely unlike what drew people to their social systems in the first place. No, I really don't want The Man in charge of the role-playing portion of my role-playing experience.

Who is to say this "probably"? Wild guessing is not really an actual point.
And sure they will find faults. Just as with any other system for any other thing. Just as with combat, skillchecks, or what have you. The risks are always there. Having them in Social systems or RP-support-systems is neither really more meaningful, nor much of a point I feel. If parts of the rules are bad, they are bad, no matter what they are. Coming up more often makes it worse, but what is how common is always a thing differing over systems, groups and games.

ComradeBear

2016-12-04, 10:24 PM

Which is pretty much what I said.

Dropping PvP rules into a game built around team work =/= playing a game that is designed for PvP.

Here's the thing: Apocalypse World ALLOWS for PvP but doesn't encourage it. In fact, the mechanics for PvP are rather minimal.

There's a difference between allowing a thing and encouraging a thing. D&D allows PvP. It doesn't encourage it.
Apocalypse World covers how some rules change when being aimed at another player, in case PvP happens. (And it makes it clear that the game is primarily teamwork, but it's possible for characters to end up at odds)

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-04, 10:35 PM

And I think a discussion about exactly what bullying is would be warranted. Because, yes, some of these systems come off as an attempt to legitimize bullying in an RPG by baking it into the system. Assuming that we don't want the system to encourage and empower bullying, we should probably discuss exactly what it is, and develop a series of tests and safeguards that a potential social mechanic must pass to be bullying-resistant.

Agreed.

Manipulating the rules to hijack other player's characters is exactly the sort of thing a certain sort of player would relish.

To touch on a few of my other points, that journey of self improvement is something that can be trained, something that I care about, something that laziness says probably won't happen if we automate it. And people will find faults in any of these systems. Then the game developers may eventually make changes in new editions, or overreact and throw away the good with the bad, and create something completely unlike what drew people to their social systems in the first place. No, I really don't want The Man in charge of the role-playing portion of my role-playing experience.

Agreed.

Segev

2016-12-05, 11:45 AM

Who wants tacos?

Armus wants tacos. Armus' puppeteer knows that beans cause gas, and Armus has a big speech to give. Armus' puppeteer thinks Armus having tacos is a terrible idea, but, knowing that Armus didn't know the connection between beans and gas, has Armus eat the tacos. Role-playing a character doing something the player thinks is stupid. Why does this require any more convincing or coercion than what is required to convince the character, which might be just presenting the option in the first place?Excellent question.

Armus's puppeteer knows that eating the tacos will have negative consequences. Armus's puppeteer knows that his game-goals for Armus will be made harder, if not torpedoed entirely, should Armus screw up the upcoming speech.

Armus knows this, too.

Armus also knows that he hasn't had food all day. So does Armus's puppeteer. Armus isn't looking forward to giving this speech on an empty stomach, and not only are his only options for food tacos, but there smell REALLY good to Armus.

Armus's puppeteer knows that starvation penalties don't kick in for another day of not eating. Armus's puppeteer also knows that there are no mechanical penalties for being uncomfortably hungry.

Armus knows that he's used to tacos, and that he only gets gas occasionally. Armus's puppeteer knows this is because Armus has a high constitution, and the few times the DM has made this come up, it's been a Con roll against DC 15 (which Armus only fails on a 1 or 2 - 10% chance).

Armus, if he were a real person, would be weighing those odds against his comfort, his craving for tacos, and how likely it really is to cause a problem for him.

Armus's puppeteer, on the other hand, is instead weighing those odds against a vague sense of obligation to "playing in character."

Both Armus and Armus's puppeteer could convince themselves that eating the tacos is a bad idea. After all, a 0% chance of a penalty damaging his speech-making roll is way better than a 10% chance. From Armus's perspective, the incentive to risk the 10% chance is immediate and visceral, and has ongoing consequences to denial (discomfort, and a less pleasant speech-making experience). From Armus's puppeteer's perspective, there is only incentive NOT to eat the tacos...except for that vague sense of guilt at being a "bad role player" and "metagaming optimizer" for not doing so.

Moreover, Armus's puppeteer has no way of gauging just how strong that craving is. Armus's puppeteer is chowing down on snacks and soda, and feels no particular discomfort at the moment, and, like many people who make grandiose claims about their dietary plans while full, can easily say "sure, it's just a matter of choice and willpower," and argue that, because Armus isn't suffering penalties, he's not suffering at all. Or he can feel like ANY exposure to his craving for tacos is "bad RP" if Armus doesn't indulge. If he is somewhere in between on this, Armus's puppeteer has to guess. Maybe he just makes the decision arbitrarily, thinking that "this time" he'll err on the side of "good RP" (forgetting that Armus also wants to do well on the speech), or that "this time" it's okay to have Armus do the optimal thing, mechanically.

And each time he chooses the sub-optimal thing for his and Armus's long-term game goals, he (and Armus) are punished by the mechanics, and get nothing in return. Armus gets the satisfaction (and kicks himself later), while Armus's puppeteer gets...not shamed for being "a bad RPer." Worse, each time Armus's puppeteer chooses to go for the optimal choice, Armus's puppeteer gets guilt tripped (by himself or the other players or the GM, depending on who it is that's assigning value to "being a good RPer") for having "metagamed."

Give Armus's puppeteer mechanics to let him see just how strongly Armus values that taco NOW, and not only does Armus's puppeteer have a better handle on what choice he "should" make to play in character (because, remember, "in character" can also mean "resisting temptation and regretting it in the short term"), but he knows exactly what it costs Armus to steel himself. It becomes a genuine choice of legitimate game-moves, rather than a sucker's choice. "You should totally have your knight move adjacent to my Queen. He's smitten with her, so it's bad RP to have him stay protected like that. Yes, I'm going to capture him and put you in a bad position for the game, but you don't want to be a bad RPer, do you?" (Obviously, Chess isn't an RPG, but the analogy still holds - if RP is a purpose of the game, why should the game's mechanics punish you for engaging in it?)

And I think a discussion about exactly what bullying is would be warranted. Because, yes, some of these systems come off as an attempt to legitimize bullying in an RPG by baking it into the system. Assuming that we don't want the system to encourage and empower bullying, we should probably discuss exactly what it is, and develop a series of tests and safeguards that a potential social mechanic must pass to be bullying-resistant.This argument really doesn't hold much water for me.

The "bullying is baked in by these mechanics" one, I mean.

Technically, bullying is equally baked in by having combat mechanics. Nothing, outside of good sportsmanship and/or RP, stops Bob's wizard from casting dominate person on the rest of the party. Nor Joe's fighter from beating up the PCs of other players who won't have their PCs do what he wants them to. Nor Betty's rogue from just taking whatever he wants from the other players.

Introducing mechanics that let Jen's Bard emotionally influence other characters (player and non-) doesn't suddenly introduce PvP that wasn't there before. If PvP of this sort - this bullying - is occurring, all it does is let Jen now tell Joe that he feels badly for picking on her, and would really rather stick up for her. And that Bob's wizard trusts Jen's bard too much to feel he needs to dominate her.

Absolutely, "I use mechanics to punish you for not doing what I want" is a form of PvP. Lacking one KIND of mechanics (while having others) doesn't prevent this. It just means that only those who use the mechanics that do exist can successfully engage in it.

((Incidentally, I've seen parties where nobody is engaging in PvP but the party wizard or sorcerer does dominate the other PCs. This allows him to add an opposed caster level check to the hurdles enemy enchanters have to overcome to successfully control the other PCs.)

Let's say that you get three generic words to describe yourself (like, say, "lawful good human"). Now, everything you say or do has to obviously relate to one of there words - and nothing else - or you fail at role-playing. Could you describe and roleplay yourself under such a system? Or would there be tension between "following the system, getting a reward" and "role-playing your character correctly"?

Hopefully, the answer is obviously the latter.If you intentionally design the system to be bad, it won't do its job well, no.

So, how many pre-built genetic words do you think it would take to fully define your personality, such that anyone evaluating your behavior would be 100% convinced that your behavior is 100% accurately defined by those words?As many as it takes, and don't make them absolute iron bars. They're guides.

There's a hint of how to approach this in 3e Exalted's Intimacy system. You can have as many as you like; they take effort to build and erode. They're useful to you as ways to defend against unwanted social influence ("I could never betray my King and Country that way!") and to social manipulators as heart-strings on which to tug ("You have to help; it's patriotic!"). And there are rules for building new ones in somebody, eroding existing ones, and thus allowing social interaction to shift people's likes and dislikes.

To play with your example a bit, the very few strong keywords might be your "core" personality. Interpreted loosely (on purpose) so that it doesn't get in the way of nuanced RP, but things which can't be forced against and which do anchor you to some core traits. "Lawful Good Human" would probably be pretty bad ones, honestly. "Devout Christian and Loyal American" might work. "Devoted family man" might work. "Radical White Supremacist" might work.

Things which you, the player, never want to see rooted out from the character's personality. (And even then, some mechanics to allow the PLAYER to voluntarily expose those to change might be wise, if after a longish time playing a "Devoted Family Man" the player decides that seeing his PC turn away from that for some other goal is more fun. Or that evolving out of the "radical white supremacy" and actually having the potential for redemption might be nice.)

And, btw, if you happen to be able to pick those words to define yourself, there's a lot of people trying to build a passable AI who would like to speak with you.Heh. You reveal a massive gap in understanding about the difficulties of writing an AI, here. The trouble is that you can use those words or a description to have one sapient intelligence simulate another, but getting from "keywords" to all the nuance and understanding surrounding their meaning, and all the other stuff that goes into it, is the challenge itself. Using this approach to write "passable AI" would require first making the AI, then having the AI simulate another one.

It's like saying all you have to do to make a passable car is invent a car and have it pull an engineless car behind it.

Meanwhile, writers make their livings writing believable fictional people who are, in the best works, very self-consistent and who make decisions that we, as evaluating intelligences, nod and agree are "in character" and make sense for that character in that situation. We might tear our hair out at their stupidity, but we believe them capable of it.

Simply put, many highly-trained individuals are being paid big bucks to fail to do something that people are suggesting can be done in my hobby: write rules to emulate personality. :smallconfused:Speaking as one of those highly-trained individuals, it's a lot easier to write the rules for a human to emulate another human than it is to get the emulator for a human created.

However, even in WoD, which only requires a one per session nod towards role-playing, I've seen people intentionally metagame, and force their established traits to come up in the game to guarantee the RP XP. So, even such a minimalist system has, in my experience, encouraged bad role-playing in the name of role-playing.Which is why I don't advocate the "you RP'd today; have a cookie" approach. I advocate the mechanics giving you indication of what impact the emotional qualia of a situation has on the character. And ways for that impact to have real consequences regardless of the choice the puppeteer for that character makes.

If Jen's bard successfully socially influences the King's bodyguard such that he has an urge to let her in to see the King, alone and unsupervised, but his puppeteer (the GM) chooses to have him resist it, the bodyguard is torn up by his doubts that it was the right choice sufficiently that he has a harder time noticing Bill's rogue sneak in while Jill talks to him. If the Enchantress successfully levies a plea to be allowed to go free on Mark's paladin and Joe's fighter (but didn't do so well against Bob's wizard or Bill's rogue or Jen's bard), the paladin and the fighter - even if Mark and Joe decide to push through and violently deal with her (capture or kill, either way) - will be worse at the violence against the Enchantress because they're feeling conflicted about it.

Tie the mechanical incentives to the choices themselves, not to an end-of-session thing.

Honestly, I think this opens the door for "heroically standing fast against the temptation" more than a lack of these mechanics. Mark's paladin is being SORELY tempted by some social manipulatrix, possibly even with magical backing, but Mark can still say, "He doesn't give in." Mark is saying, "I want my paladin to resist this. He will suffer the pains and sufferings and aches and yearnings, represented by all the mechanical penalties piled on, but he won't give in." Not only that, if the temptation's urges would've rewarded him with a short- or medium-term gain, even the cost of "losing" the encounter might be recouped. And given that he's suffering penalties for resisting, he might lose it anyway, so MARK has to weigh that.

Which is much more legitimized, validated RP of Mark's paladin's suffering through the temptation's call and denying it, than if Mark just says, "Yeah, my paladin's too awesome to give in to that," and then suffers no penalties for it. Especially when he would've suffered penalties of some sort (possibly simply "losing" the encounter entirely) if he'd given in.

Similarly, imagine if a character with a Belief that children are precious suddenly noticed the time, and that they haven't checked off their "act on belief" checkbox, and sent a check to the orphanage in the middle of some unrelated scene.Like I said, this is why I oppose this kind of reward mechanic for "RP."

To touch on a few of my other points, that journey of self improvement is something that can be trained, something that I care about, something that laziness says probably won't happen if we automate it. And people will find faults in any of these systems. Then the game developers may eventually make changes in new editions, or overreact and throw away the good with the bad, and create something completely unlike what drew people to their social systems in the first place. No, I really don't want The Man in charge of the role-playing portion of my role-playing experience.The "journey to self-improvement" isn't exactly meaningful if the self-improvement comes with mechanical rewards, and failure to do so means wallowing in mechanical penalties. "Oh, yeah, I'm totally overcoming my alcoholism right now!" because the puppeteer feels no DTs, no addictive yearnings, and only experiences the negatives (reduced wealth, stat penalties while drunk, etc.).

Build in mechanical reflections of the CHARACTER's motivation to indulge, and the journey to self improvement becomes more meaningful as the player suffers the downsides and temptations along with the character.

Manipulating the rules to hijack other player's characters is exactly the sort of thing a certain sort of player would relish.

Sure. But that sort of player can just as easily use dominate person on his fellow party members, or even resort to threats to beat up or kill the other PCs if they don't do what he wants.

Any table rules against PvP can be equally applied to all mechanics. (Some of the nastier "I need help with a bully player" stories I've seen on this board involved this not being the case. e.g. "I can't stop the rogue from taking all the best loot and denying me even stuff that is clearly best suited for my character," because there's a "no PvP" rule that only extends to violence against other PCs. Or, "If I don't let the fighter tell my rogue what to do, he'll throw me off cliffs or use me as a polish mine detector rather than letting me do my job right," because the rogue responding to the fighter's violence with his own will fail in a straight-up situation, and be forbidden as "PvP" if he tries something like stabbing the fighter at night while he's sleeping.)

If you don't allow bullying by using spells on other PCs, or by attacking them physically (in-game), then don't allow "social PvP" either. "But it creates bullying" is a false argument when held up against the facts of what mechanics already exist that could be used for bullying. The same solutions apply.

Talakeal

2016-12-05, 02:32 PM

Stuff

First off, let me say that I do agree with you that it would be nice if there was some system that could translate "fluff" bonuses and penalties into "crunch" ones, I just can't think of any way to do it that is not super unwieldy and / or frustratingly exploitable / obligatory. I think it would take the Da Vinci of game design to actually create a system that was actually useable and fun and none of the attempts I have seen has even come close to accomplishing both of those goals.

About the Tacos:
I think you are only looking at this from one side. You talk about how the player doesn't feel the temptation like the character does, which is true, but you don't apply this train of thought to the consequences. Why should the player care about whether or not they gave a successful speech? Why should the player be embarrassed that their character had a gas attack?

In the end it is all just make believe, it is up to the player to derive satisfaction (or anguish) from anything. Now, the player's goals probably don't align exactly with the characters, but you should apply the disconnect between player and character evenly.

About Bullying:
You said that you weren't happy with existing social rules because they worked on NPCs but you couldn't use them to make a charismatic PC and coerce other players into obeying you. That raises some eyebrows.

Its like if you went into a gun store and asked the clerk if he has a machine gun in the back. He asks you why you need a machine gun, the weapons on the floor are perfectly ideal for hunting or self defense, and you respond that while that is true, but you really need something that can mow down a crowd of bystanders in a pinch. That may not be your intention, but that is going to raise some alarms.

About AI:
I think you and Quertus are saying the same thing in different ways. You say a computer to emulate a human being is all but impossible, but an author's barid can do a good approximation. That is true, but it is equivalent rather than contradictory to Quertus' point that a rule system to emulate a human being is all but impossible, but a player's brain can do a good approximation.

The examples in your last couple of paragraphs confuse me though; you actually seem to be arguing against yourself a bit. If the DM can simply have NPCs ignore player social skills and instead take a penalty for acting against their instincts, doesn't that make social characters substantially weaker? Also, if you start applying mechanical penalties for players to undergo character growth, doesn't that even further punish people for making sub-optimal decisions in the name of RP. I is confused :smallconfused:.

Segev

2016-12-05, 03:58 PM

First off, let me say that I do agree with you that it would be nice if there was some system that could translate "fluff" bonuses and penalties into "crunch" ones, I just can't think of any way to do it that is not super unwieldy and / or frustratingly exploitable / obligatory. I think it would take the Da Vinci of game design to actually create a system that was actually useable and fun and none of the attempts I have seen has even come close to accomplishing both of those goals.I think it rather doable, actually, though it will take innovation (and more than I've demonstrated, obviously, though I am trying).

About the Tacos:
I think you are only looking at this from one side. You talk about how the player doesn't feel the temptation like the character does, which is true, but you don't apply this train of thought to the consequences. Why should the player care about whether or not they gave a successful speech? Why should the player be embarrassed that their character had a gas attack?

In the end it is all just make believe, it is up to the player to derive satisfaction (or anguish) from anything. Now, the player's goals probably don't align exactly with the characters, but you should apply the disconnect between player and character evenly.
Let me use Chess again as an example. Why should the player care about whether or not he checkmates the other player's king, or has his king checkmated? It's all just fun and games, so the player should derive satisfaction (or anguish) from whatever. Including playing out the tragedy of his knight's love for the enemy queen leading to his demise. And his own Queen committing suicide-by-enemy-rook out of heartbreak for her own unrequited forbidden love of said knight, now that he's dead.

This analogy is meant to show that the game creates expectations of what is to be desired by its mechanics. Saying, "Well, maybe the player should derive satisfaction from being a good RPer and not from actually having more mechanical advantage for his long-term gameplay goals," is exactly equivalent to suggesting that a Chess player should (or could) care more about telling a dramatic story of courtly intrigue and war than he does about winning the game.

Let's say Armus's speech is supposed to be a major step in making himself known as a reasonable, stately man with a plan as part of his campaign to become prime minister. In the game's overall ongoing plot, he wants this at least in part to bring the PCs to the head of this nation's war effort against the BBEG, because he believes that the other major candidates for the position are either incompetent, corrupt, or outright traitors in the BBEG's pocket.

Now, it's still just one speech. But the reason the PLAYER is likely more invested in the winning of the speech than in the imaginary discomforts of Armus is that, should the speech go poorly, this plan becomes harder and he's less likely to succeed in the long run. Maybe he even has to endure a downgrade to his current position out of the embarrassment, rendering it harder to pull off future adventuring goals. "It might be fun!" you say. And sure, it might be, but it still isn't what the player wanted out of this, so why increase the risk of getting the undesired result?

Certainly, that increase to that undesired result's risk is a frustrating thing, a sense of being penalized.

There remains a penalty in game mechanical terms for the choice, with no commensurate benefit for taking it on. Unless you declare the mechanics of the game to be simply in the way and worthy of being ignored, this is a real disincentive to the "RP" choice of "but he really likes tacos."

You said that you weren't happy with existing social rules because they worked on NPCs but you couldn't use them to make a charismatic PC and coerce other players into obeying you. That raises some eyebrows.

Its like if you went into a gun store and asked the clerk if he has a machine gun in the back. He asks you why you need a machine gun, the weapons on the floor are perfectly ideal for hunting or self defense, and you respond that while that is true, but you really need something that can mow down a crowd of bystanders in a pinch. That may not be your intention, but that is going to raise some alarms.I don't think that's actually what I said, and if it is, I expressed myself poorly.

While I do appreciate the means to use such tools intra-party, the goal is not to bully but when two players agree that their PCs are at odds, and the players want to know precisely how well they do at persuading each other. I mean, if you're going to allow this kind of PvP involuntarily, then there's no reason not to allow "I draw my sword and attack him" PvP without the consent of the attacked character's player.

No, what I said that I think might be misconstrued as this is that I like the same rules to apply whether dealing with NPCs or PCs. Which also means NPCs can apply these rules to PCs, and PCs apply them to NPCs, with the same mechanics at work both ways. No special "PC immunity" (beyond any table-rules against PvP).

Though I admit that if I were looking for a weapon, it would be for self-defense, not hunting, and that no, I don't think being able to mow down a crowd of attackers is overkill. :smalltongue: After all, those torch-and-pitchfork-wielding peasants keep getting awfully uppity about my animating their graveyards. A necromancer has a right to self-defense! ...what do you mean, "provoked?" It's not like they were USING the corpses. And I left the grave stones. The freshly-churned dirt is good for those flowers they keep leaving lying there, besides. ...non-proficiency penalty? Well, I guess you have a point there. I'll arm the zombies, instead.

I think you and Quertus are saying the same thing in different ways. You say a computer to emulate a human being is all but impossible, but an author's barid can do a good approximation. That is true, but it is equivalent rather than contradictory to Quertus' point that a rule system to emulate a human being is all but impossible, but a player's brain can do a good approximation.
The difference is that he's suggesting that it's impossible to come up with those keywords/rules without being able to write an AI, and the difficulty of writing an AI therefore proves that we can't design a game with it.

I am saying that an extant intelligence (non-artificial, in this case) would be needed to use those keywords/rules to emulate another intelligence, and that since we're writing the rules in question for intelligences to use to emulate other intelligences, the rules can be written sufficiently.

The examples in your last couple of paragraphs confuse me though; you actually seem to be arguing against yourself a bit. If the DM can simply have NPCs ignore player social skills and instead take a penalty for acting against their instincts, doesn't that make social characters substantially weaker? Also, if you start applying mechanical penalties for players to undergo character growth, doesn't that even further punish people for making sub-optimal decisions in the name of RP. I is confused :smallconfused:.
Consider the starting point:

The social mechanics are in a binary state right now. Either they exist with sufficient teeth that they are, essentially, mind-control, or they exist with so few teeth that it's really a matter of whether you can convince the player of the target character that he "should" be persuaded...and any investment in social mechanics is merely a plea that people take seriously your OOC argument that somebody "should" be persuaded IC.

This introduces a middle ground: You can fail to get a full persuasion off but still get a useful effect from having tried. It leaves the ultimate decision about persuasion up to the player of the target character. This is desirable because it means that, even if the mechanics are entirely against him, a player who is CONVINCED his character would never violate some principle he's being asked to violate can have him heroically stand firm. But it makes going against the social influence increasingly costly the better the social influence roll was. Thus, it removes the concern - on anybody's part - that the player is "only" making that "steadfast" decision because it's optimal. The penalties reach a point where it isn't, anymore.

More importantly, though, it means that even if the player stands steadfast against the influence, the penalties piled up from choosing that give a real mechanical benefit to the socialite's side of things. So even if it is a legitimate RP reason why Armus is turning down the tacos, if the taco salesman (who is a plant by his nefarious political rival) is particularly eloquent, the penalties of NOT taking the tacos may outweigh the risks he'd incur from taking them. It's still a bad idea, but at least in terms of the mechanics, the temptation's power is such that it might be the more optimal decision. Armus was just SO HUNGRY and the tacos smelled SO GOOD and he would've been suffering low blood sugar without something to eat and...well, Armus talked himself into it. Or the salesman did.

Such mechanics make social characters MORE powerful, for the same reason that rules which allow a combat character to hurt somebody without killing them outright makes them more powerful: they can engage their activity and have a "win" without having it be total, allowing for resolutions that aren't no-sells or perfect victory (thus discouraging perfect victory's and encouraging no-sells).

It's the same reason we tend to decry save-or-lose effects, really.

About character growth: The idea behind these mechanics is that the vices/weaknesses are a trade-off, mechanically. Somebody with them has DIFFERENT levers and buttons than somebody without them, not necessarily MORE. "Character growth" is supposed to be hard. It represents giving up your vices and weaknesses and replacing them with strengths. The end result of it, mechanically, would be somebody whose buttons and levers are perhaps less destructive when invoked, but he still has them. They've just shifted.

The use of mechanics here is to represent how difficult the shift is, each step of the way. Is your alcoholism vice getting you short-term morale points back, but serving as a hook to let others manipulate you socially? Fighting to overcome it will involve directly opposing its own morale point costs for failure to indulge, and the temptation for getting a quick boost of them is there. But when you overcome it, you won't get the morale points from indulging anymore...but the hooks to manipulate you are also gone. Maybe you've even turned it around so that resisting it gives you morale points (though obviously, the mechanics here would have to be carefully examined so it doesn't turn into "I go to a bar to get morale points by not drinking.")

The struggle is present in the mechanics as well as in the character's RP, and that's a good thing. Superior to the struggle being simply an informed attribute. "Oh, yes, Alcoholicles is totally struggling to resist that booze. He's doing a great job; he hasn't drunk once since I started the game. But I assure you, he's struggling against the temptation. Character growth, yo."

Talakeal

2016-12-05, 10:04 PM

Let me use Chess again as an example. Why should the player care about whether or not he checkmates the other player's king, or has his king checkmated? It's all just fun and games, so the player should derive satisfaction (or anguish) from whatever. Including playing out the tragedy of his knight's love for the enemy queen leading to his demise. And his own Queen committing suicide-by-enemy-rook out of heartbreak for her own unrequited forbidden love of said knight, now that he's dead.

This analogy is meant to show that the game creates expectations of what is to be desired by its mechanics. Saying, "Well, maybe the player should derive satisfaction from being a good RPer and not from actually having more mechanical advantage for his long-term gameplay goals," is exactly equivalent to suggesting that a Chess player should (or could) care more about telling a dramatic story of courtly intrigue and war than he does about winning the game.

Let's say Armus's speech is supposed to be a major step in making himself known as a reasonable, stately man with a plan as part of his campaign to become prime minister. In the game's overall ongoing plot, he wants this at least in part to bring the PCs to the head of this nation's war effort against the BBEG, because he believes that the other major candidates for the position are either incompetent, corrupt, or outright traitors in the BBEG's pocket.

Now, it's still just one speech. But the reason the PLAYER is likely more invested in the winning of the speech than in the imaginary discomforts of Armus is that, should the speech go poorly, this plan becomes harder and he's less likely to succeed in the long run. Maybe he even has to endure a downgrade to his current position out of the embarrassment, rendering it harder to pull off future adventuring goals. "It might be fun!" you say. And sure, it might be, but it still isn't what the player wanted out of this, so why increase the risk of getting the undesired result?

Chess has a straightforward objective and a "winner" and a "loser". RPG's do not.

If you are playing with a "war-gamer" mentality where killing the bad guys means victory, then you could make the chess analogy, but for me "winning combats" is not my primary motivation either in or out of character.

I don't have any trouble measuring short time minor goals with long term major goals. I measure the risk and the consequences vs. the pay off and make my decision accordingly, just like in real life.

Consider the starting point:

The social mechanics are in a binary state right now. Either they exist with sufficient teeth that they are, essentially, mind-control, or they exist with so few teeth that it's really a matter of whether you can convince the player of the target character that he "should" be persuaded...and any investment in social mechanics is merely a plea that people take seriously your OOC argument that somebody "should" be persuaded IC.

This introduces a middle ground: You can fail to get a full persuasion off but still get a useful effect from having tried. It leaves the ultimate decision about persuasion up to the player of the target character. This is desirable because it means that, even if the mechanics are entirely against him, a player who is CONVINCED his character would never violate some principle he's being asked to violate can have him heroically stand firm. But it makes going against the social influence increasingly costly the better the social influence roll was. Thus, it removes the concern - on anybody's part - that the player is "only" making that "steadfast" decision because it's optimal. The penalties reach a point where it isn't, anymore.

More importantly, though, it means that even if the player stands steadfast against the influence, the penalties piled up from choosing that give a real mechanical benefit to the socialite's side of things. So even if it is a legitimate RP reason why Armus is turning down the tacos, if the taco salesman (who is a plant by his nefarious political rival) is particularly eloquent, the penalties of NOT taking the tacos may outweigh the risks he'd incur from taking them. It's still a bad idea, but at least in terms of the mechanics, the temptation's power is such that it might be the more optimal decision. Armus was just SO HUNGRY and the tacos smelled SO GOOD and he would've been suffering low blood sugar without something to eat and...well, Armus talked himself into it. Or the salesman did.

Such mechanics make social characters MORE powerful, for the same reason that rules which allow a combat character to hurt somebody without killing them outright makes them more powerful: they can engage their activity and have a "win" without having it be total, allowing for resolutions that aren't no-sells or perfect victory (thus discouraging perfect victory's and encouraging no-sells).

It's the same reason we tend to decry save-or-lose effects, really.
."

I am sorry, but I just can't see it. At all.

I can't think of a way in which social characters are stronger if their target is allowed to ignore their persuasion in exchange for a penalty. Are you also making social skills much easier to pull off / harder to resist? I don't see people claiming the save or die effects are too weak, what I normally see people saying is that "save or lose" effects are more effective than "direct damage".

Now if social skills actually "killed" an enemy or even wiped away their free will and made them a mindless thrall I could see it being less useful (if no less powerful), but they don't; they merely force the target to go along with whatever you are currently asking them to do.

About character growth: The idea behind these mechanics is that the vices/weaknesses are a trade-off, mechanically. Somebody with them has DIFFERENT levers and buttons than somebody without them, not necessarily MORE. "Character growth" is supposed to be hard. It represents giving up your vices and weaknesses and replacing them with strengths. The end result of it, mechanically, would be somebody whose buttons and levers are perhaps less destructive when invoked, but he still has them. They've just shifted.

The use of mechanics here is to represent how difficult the shift is, each step of the way. Is your alcoholism vice getting you short-term morale points back, but serving as a hook to let others manipulate you socially? Fighting to overcome it will involve directly opposing its own morale point costs for failure to indulge, and the temptation for getting a quick boost of them is there. But when you overcome it, you won't get the morale points from indulging anymore...but the hooks to manipulate you are also gone. Maybe you've even turned it around so that resisting it gives you morale points (though obviously, the mechanics here would have to be carefully examined so it doesn't turn into "I go to a bar to get morale points by not drinking.")

The struggle is present in the mechanics as well as in the character's RP, and that's a good thing. Superior to the struggle being simply an informed attribute. "Oh, yes, Alcoholicles is totally struggling to resist that booze. He's doing a great job; he hasn't drunk once since I started the game. But I assure you, he's struggling against the temptation. Character growth, yo."

Ok, so let me use a real example.

In my last game my character was a loner and a martyr. At the start of the game she did everything herself and never asked for help. Over the course of three years I slowly learned that it was ok to admit weakness and to ask for help, although she still hated doing so.

How would your proposed ideal system model this without it just being a screw-job?

Cluedrew

2016-12-05, 10:33 PM

On Save or Obey: Personally, I think the most boring resolution mechanic looks like this:

You succeed (in which case everything goes perfectly) or you fail (nothing happens).

Not to say games that use it can't be fun, but the mechanic itself is about as interesting as unused paper. So moving social mechanics away from this mechanic would make them more interesting in my opinion. ... Ultimately this is an aside, although it might have some value in not making it be "and you loose control of your character", because I think the point is that you allow social characters apply meaningful influence (not in terms of forced action, but in bonuses and penalties) while still allowing other characters to remain true to there concept but not overriding player control.

jayem

2016-12-06, 03:22 AM

Chess has a straightforward objective and a "winner" and a "loser". RPG's do not.

Ok, so let me use a real example.

In my last game my character was a loner and a martyr. At the start of the game she did everything herself and never asked for help. Over the course of three years I slowly learned that it was ok to admit weakness and to ask for help, although she still hated doing so.

How would your proposed ideal system model this without it just being a screw-job?

Well in the first thing is to note that it's already a screw-job, and one option remains to say "I'm going to say my persons a loner, but in a few sessions I'll say they aren't. I can't find the things. But you could possibly through a story hook on it".

Practically when I struggle to speak to people, I gets nervous and my speech fails. And stating the obvious, it isn't something I plan, or control, any more than I plan how well I open a lock. So IF that's what you want to have the character to be.
Perhaps a will save (with situational modifiers) first. Perhaps a successful series of rolls lowering the requirement (confidence boost), and a failure roll raising it (confidence drop). You're claiming the powers to act/decide at will if they can speak clearly, so it can't now suddenly be a problem. With a failure roll you don't get it out, and potentially embarrassing stuff happens (to the discretion of you regarding how, and GM as to others reactions)
Then if you've had a bit where things have gone really well for a bit, at a inter season break, say I think my characters grown past that, and change the sheet (if it is something you really ever grow out of)

Segev

2016-12-06, 11:36 AM

Chess has a straightforward objective and a "winner" and a "loser". RPG's do not.

If you are playing with a "war-gamer" mentality where killing the bad guys means victory, then you could make the chess analogy, but for me "winning combats" is not my primary motivation either in or out of character.

I don't have any trouble measuring short time minor goals with long term major goals. I measure the risk and the consequences vs. the pay off and make my decision accordingly, just like in real life.Except that there is no pay-off for the decisions that are "good RP" except for the imprimatur of being labeled "a good RPer" (by yourself or others). So if you're honest about weighing consequences, you would choose the level-headed, not-in-the-moment choice.

The RPG absolutely has a straightforward objective: succeed at the things you try. Are you going to tell me that "fail to stop the BBEG's lieutenant from getting away with information that lets the BBEG kidnap or kill your allies" is not a straightforward loss? That Armus failing to give a more persuasive speech than his political rival, allowing his rival to swing the resources of this town to the enemy, isn't a straightforward loss?

Weigh this against Armus's imaginary (because remember, you aren't experiencing it, and suffer no consequences for it) hunger and yearning for those tacos. The risk and consequences are objectively not worth the literally no benefit gained from "eating tacos." Not in the context of the game you're playing.

You have to add the "but I want to play Armus as loving tacos" thing in, yourself, outside the game you're playing. Just as the player has to add "but I want my knight to have a burning, foolish love for the enemy queen" in, himself, outside the game of Chess he's playing.

The mechanics I propose - or at least, the STYLE of mechanics I propose - are expressly designed to put that very risk v. reward that you're saying you want to weigh into the game, so that you're not having to stop playing the game in favor of "RP" (and still have to make a judgment call, on which you can be judged - by yourself or others - purely subjectively, whether you're a "dirty optimizer who ignores RP," a "good RPer who allows himself to be punished by the mechanics in the name of his PC's flaws," or "a lousy selfish jerk who puts his RP above the party's fun") in order to make value judgments. The value judgments are equally present in the mechanics to how they are in the "real world" as far as Armus is concerned.

I am sorry, but I just can't see it. At all.

I can't think of a way in which social characters are stronger if their target is allowed to ignore their persuasion in exchange for a penalty. Are you also making social skills much easier to pull off / harder to resist? I don't see people claiming the save or die effects are too weak, what I normally see people saying is that "save or lose" effects are more effective than "direct damage".So, then, is your argument that social characters are too powerful right now?

Further, are you arguing that "mind control" social mechanics are the right way to model it?

Now if social skills actually "killed" an enemy or even wiped away their free will and made them a mindless thrall I could see it being less useful (if no less powerful), but they don't; they merely force the target to go along with whatever you are currently asking them to do.The "save or lose" version does this. It yanks control of the character away from the player and puts it in the hands of the socialite's player.

Perhaps the real problem here is that it's "too strong" in the sense that, in taking the character away from the player of that character, it makes people over-react to it. It distorts the value of social influence into something that is "suitable for violent response." When it comes off as absolute mind-control, the implied incentive is to do everything you can to resist it. And, if it costs resources to do so, violently punish the jerk who is abusing you in that fashion.

Given that such mechanics lead to behaviors which don't reflect how people react to such actions IRL, it is indicative that such mechanics don't achieve their desired goal of modeling real-world social interaction and persuasion.

Cluedrew puts it well:

On Save or Obey: Personally, I think the most boring resolution mechanic looks like this:

You succeed (in which case everything goes perfectly) or you fail (nothing happens).

Not to say games that use it can't be fun, but the mechanic itself is about as interesting as unused paper. So moving social mechanics away from this mechanic would make them more interesting in my opinion. ... Ultimately this is an aside, although it might have some value in not making it be "and you loose control of your character", because I think the point is that you allow social characters apply meaningful influence (not in terms of forced action, but in bonuses and penalties) while still allowing other characters to remain true to there concept but not overriding player control.

Ok, so let me use a real example.

In my last game my character was a loner and a martyr. At the start of the game she did everything herself and never asked for help. Over the course of three years I slowly learned that it was ok to admit weakness and to ask for help, although she still hated doing so.

How would your proposed ideal system model this without it just being a screw-job?

Let's start by examining this with no mechanics involved.

At the start of the game, your loner does everything by herself and never asks for help. This is inherently a negative. It has no real positives. From the perspective of playing the game (not "acting your role"), you're playing poorly. On purpose, for the sake of RP. You're being punished by the mechanics of the game for playing your character according to her personality.

As you decide to let her admit weakness and ask for help, you gain nothing but mechanical benefit, because the aid of other PCs helps you out. It makes you more effective in the actual gameplay.

Your narrative journey, in theory, should be lengthy and have a number of events gradually breaking down your barriers and encouraging you to seek help, and learning that it is not as bad as she thought/more useful than she thought.

But the longer you take in making that seem believable, the more the game punishes you by having you fail more often. The pressure from the game is to actually have her "cure" herself of this flaw as fast as possible (preferably in the first session!). The only pressure to avoid that is the pressure of "but I don't want to be a bad RPer."

That established, let's examine what I'm looking for:

When you build her, it actively costs her morale points to ask for help or accept it. Achieving things on her own gives her larger boosts to morale, and when working on her own - especially if she's actively turned down help - might even make her more able to burn morale on "proving she doesn't need help." She is more effective alone than with help, though the trade-off may not always be "worth it," as with sufficient help the group still will do better. And sometimes she CAN'T help herself (even though it burns up her morale points to be forced to accept it).

As you accept the morale hits, but build up morale boosts from other successes achieved and other social influences accepted towards accepting help, she still is more effective and in her mechanical comfort zone working alone, but you've added enough new influences and traits to her personality to accept help without it being QUITE so big a hit...maybe only from certain people, but still.

The end of the progression you described has her taking only minor hits from having to ASK for help, and probably none from accepting it when offered. The trade-off is that while she might get more morale boosts from solo successes, she doesn't get them from refusing help anymore. Still, she's mechanically rewarded by the advantages of having help.

The act of making the shift would be, in some ways, "a screw job," in the same way that (in older editions, at least) playing a low-level caster was "a screw job." It's SUPPOSED to be hard to make the shifts, but the mechanical rewards at the end of the shift should be "worth it."

Just like, under my system, it sucks to turn down those tacos right now...but the long term rewards of a successful speech will be worth it in the end.

Talakeal

2016-12-06, 02:17 PM

Well in the first thing is to note that it's already a screw-job, and one option remains to say "I'm going to say my persons a loner, but in a few sessions I'll say they aren't. I can't find the things. But you could possibly through a story hook on it".

Practically when I struggle to speak to people, I gets nervous and my speech fails. And stating the obvious, it isn't something I plan, or control, any more than I plan how well I open a lock. So IF that's what you want to have the character to be.
Perhaps a will save (with situational modifiers) first. Perhaps a successful series of rolls lowering the requirement (confidence boost), and a failure roll raising it (confidence drop). You're claiming the powers to act/decide at will if they can speak clearly, so it can't now suddenly be a problem. With a failure roll you don't get it out, and potentially embarrassing stuff happens (to the discretion of you regarding how, and GM as to others reactions)
Then if you've had a bit where things have gone really well for a bit, at a inter season break, say I think my characters grown past that, and change the sheet (if it is something you really ever grow out of)

In a vacuum I suppose so. But not every moment of the game needs to be a heart pounding action scene or a soul wracking drama fest. The adventure is a whole will be fun even if some of the components are just "roll X to see if you can do Y". Also, a game where every action has to be interesting and filled with both costs and benefits would get tedious and exhausting after a while, a single roll really if the best way to keep the game moving.

Except that there is no pay-off for the decisions that are "good RP" except for the imprimatur of being labeled "a good RPer" (by yourself or others). So if you're honest about weighing consequences, you would choose the level-headed, not-in-the-moment choice.

The RPG absolutely has a straightforward objective: succeed at the things you try. Are you going to tell me that "fail to stop the BBEG's lieutenant from getting away with information that lets the BBEG kidnap or kill your allies" is not a straightforward loss? That Armus failing to give a more persuasive speech than his political rival, allowing his rival to swing the resources of this town to the enemy, isn't a straightforward loss?

Weigh this against Armus's imaginary (because remember, you aren't experiencing it, and suffer no consequences for it) hunger and yearning for those tacos. The risk and consequences are objectively not worth the literally no benefit gained from "eating tacos." Not in the context of the game you're playing.

You have to add the "but I want to play Armus as loving tacos" thing in, yourself, outside the game you're playing. Just as the player has to add "but I want my knight to have a burning, foolish love for the enemy queen" in, himself, outside the game of Chess he's playing.

The mechanics I propose - or at least, the STYLE of mechanics I propose - are expressly designed to put that very risk v. reward that you're saying you want to weigh into the game, so that you're not having to stop playing the game in favor of "RP" (and still have to make a judgment call, on which you can be judged - by yourself or others - purely subjectively, whether you're a "dirty optimizer who ignores RP," a "good RPer who allows himself to be punished by the mechanics in the name of his PC's flaws," or "a lousy selfish jerk who puts his RP above the party's fun") in order to make value judgments. The value judgments are equally present in the mechanics to how they are in the "real world" as far as Armus is concerned.

I think there is just a fundamental disconnect about how we view RPGs. For me playing in character is fun and the ability to do so is the primary drive for playing. When I am in character my character's goals are my goals, whether or not they are short term like eating a taco or long term goals like making an alliance.

For me the impetus for RP is not negative reinforcement "being called a bad RPer" but rather positive reinforcement, the joy of getting to be somebody else.

As for the specific taco example, let me see if I can reframe it:

Armus loves tacos.

In scenario A he sees a big plate of tacos and wants to eat them. But he knows if he does they will give him gas later, which could ruin his big debate.

In scenario B Armus enters a debate contest where the prize is a big plate of tacos. He is sure to do his best to win the debate because he loves him some tacos.

In scenario A tacos are the obstacle and the debate is the reward.

In scenario B the debate is the obstacle and tacos are the reward.

In both cases Armus sees tacos as a really good thing and winning the debate as a really good thing.

So, then, is your argument that social characters are too powerful right now?

Further, are you arguing that "mind control" social mechanics are the right way to model it?
The "save or lose" version does this. It yanks control of the character away from the player and puts it in the hands of the socialite's player.

Perhaps the real problem here is that it's "too strong" in the sense that, in taking the character away from the player of that character, it makes people over-react to it. It distorts the value of social influence into something that is "suitable for violent response." When it comes off as absolute mind-control, the implied incentive is to do everything you can to resist it. And, if it costs resources to do so, violently punish the jerk who is abusing you in that fashion.

Given that such mechanics lead to behaviors which don't reflect how people react to such actions IRL, it is indicative that such mechanics don't achieve their desired goal of modeling real-world social interaction and persuasion.

How OP it is depends on the game. In D&D 3.X, for example, bluff and diplomacy are both ludicrously OP (if you can find a DM who plays them RAW, which none do because they are so OP).

I actually think your system works pretty well when used against players and important NPCs and is not too different from what I do.

However when you are just dealing with a minor NPC like trying to convince the guard captain to take a bribe or a merchant to offer you a line of credit I think it is both too tedious and too weak compared to standard all or nothing rolls.

But when used on players it certainly looks like an attack, especially if you are dealing "mental damage" if they resist. Players will become more psychotic and paranoid, and they will do everything they can to bypass the mechanics when dealing with one another as there is a mechanical penalty for resisting IC, so you strike up a deal OOC instead.

Let's start by examining this with no mechanics involved.

At the start of the game, your loner does everything by herself and never asks for help. This is inherently a negative. It has no real positives. From the perspective of playing the game (not "acting your role"), you're playing poorly. On purpose, for the sake of RP. You're being punished by the mechanics of the game for playing your character according to her personality.

As you decide to let her admit weakness and ask for help, you gain nothing but mechanical benefit, because the aid of other PCs helps you out. It makes you more effective in the actual gameplay.

Your narrative journey, in theory, should be lengthy and have a number of events gradually breaking down your barriers and encouraging you to seek help, and learning that it is not as bad as she thought/more useful than she thought.

But the longer you take in making that seem believable, the more the game punishes you by having you fail more often. The pressure from the game is to actually have her "cure" herself of this flaw as fast as possible (preferably in the first session!). The only pressure to avoid that is the pressure of "but I don't want to be a bad RPer."

That established, let's examine what I'm looking for:

When you build her, it actively costs her morale points to ask for help or accept it. Achieving things on her own gives her larger boosts to morale, and when working on her own - especially if she's actively turned down help - might even make her more able to burn morale on "proving she doesn't need help." She is more effective alone than with help, though the trade-off may not always be "worth it," as with sufficient help the group still will do better. And sometimes she CAN'T help herself (even though it burns up her morale points to be forced to accept it).

As you accept the morale hits, but build up morale boosts from other successes achieved and other social influences accepted towards accepting help, she still is more effective and in her mechanical comfort zone working alone, but you've added enough new influences and traits to her personality to accept help without it being QUITE so big a hit...maybe only from certain people, but still.

The end of the progression you described has her taking only minor hits from having to ASK for help, and probably none from accepting it when offered. The trade-off is that while she might get more morale boosts from solo successes, she doesn't get them from refusing help anymore. Still, she's mechanically rewarded by the advantages of having help.

The act of making the shift would be, in some ways, "a screw job," in the same way that (in older editions, at least) playing a low-level caster was "a screw job." It's SUPPOSED to be hard to make the shifts, but the mechanical rewards at the end of the shift should be "worth it."

Just like, under my system, it sucks to turn down those tacos right now...but the long term rewards of a successful speech will be worth it in the end.

Ok, so you are saying that if I have a mechanical quirk and then suffer through overcoming it I will eventually get most of the upsides with none of the downsides? That is actually a pretty cool idea for non level based advancement. Not sure how practical it is, and it would become obligatory for power gamers, but that is cool in theory.

jayem

2016-12-06, 02:38 PM

In a vacuum I suppose so. But not every moment of the game needs to be a heart pounding action scene or a soul wracking drama fest. The adventure is a whole will be fun even if some of the components are just "roll X to see if you can do Y". Also, a game where every action has to be interesting and filled with both costs and benefits would get tedious and exhausting after a while, a single roll really is the best way to keep the game moving.

Where's the roll X bit in your version?
I thought that was what my suggested variant was (with the modification that it gets harder or easier depending on past results, so it's technically 'roll a die and move a counter', and if there is a disagreement about how other circumstances effect X you need to talk OOC)

And I don't think anyones arguing for every action to be detailed, just (for games where it's important) the options of whichever actions need to be done to give a bit more depth to the characters implementation.

Segev

2016-12-06, 03:33 PM

I think there is just a fundamental disconnect about how we view RPGs. For me playing in character is fun and the ability to do so is the primary drive for playing. When I am in character my character's goals are my goals, whether or not they are short term like eating a taco or long term goals like making an alliance.

For me the impetus for RP is not negative reinforcement "being called a bad RPer" but rather positive reinforcement, the joy of getting to be somebody else.Then let me ask you this: why do you use mechanics in your games? If the "joy of playing somebody else" is all you need, then why not free-form it? Let the narrative flow determine if you should succeed or fail on any given action, rather than letting the mechanics punish you for playing somebody who is not as good (or as bad) as you think they should be at something.

As for the specific taco example, let me see if I can reframe it:

Armus loves tacos.

In scenario A he sees a big plate of tacos and wants to eat them. But he knows if he does they will give him gas later, which could ruin his big debate.

In scenario B Armus enters a debate contest where the prize is a big plate of tacos. He is sure to do his best to win the debate because he loves him some tacos.

In scenario A tacos are the obstacle and the debate is the reward.

In scenario B the debate is the obstacle and tacos are the reward.

In both cases Armus sees tacos as a really good thing and winning the debate as a really good thing.That doesn't actually address anything, though. Scenario A is what we're looking at. Scenario B isn't.

In Scenario A, without any mechanics for "Armus likes tacos a whole heck of a lot," there is no upside to Armus eating the tacos. Now reason for somebody who cares about the victory in the debate and the consequences thereof to have Armus do more than pay lip service to considering eating the tacos.

In Scenario B, I suppose you could argue there's no reason for Armus to participate in the debate, since there's no benefit to eating tacos. So if participating in the debate costs something real (in game terms) for the entirely empty reward (in game terms) of the tacos, it probably isn't worth it. If there's more game rewards for victory, it might be.

Consider it thusly, though, too: Scenario C, the prize for the debate is a year's supply of tacos, but there's a singular plate of tacos RIGHT NOW before the debate and Armus is quite hungry.

Which do you choose? The optimal choice is obviously not to risk losing the debate (and the year supply of tacos) for one taco meal right now. And, since you're not hungry and you don't have Armus's huge craving for tacos, it's easy for you to say, "I'll put this off for the greater reward later." But is it that easy for Armus? Really? Armus is considering that it's only a CHANCE that the taco will make him gassy and ruin his debate performance, and weighing that against the real hunger he now feels and the pleasure he anticipates from eating this taco meal right now. You're not; at best, you're weighing the reward of feeling really good about yourself for playing Armus in character and giving in to temptation vs. the risk that it will cost Armus his reward in the future.

But IS Armus the sort to deny himself for better odds at the greater reward, or not? Is his hunger clouding his judgment on the issue? How much and how badly? The mechanics, absent something like I suggest, say that no, his judgment is just as it would be normally, and that there's absolutely no reason for him to eat the taco now, and active reason to refrain.

How OP it is depends on the game. In D&D 3.X, for example, bluff and diplomacy are both ludicrously OP (if you can find a DM who plays them RAW, which none do because they are so OP).Bingo. And any "save-or-be-mind-controlled" social rules will run into this problem. If a PC is able to optimize for it enough to make it useful, a lot of GMs will simply no-sell or outright ban it. Precisely because it's too powerful when it works. (Never mind that, when it fails, it's completely useless.) The system I propose gives a middle ground, where it's able to have varying degrees of effectiveness and the choice to accept or deny the influence is a legitimate, real gameplay choice (not a false choice, such as "do you take the $100 bill or do you take no reward?").

I actually think your system works pretty well when used against players and important NPCs and is not too different from what I do.:smallsmile:

However when you are just dealing with a minor NPC like trying to convince the guard captain to take a bribe or a merchant to offer you a line of credit I think it is both too tedious and too weak compared to standard all or nothing rolls.Okay. You could honestly reduce this system to "I rolled enough to bribe him with 10 morale points" and the DM can make a judgment call. You can reduce it back to a single roll, or just to pass/fail declaration.

I've seen this done with combat rules, too. "You guys so out-level them that you can just narrate how you beat them up and what you do with them." Reserve the complex mechanics for meaningful interactions.

But when used on players it certainly looks like an attack, especially if you are dealing "mental damage" if they resist. Players will become more psychotic and paranoid, and they will do everything they can to bypass the mechanics when dealing with one another as there is a mechanical penalty for resisting IC, so you strike up a deal OOC instead.Perhaps. It's one reason to put the "bribe" mechanic in, so that it becomes at least potentially not an attack, but a tempting reward. "Do this thing for a reward, even though it's not normally a good idea."

Ok, so you are saying that if I have a mechanical quirk and then suffer through overcoming it I will eventually get most of the upsides with none of the downsides? That is actually a pretty cool idea for non level based advancement. Not sure how practical it is, and it would become obligatory for power gamers, but that is cool in theory.Maybe, though my real point was that both states likely have their advantages and disadvantages, and that anybody playing long enough is going to overall improve with time; this is just how you happened to do so.

Quertus

2016-12-06, 04:06 PM

First off I really like Quertus's dissection of some of the problems of RP XP rewards. But one thing I think should be pointed out is the idea of (for the lack of a better word) sportsmanship. That is people can agree to not push the rules because it is more fun that way.

Sportsmanship? Hmmm... Let's see if I can explain this.

First, a little background. There was a time when I would join every gaming group I could, play every game I could, to maximize the breadth of my experience. So I've gamed with lot of different groups, and seen a lot of different ways to play the game. I've seen a lot of people have fun with styles I couldn't stand, and struggled to fit into games with unspoken rules their participants lacked the skills to vocalize.

I've learned a great many things along the way, including that no single GM will ever match the breadth of experience that 20 GMs can deliver. I prefer getting to run one character under lots of different GMs, to explore their character under the maximum diversity of situations.

But I've also learned that I not only don't get "style" or "theme", but that I don't really care about them, either. If you want to play a game with a horror movie theme, I can't fall back on sportsmanship to play along, because I don't have the skills. If you want me to not ruin the mood of such a game, you will have to develop detailed rules rewarding behavior which matches the theme. Then I'll war game metagame my way through cost benefit analysis of holding the idiot ball to get the theme reward, or I'll just roleplay my character and ignore the reward, or I'll pick a character who tends towards those rewards through proper role-playing anyway.

Similarly, some people don't have the skills to roleplay, or to understand role-playing enough to fall back on sportsmanship. And some people just don't care. The whole, "I'm not doing anything to hurt you, so why should my apathy matter to you?"

So there's an issue, not exactly of moving goalposts, but of there being lots of different goal posts set up. And I'm trying to hit them all.

So, who wants / needs role-playing rules? How will each potential audience react?

Here's the way I see it:
The pure war gamer crowd will view these rules as a bar to entry, and/or manipulate them for maximum benefit.
The freeform role-playing / acting crowd will feel constrained by these rules.
People learning how to roleplay may benefit from these rules, or may mistake them for the totality of role-playing. A tactical social manipulation war game is not role-playing. "Lawful good" is not a personality.
Bad roleplayers will likely be improved.
Some people want the rules to inform their role-playing; some people don't want the rules interfering with their role-playing.
Mixed groups (which some dislike) may be happy with the raised floor, or may have preferred when the war gamer was just not role-playing to them manipulating the system.
I will be frustrated when other gamers can't see how the system is interfering with or discouraging role-playing a character more complex than the system.
I will be frustrated by "double-whammy" systems, where, not only do I not get to work on my goals, I get punished for it.

And that's not even counting trying to protect against all the things a jerk DM could do to abuse such a system.

I'm sure there are plenty of other goal posts others are trying to hit; this is just where I'm coming from.

We're also still assuming something IMPOSED and not something self-created. If someone has selected to keep the belief "Children are Precious" while doing a mission that will in no way involve children or their protection, then that's on the player for not thinking ahead, and on the GM for not pointing out that Children probably won't come up this session at all. Beliefs still aren't permanent. Never were. You can change them before the session starts, and beliefs that will very likely not come up at all should be pointed out. For instance, "Tusken raiders are a plague and must be killed" is a great belief!
But not if this mission is on Hoth. And it doesn't matter if your character sends a check to Tusken-Raider-Removal-Made-EZ, because that's about as passive as one could be about their belief while still technically acting in accordance to it. (And honestly, I've never had someone do something that obviously point-grabbing, ever. Most people by late in the game forgot about B.I.G.

But hey, not all groups are equal. I've never had a problem with the rules since we understand their purpose: afterthought xp as a reward for doing the RP we already enjoy doing and would do anyways.

Obviously, you've never gamed in some of my groups. :smalltongue: Yes, people will manipulate the rules this blatantly, or so completely not understand the concept of role-playing as to believe such actions are role-playing - and, look, the rules support it by rewarding their actions.

This is part of why I'm such a hard sell - I've seen how lots of different people will react, and I'm trying to discuss all of them.

So... to try to wrap my head around a bit of it... If my character had a bunch of Beliefs (because that's easier for me to swallow than saying my characters beliefs change on a whim), like, "children are precious", "academia metamage Quertus belongs back in academic circles", and "Tusken raiders are a plague and must be killed"... And I had to pick one (or create a new one) for the upcoming season in order to get the RP/Belief XP... it seems an odd game of read the GMs mind. Except that you say the GM should warn you if it won't come up. So... I guess I'm missing the point. It's to... reward characters for believing something? Reward characters for believing something relevant? Encourage players whose characters don't believe anything relevant to pick something relevant for them to believe in?

You don't get the tacos. You personally do not get the benefit your character does. Now, sure enough, some people are so in tune with their character that they act "suboptimally" without a second thought. Those are in my experience by far the more interesting people to play RPGs with. But: You, the player require different motivation than your character, because you are getting different things out of it.

That's certainly part of my goal state. I usually don't have much trouble with the "acting suboptimally to stay in character" part. My goal of 100% accurate presentation of the character is, of course, unreachable, but I keep trying to improve towards that impossible goal.

As has been pointed out by jayem, the only problem with that is the "and nothing else" (Okay, granted, maybe the "human" isn't that good either. That's not a character trait, that is a species. If you include that, you would have to include the class as well. Or the "lawful good", but I don't like alignment to describe personality; just for rough morality approximations.). Construing that clause alone makes this into a caricature of any argument actually brought forth.

A caricature of an argument about rules encouraging caricatures instead of characters? I'd never do that. :smalltongue:

But, no, I've had multiple DMs who fervently believed that you alignment was your personality - any action which didn't match your alignment was bad role-playing. And one who was "enlightened" enough to include race, class, and gender into your deterministic personality matrix.

Meanwhile a complete dictionary would fulfill all the requirements (add give total freedom) despite permitting complete opposites.
So adding the words is losing the personality

Touche.

I'm guessing probably 10 words of that genericness would be about sufficient then for me to pass to a stranger, and on seeing them roleplay a workday according to those terms sufficiently accurately that, a third party who knows the office then have a half decent chance of identifying the character you were thinking of. (Which of course adds an extra stage, to make it harder)

*note of course we are building a machine to RUN the test, not a machine to PASS the test, and with a tolerable rate of failure (and these do exist, handwriting recognition, typing recognition, facebook-retrospectively)

And... to be perfectly honest? If you give me enough time, I could probably figure out three words that don't conflict any of what I do, determine quite a lot about me, and are bound to come up most days. Not really that eager to do it on the forum, cause... personal and stuff. Sure, there are things about me that don't fit in there. Facts about my life that just don't do much to my personality, but shape it and my actions in small ways nonetheless (or express them).

Yeah, I certainly don't expect people to try to define themselves publicly - I certainly wouldn't be comfortable putting my "true name" on the internet. :smallwink: It's a thought exercise to see where I'm coming from.

But, to flip that around, are any of us posting in this forum completely predictable? Can you look at our posts, derive a heuristic to predict what we'll respond to, and how we'll respond? Sure, you can say that I'll generally be pro-RP, and a bunch of other things... but if you try to write 10-20 rules to describe my posting style, and have someone who had never seen one of my posts, and asked them to make posts following those rules, you might at best get a poor caricature of my posting style. Someone might recognize the style as being similar to mine, they might not, but I doubt anyone would suspect I secretly had a second account.

However, have someone actually read a bunch of my posts, process them with a human mind, pick up on all the hundreds and thousands of unspoken assumptions built into those rules you wrote, make all the nuanced changes, and, sure, they'd do a much better job emulating the Quertus account.

And that's the rub. I don't want to run a caricature, I want to run a character. And that requires more than a few simple rules, even being processed by a human mind. It requires something far too complex for most hobby gamers to want to detail out.

(I mean, really, I could be lazy and go with "human", because how the **** would I go about NOT being a human unless you count glueing on ears for Larp - though I'd say deliberately RPing "person that is not me" does not count as breaking character for this thing, otherwise I obviously loose. Too many characters with too much contradiction.)
Small tangent, and a case in point maybe for my method of "Keeping it simple" character creation: For this weekend, I was on a Larp playing a character I never had before, in a setting I had no experience with. With focussing on the handfull of events in my past, the one-word driving force and pretty much one character trait. Getting away the clutter helped me get into character so deep I actually cried real tears from a situation I was only witnessing being too similar to the weakpoints of my char.
I did not make up character traits and decided beforehands that she would react that way in such a situation - truth be told, who would actually think "how would my character react if someone has to decide which of his subordinates to sacrifice in front of her" before it happens - but the reaction came promptly, absolutely appropriately, and with intensity.
(For her, the three words would probably be "Ex-Soldier", "regret", and "brash for her culture", btw. (Totally three words... :smallamused:)

Starting from a base in your own life is a great tool for actors, and I can see how you found that effective. Your own life is much more... vibrant... than those three simple "words" about the character.

And, I will reiterate: I have never. said. that a ceiling is impossible to construct. Merely that it is not a necessary consequence of their being any system. However many examples you construe of specific rules getting in the way does very little to prove your point.

Point. I don't like it when people try make that mistake with me. But the necessary existence of a ceiling given a floor... had already been touched on. Even self-created systems - such as you writing 10-20 sentences to describe my posting style - will produce at best caricatures, not characters. The same description run by 10 different people will produce 10 different results. Reward structures which rewards caricatures punish characters.

((Incidentally, I've seen parties where nobody is engaging in PvP but the party wizard or sorcerer does dominate the other PCs. This allows him to add an opposed caster level check to the hurdles enemy enchanters have to overcome to successfully control the other PCs.)

I'm not the only one who uses this?

Heh. You reveal a massive gap in understanding about the difficulties of writing an AI, here. The trouble is that you can use those words or a description to have one sapient intelligence simulate another, but getting from "keywords" to all the nuance and understanding surrounding their meaning, and all the other stuff that goes into it, is the challenge itself. Using this approach to write "passable AI" would require first making the AI, then having the AI simulate another one.

Speaking as one of those highly-trained individuals, it's a lot easier to write the rules for a human to emulate another human than it is to get the emulator for a human created.

Which is why I don't advocate the "you RP'd today; have a cookie" approach. I advocate the mechanics giving you indication of what impact the emotional qualia of a situation has on the character. And ways for that impact to have real consequences regardless of the choice the puppeteer for that character makes.

Honestly, I think this opens the door for "heroically standing fast against the temptation" more than a lack of these mechanics. Mark's paladin is being SORELY tempted by some social manipulatrix, possibly even with magical backing, but Mark can still say, "He doesn't give in." Mark is saying, "I want my paladin to resist this. He will suffer the pains and sufferings and aches and yearnings, represented by all the mechanical penalties piled on, but he won't give in." Not only that, if the temptation's urges would've rewarded him with a short- or medium-term gain, even the cost of "losing" the encounter might be recouped. And given that he's suffering penalties for resisting, he might lose it anyway, so MARK has to weigh that.

Which is much more legitimized, validated RP of Mark's paladin's suffering through the temptation's call and denying it, than if Mark just says, "Yeah, my paladin's too awesome to give in to that," and then suffers no penalties for it. Especially when he would've suffered penalties of some sort (possibly simply "losing" the encounter entirely) if he'd given in.

Like I said, this is why I oppose this kind of reward mechanic for "RP."

Eh, more an issue with my ability to oversimplify it to the relevant bits.

How torn would you be for not engaging in cannibalism, just because someone charismatic and convincing said you should? Because me, personally, the answer is "not at all". Ok, well, maybe a little, because it would be an interesting new experience... But I can never see myself taking any kind of penalty for choosing not to eat human, or radioactive waste, or anything else I have no inherent interest in.

About the Tacos:
I think you are only looking at this from one side. You talk about how the player doesn't feel the temptation like the character does, which is true, but you don't apply this train of thought to the consequences. Why should the player care about whether or not they gave a successful speech? Why should the player be embarrassed that their character had a gas attack?

In the end it is all just make believe, it is up to the player to derive satisfaction (or anguish) from anything. Now, the player's goals probably don't align exactly with the characters, but you should apply the disconnect between player and character evenly.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see my tacos example really taking off! But I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You think that, if we have mechanics to simulate / equivocate how the character feels about the choice, we should also have mechanics for how the character feels about the results?

[QUOTE=Talakeal;21458456About AI:
I think you and Quertus are saying the same thing in different ways. You say a computer to emulate a human being is all but impossible, but an author's barid can do a good approximation. That is true, but it is equivalent rather than contradictory to Quertus' point that a rule system to emulate a human being is all but impossible, but a player's brain can do a good approximation.[/QUOTE]

Although this is true, it does show differences in how we're approaching the problem.

Talakeal

2016-12-06, 05:31 PM

Then let me ask you this: why do you use mechanics in your games? If the "joy of playing somebody else" is all you need, then why not free-form it? Let the narrative flow determine if you should succeed or fail on any given action, rather than letting the mechanics punish you for playing somebody who is not as good (or as bad) as you think they should be at something.

That doesn't actually address anything, though. Scenario A is what we're looking at. Scenario B isn't.

In Scenario A, without any mechanics for "Armus likes tacos a whole heck of a lot," there is no upside to Armus eating the tacos. Now reason for somebody who cares about the victory in the debate and the consequences thereof to have Armus do more than pay lip service to considering eating the tacos.

In Scenario B, I suppose you could argue there's no reason for Armus to participate in the debate, since there's no benefit to eating tacos. So if participating in the debate costs something real (in game terms) for the entirely empty reward (in game terms) of the tacos, it probably isn't worth it. If there's more game rewards for victory, it might be.

Consider it thusly, though, too: Scenario C, the prize for the debate is a year's supply of tacos, but there's a singular plate of tacos RIGHT NOW before the debate and Armus is quite hungry.

Which do you choose? The optimal choice is obviously not to risk losing the debate (and the year supply of tacos) for one taco meal right now. And, since you're not hungry and you don't have Armus's huge craving for tacos, it's easy for you to say, "I'll put this off for the greater reward later." But is it that easy for Armus? Really? Armus is considering that it's only a CHANCE that the taco will make him gassy and ruin his debate performance, and weighing that against the real hunger he now feels and the pleasure he anticipates from eating this taco meal right now. You're not; at best, you're weighing the reward of feeling really good about yourself for playing Armus in character and giving in to temptation vs. the risk that it will cost Armus his reward in the future.

But IS Armus the sort to deny himself for better odds at the greater reward, or not? Is his hunger clouding his judgment on the issue? How much and how badly? The mechanics, absent something like I suggest, say that no, his judgment is just as it would be normally, and that there's absolutely no reason for him to eat the taco now, and active reason to refrain.

But in all cases the reward is measured in tacos. You can't taste them, they won't satisfy your hunger, they are an imaginary currency. If the desire for imaginary currency is going to motivate you, that should be enough.

I play with rules because consistency is a vital part of inhabiting a fictional world. Also, with multiple people at the table, you need some form of neutral arbiter to decide how things turn out. Honestly I have never thought about rules as a method to get people pumped up about winning.

I am also not saying that I don't enjoy tactical combat or overcome challenges, just that they are less of a motivator for me than inhabiting my character's head. Also, to me it is the overcoming challenges part rather than the victory that I derive satisfaction from; accomplishing a goal without breaking character or meta-gaming is significantly more satisfying for me than simply winning.

Winning by itself has never been a big motivator for me. I remember one of the guys I games with in high school would nakedly cheat in every game we played, be it an RPG, a board game, a card game, or a miniature war game. He wasn't very subtle about it, and we all knew he was doing it and confronted him about it. One day I asked him why he kept cheating, there was no challenge for him to win so he can't feel satisfaction for it, and we all know he is cheating so he doesn't gain our admiration for it. His response was that the satisfaction of winning a game trumped all other concerns for him and was a reward in and of itself. I didn't understand his reasoning then, and I don't now, but clearly other people get more out of a "win" than I do.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see my tacos example really taking off! But I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You think that, if we have mechanics to simulate / equivocate how the character feels about the choice, we should also have mechanics for how the character feels about the results?

No, I am saying that he is using the argument that "The taco's aren't real so they can't tempt you," and I am using the counter argument "The speech is also not real, so the fear of failing at it should not stop you."

jayem

2016-12-06, 05:56 PM

Sportsmanship? Hmmm... Let's see if I can explain this.

But, to flip that around, are any of us posting in this forum completely predictable? Can you look at our posts, derive a heuristic to predict what we'll respond to, and how we'll respond? Sure, you can say that I'll generally be pro-RP, and a bunch of other things... but if you try to write 10-20 rules to describe my posting style, and have someone who had never seen one of my posts, and asked them to make posts following those rules, you might at best get a poor caricature of my posting style. Someone might recognize the style as being similar to mine, they might not, but I doubt anyone would suspect I secretly had a second account.

However, have someone actually read a bunch of my posts, process them with a human mind, pick up on all the hundreds and thousands of unspoken assumptions built into those rules you wrote, make all the nuanced changes, and, sure, they'd do a much better job emulating the Quertus account.

And that's the rub. I don't want to run a caricature, I want to run a character. And that requires more than a few simple rules, even being processed by a human mind. It requires something far too complex for most hobby gamers to want to detail out.
.
(NB Jane is playing an RPG about RPG's. She is roleplaying Jack (if that is your real name, it's chance) who in the in-game RPGs plays characters called Quertus and posts with that name on message boards)
Bearing in mind that of course that Jack is Jane's character, and while the some posters and I might have some opinion as to how Jack would act and rule somethings as not being Jack like (and at extremes might be able to challenge it as bad role playing) and at other times have to face the fact that we're wrong as Jack's clearly done something different to what we would do if we were rp'ing him (or even living him).
But assuming she came, showed the posts she'd written on his behalf, and asked what things. Bearing in mind of course if that doesn't tie up with what Jane thinks about Jack, she is at liberty to say, "Jack's not like that". But I would guess that Jack values playing the same character (Quertus) and the idea of starting a game with a new one (and not being Quertus) is costly to Jack and as such Jack faces some penalty if he choses to do that (even if otherwise his character would be stronger for the game, or there is some other metagame reason for Jane to be pressured into being that. Of course there may be some occasion when the cost of not playing someone new is worse than the cost, or for some other reason Jane feels really strongly Jack will break a new mould, but they are exceptions. But that still leaves a lot for Jane to fill in about Jack.

ComradeBear

2016-12-06, 06:10 PM

Obviously, you've never gamed in some of my groups. :smalltongue: Yes, people will manipulate the rules this blatantly, or so completely not understand the concept of role-playing as to believe such actions are role-playing - and, look, the rules support it by rewarding their actions.

This is part of why I'm such a hard sell - I've seen how lots of different people will react, and I'm trying to discuss all of them.

So... to try to wrap my head around a bit of it... If my character had a bunch of Beliefs (because that's easier for me to swallow than saying my characters beliefs change on a whim), like, "children are precious", "academia metamage Quertus belongs back in academic circles", and "Tusken raiders are a plague and must be killed"... And I had to pick one (or create a new one) for the upcoming season in order to get the RP/Belief XP... it seems an odd game of read the GMs mind. Except that you say the GM should warn you if it won't come up. So... I guess I'm missing the point. It's to... reward characters for believing something? Reward characters for believing something relevant? Encourage players whose characters don't believe anything relevant to pick something relevant for them to believe in?

I suppose that I should also note that Belief and Goal (but not instinct) generally require that a roll happens either due to them, or in order to accomplish them. (Or at least, I generally require that to prevent utter BS unless they did something really really obvious and/or consistent on the RP level.)

People and characters are pretty much always going to have a belief relevant to the current mission/situation. What you seem to be attempting to tell me is that it is possible to be on Hoth, infiltrating a rebel base, and have no particular feelings about it at all. Pretty much every character will have a belief that is in some way relevant to current goings-on, even if it's something like "I'm the only one who has any idea what they're doing."

Beliefs don't stop being real just because they aren't listed. (Something else I've said multiple times. I seem to be repeating myself a lot, and anything I didn't explicitly re-outline all over again seems to be discarded. Sorry. Mild venting.) Characters believe thousands of things. We just add a bonus squirt of XP at the end of the session for one of them. Think of it less of getting a cookie, and more of getting a chocolate chip, with the other rewards in the system being the cookies. Ie, in D&D 3.5 they tend to be about 3-5xp at lower levels, then slowly scale upwards accordingly. They should not be the make-or-break of levelling up. They're just wee little bits at the end. Mechanized applause, in a way. A pat on the back.

If people are willing to make an attempt to go to extreme lengths to game the system for a 1-2% bump in their XP, okie dokie. But from me that'd get a slow nod and an "mhm. Ok." And I'd likely veto anything that was blatantly done in bad faith. (Which is usually easy to spot.)

Again, I'm sensing some misunderstanding of the scale of the XP received.

There's also the old standby:
Not everyone likes or works well with every set of rules. I find M&M to be waaaay too options-heavy for my tastes. I get option paralysis and generally don't want to spend more than about 5 minutes on character creation. (The numbers and tables part, anyways.)
M&M character creation rules can also be heavily exploited. And they ask you not to. Because that's the most effective way to stop it.

Does this mean that M&M rules are bad? No.
It just means that certain people will ne attracted/repelled from those rules accordingly.

I don't require that everyone adopt RP incentives as rules. I DO require that I not be crucified as a bad RPer for enjoying/using them because I find them fun.

That's it. My entire purpose here is "RP rules are not universally, irreparably, and permanently a bad and terrible thing. They do not inevitably lead to crippled RP and nobody being in character because they're chasing that Sweet Sweet Cookie. They aren't universal hinderances, even to advanced RPers." Hell, I started in Freeform and moved into RPGs. If you count my Freeform days, I've been RPing for 15+ years. And only one year less if you don't. And I still engage in freeform RP where it is 100% driven by characters, with no rules to get in the way. I've been writing short stories for just as long, and even got into legitimate acting for a short time and would still like to try voice acting at some point. The idea that I'm being limited is foreign to me, because I'm already RPing intense characters and not running into these ceilings.
A debutant-voiced southern lady turned despotic ruler of a vice-ridden post-apocalyptic town caught between keeping her people safe and keeping her rabid soldiers on a leash, while contending with the eldritch horrors down the road and her own vision of a properly civilized future without the necessary evil that is the city she herself created, built upon the foundation of a nearly literal cult following around her.

A man broken by the loss of his beloved, taking up the mantle of a Templar to give a direction to his bottomless rage and shame. Who uses the poorly interpreted words of a Bible he can barely read to justify his violence, and all the while knows deep down that he is more living-atrocity than man. Quoted as saying "Sometimes The Lord needs a prophet. Sometimes He needs a monster. I'm the monster."

A street-kid who became filthy rich through his less-than-legal exploits and turned his money towards never, ever, seeing another street kid go hungry on his home planet again. A man striving to do the best for his own, but only knows how to be a criminal. All the while harboring unspoken feelings for his own bodyguard/childhood friend.

An immortal living in an age of dying magic, coming to find that their immortality is also finally coming to an end. Caught between the desire for the beauty of magic to continue, and the sweet release of death after a life lived for far too long, and longing to see departed loved ones again. All the while on a journey to reverse the decay of magic, and quietly trying to decide if she should sabotage the effort. Hoping it succeeds, and hoping it fails.

Only one of the above wasn't used for a tabletop game (feel free to guess which). The other three were in tabletop games with RP rules/incentives. (Either B.I.G or an appropriate system equivalent.) None of them ever had the issue of me being punished for RPing above and beyond.

And these are still oversimplifications of their situations.

I've never hit a ceiling. So I don't have a concept for it because I've never hit it, touched it, or interacted with it. Maybe I'm unusually good at RP rules and Author Stance.

In any case, in my experience I've been able to have my cake and eat it, too. No problem. YMMV, tho.

Floret

2016-12-06, 06:48 PM

Except that there is no pay-off for the decisions that are "good RP" except for the imprimatur of being labeled "a good RPer" (by yourself or others). So if you're honest about weighing consequences, you would choose the level-headed, not-in-the-moment choice.

The RPG absolutely has a straightforward objective: succeed at the things you try. Are you going to tell me that "fail to stop the BBEG's lieutenant from getting away with information that lets the BBEG kidnap or kill your allies" is not a straightforward loss? That Armus failing to give a more persuasive speech than his political rival, allowing his rival to swing the resources of this town to the enemy, isn't a straightforward loss?

Much as I agree with most of the rest of your point, I gotta say: It might actually not be. As others have pointed out: Playing a character is its own reward sometimes. For an example of a catchy phrase: "Play to struggle" is the catchphrase of a Larp campaign I play in. Meaning: Play your character to the fullest of consequence, and give them weaknesses, to get them into trouble, and play from there. Produce situations that are hard to deal with from yourself, and without any outside force putting you into, purely because of playing a non-perfect human being to its utter consequence.
So yes, some people RP not for any goals, but just for the fun of getting themselves into **** and seeing what follows from there, and how to get out, if you still can. This is given as an explicit statement of a desirable goal (And one I can understand and agree with). This doesn't mean the characters are purely weakness, btw, just to prevent that argument. They can have strengths. They need to get out somehow...
But:

Then let me ask you this: why do you use mechanics in your games? If the "joy of playing somebody else" is all you need, then why not free-form it? Let the narrative flow determine if you should succeed or fail on any given action, rather than letting the mechanics punish you for playing somebody who is not as good (or as bad) as you think they should be at something.

This. Free-form, as well as playing sandbox, goes incredibly well with this sort of thing, and the question "why have rules in the first place if they get in the way of what you want" is a valid one. As I said: In TRPGs, I look for something else.

So, who wants / needs role-playing rules? How will each potential audience react?

Here's the way I see it:
The pure war gamer crowd will view these rules as a bar to entry, and/or manipulate them for maximum benefit.
The freeform role-playing / acting crowd will feel constrained by these rules.
People learning how to roleplay may benefit from these rules, or may mistake them for the totality of role-playing. A tactical social manipulation war game is not role-playing. "Lawful good" is not a personality.
Bad roleplayers will likely be improved.
Some people want the rules to inform their role-playing; some people don't want the rules interfering with their role-playing.
Mixed groups (which some dislike) may be happy with the raised floor, or may have preferred when the war gamer was just not role-playing to them manipulating the system.
I will be frustrated when other gamers can't see how the system is interfering with or discouraging role-playing a character more complex than the system.
I will be frustrated by "double-whammy" systems, where, not only do I not get to work on my goals, I get punished for it.

And that's not even counting trying to protect against all the things a jerk DM could do to abuse such a system.

I'm sure there are plenty of other goal posts others are trying to hit; this is just where I'm coming from.

I have pretty much three things to say:
1. Trying to make a game appeal to everyone is still a foolish endevour in my view. It won't happen, and therefor hitting all goalposts gets you a compromise, everyone sort of gets what they might want, but noone gets it completely. Suboptimal, in my view.
2. People who want rules to inform their roleplaying, people who want something to hold onto when playing a character, people who just like to gamefy the characters personality whould all like such rules, I find. The rest maybe shouldn't play with them.
3. Jerks will find a way to abuse everything. Don't play with jerks, instead of twisting systems and denying potentially fun explorations of different ways to do things just to make them less powerful when you do play with them. Just don't play with them in the first place.

A caricature of an argument about rules encouraging caricatures instead of characters? I'd never do that. :smalltongue:

But, no, I've had multiple DMs who fervently believed that you alignment was your personality - any action which didn't match your alignment was bad role-playing. And one who was "enlightened" enough to include race, class, and gender into your deterministic personality matrix.

I mean, that sounds like awful people. And idiots. Maybe a second rule. Don't play with idiots. But people who think that alignment, or that your race, class or gender determined your personality (I mean, the last one even exists IRL! You could test it! Are women inherently different in way X? No! So that is not "personality", how could it be?) are I think so far gone that, without them examining very closely their biases and worldview, they will misinterpret everything. And as I said: Just because some people will misunderstand, I don't find we need to restrict ourselves. Except to not playing with people whose playstyles bother us.

But, to flip that around, are any of us posting in this forum completely predictable? Can you look at our posts, derive a heuristic to predict what we'll respond to, and how we'll respond? Sure, you can say that I'll generally be pro-RP, and a bunch of other things... but if you try to write 10-20 rules to describe my posting style, and have someone who had never seen one of my posts, and asked them to make posts following those rules, you might at best get a poor caricature of my posting style. Someone might recognize the style as being similar to mine, they might not, but I doubt anyone would suspect I secretly had a second account.

However, have someone actually read a bunch of my posts, process them with a human mind, pick up on all the hundreds and thousands of unspoken assumptions built into those rules you wrote, make all the nuanced changes, and, sure, they'd do a much better job emulating the Quertus account.

And that's the rub. I don't want to run a caricature, I want to run a character. And that requires more than a few simple rules, even being processed by a human mind. It requires something far too complex for most hobby gamers to want to detail out.

I think you are still misunderstanding what I want to do: I do not want to create a computer program to run a personality. I don't want to write something so that the character basically "plays itself". I want to code personality into rules, so it can influence dicerolls, and be of help when getting into character and for deciding what to do if one is uncertain. I don't need a perfect simulator for that. I don't even want the rules to work in a way that two people with the same keywords get the exact same character out of it. Don't know who set that as a goal, certainly not me.
And does it really require this? As I have said, I have never had a problem running a character while setting myself such simple rules for generation (Maximum 1 page background facts, one driving motivation, one central character trait). I have had problems to get into characters with more defined personalities and stuff, mostly experienced during GMing. The border between a caricature and a character, I feel, isn't all that thick. Unless of course what I am doing is running charicatures, but I have yet to hear anyone say my characters feel too flat.

Starting from a base in your own life is a great tool for actors, and I can see how you found that effective. Your own life is much more... vibrant... than those three simple "words" about the character.

Oh, I think I phrased things weirdly by still being in-tune with the character and my general habit of talking about "me" when meaning them: The events of "my" past meant my characters. Everything was (thankfully :smalleek: ) made up. I had nothing in my past to inform any of what happened, and don't generally cry easily. The scene playing out in front of me would have left me with many different emotions if I was not in character, but none of them crying. I think. I'd probably have been a bit sick.
And... I don't even know if I would agree that being myself is more vibrant than being my characters. It's different, sure. But generally my characters have far more interesting things happen to them than I do. Not much adventure to be found IRL.^^

How torn would you be for not engaging in cannibalism, just because someone charismatic and convincing said you should? Because me, personally, the answer is "not at all". Ok, well, maybe a little, because it would be an interesting new experience... But I can never see myself taking any kind of penalty for choosing not to eat human, or radioactive waste, or anything else I have no inherent interest in.

You know? I doubt you know any people as comparatively convincing and charismatic as an RPG character made for convincing would be. And, you are thinking of a western, modern world. If you were starving, in a desolate wasteland, and someone offered to off that ******* you have been lugging around... Plenty food for both of you, and none more wasted on them...
I am saying: "I would not be convinced" is an easy statement to make when not put in the spot. If push comes to shove... Principles can be very hard to hold onto. And some people can be VERY convincing.

Talakeal

2016-12-06, 06:54 PM

I suppose that I should also note that Belief and Goal (but not instinct) generally require that a roll happens either due to them, or in order to accomplish them. (Or at least, I generally require that to prevent utter BS unless they did something really really obvious and/or consistent on the RP level.)

People and characters are pretty much always going to have a belief relevant to the current mission/situation. What you seem to be attempting to tell me is that it is possible to be on Hoth, infiltrating a rebel base, and have no particular feelings about it at all. Pretty much every character will have a belief that is in some way relevant to current goings-on, even if it's something like "I'm the only one who has any idea what they're doing."

Beliefs don't stop being real just because they aren't listed. (Something else I've said multiple times. I seem to be repeating myself a lot, and anything I didn't explicitly re-outline all over again seems to be discarded. Sorry. Mild venting.) Characters believe thousands of things. We just add a bonus squirt of XP at the end of the session for one of them. Think of it less of getting a cookie, and more of getting a chocolate chip, with the other rewards in the system being the cookies. Ie, in D&D 3.5 they tend to be about 3-5xp at lower levels, then slowly scale upwards accordingly. They should not be the make-or-break of levelling up. They're just wee little bits at the end. Mechanized applause, in a way. A pat on the back.

If people are willing to make an attempt to go to extreme lengths to game the system for a 1-2% bump in their XP, okie dokie. But from me that'd get a slow nod and an "mhm. Ok." And I'd likely veto anything that was blatantly done in bad faith. (Which is usually easy to spot.)

Again, I'm sensing some misunderstanding of the scale of the XP received.

There's also the old standby:
Not everyone likes or works well with every set of rules. I find M&M to be waaaay too options-heavy for my tastes. I get option paralysis and generally don't want to spend more than about 5 minutes on character creation. (The numbers and tables part, anyways.)
M&M character creation rules can also be heavily exploited. And they ask you not to. Because that's the most effective way to stop it.

Does this mean that M&M rules are bad? No.
It just means that certain people will ne attracted/repelled from those rules accordingly.

I don't require that everyone adopt RP incentives as rules. I DO require that I not be crucified as a bad RPer for enjoying/using them because I find them fun.

That's it. My entire purpose here is "RP rules are not universally, irreparably, and permanently a bad and terrible thing. They do not inevitably lead to crippled RP and nobody being in character because they're chasing that Sweet Sweet Cookie. They aren't universal hinderances, even to advanced RPers." Hell, I started in Freeform and moved into RPGs. If you count my Freeform days, I've been RPing for 15+ years. And only one year less if you don't. And I still engage in freeform RP where it is 100% driven by characters, with no rules to get in the way. I've been writing short stories for just as long, and even got into legitimate acting for a short time and would still like to try voice acting at some point. The idea that I'm being limited is foreign to me, because I'm already RPing intense characters and not running into these ceilings.
A debutant-voiced southern lady turned despotic ruler of a vice-ridden post-apocalyptic town caught between keeping her people safe and keeping her rabid soldiers on a leash, while contending with the eldritch horrors down the road and her own vision of a properly civilized future without the necessary evil that is the city she herself created, built upon the foundation of a nearly literal cult following around her.

A man broken by the loss of his beloved, taking up the mantle of a Templar to give a direction to his bottomless rage and shame. Who uses the poorly interpreted words of a Bible he can barely read to justify his violence, and all the while knows deep down that he is more living-atrocity than man. Quoted as saying "Sometimes The Lord needs a prophet. Sometimes He needs a monster. I'm the monster."

A street-kid who became filthy rich through his less-than-legal exploits and turned his money towards never, ever, seeing another street kid go hungry on his home planet again. A man striving to do the best for his own, but only knows how to be a criminal. All the while harboring unspoken feelings for his own bodyguard/childhood friend.

An immortal living in an age of dying magic, coming to find that their immortality is also finally coming to an end. Caught between the desire for the beauty of magic to continue, and the sweet release of death after a life lived for far too long, and longing to see departed loved ones again. All the while on a journey to reverse the decay of magic, and quietly trying to decide if she should sabotage the effort. Hoping it succeeds, and hoping it fails.

Only one of the above wasn't used for a tabletop game (feel free to guess which). The other three were in tabletop games with RP rules/incentives. (Either B.I.G or an appropriate system equivalent.) None of them ever had the issue of me being punished for RPing above and beyond.

And these are still oversimplifications of their situations.

I've never hit a ceiling. So I don't have a concept for it because I've never hit it, touched it, or interacted with it. Maybe I'm unusually good at RP rules and Author Stance.

In any case, in my experience I've been able to have my cake and eat it, too. No problem. YMMV, tho.

If the rewards are trivial you won't notice the ceiling or the floor. That's a crucial part of the floor and ceiling argument, the rewards have to be sufficient to motivate people into changing their behavior.

Now, say that BIG was the only source of XP in the game. Say that someone who regularly failed to meet one of those points might end up being half the level of the rest of the party, while someone who makes sure to check every one at every point is double the level of the rest of the party. Would you not see a ceiling there?

Also, you say you might just be really good at RP rules and author stance. Having to be in author stance is exactly what people mean by a ceiling; it is limiting our time in actor stance. If you are someone who is more comfortable in author stance of course you won't see a downside to a system that encourages you to be there.

Quertus

2016-12-06, 06:55 PM

(NB Jane is playing an RPG about RPG's. She is roleplaying Jack (if that is your real name, it's chance) who in the in-game RPGs plays characters called Quertus and posts with that name on message boards)
Bearing in mind that of course that Jack is Jane's character, and while the some posters and I might have some opinion as to how Jack would act and rule somethings as not being Jack like (and at extremes might be able to challenge it as bad role playing) and at other times have to face the fact that we're wrong as Jack's clearly done something different to what we would do if we were rp'ing him (or even living him).
But assuming she came, showed the posts she'd written on his behalf, and asked what things. Bearing in mind of course if that doesn't tie up with what Jane thinks about Jack, she is at liberty to say, "Jack's not like that". But I would guess that Jack values playing the same character (Quertus) and the idea of starting a game with a new one (and not being Quertus) is costly to Jack and as such Jack faces some penalty if he choses to do that (even if otherwise his character would be stronger for the game, or there is some other metagame reason for Jane to be pressured into being that. Of course there may be some occasion when the cost of not playing someone new is worse than the cost, or for some other reason Jane feels really strongly Jack will break a new mould, but they are exceptions. But that still leaves a lot for Jane to fill in about Jack.

Like Rumplestiltskin, I don't expect you to guess my name :smallwink: Although some of my friends even call me "Quertus".

And I've played... probably around 1000 characters by now. I lost count somewhere around 350 or so. Some were role-playing stretch goals I just couldn't reach. Some I didn't enjoy playing. Some were for one shots, or in systems I never played again. Many died.

But a few survived, and were enjoyable enough (and had enough story to tell / enough personality to explore / whatever) that I've kept playing them, as often as possible. Well, that, and the fact that a character with an established history and personality are easier and more fun for me to roleplay. "How will Quertus react to the volcano?" is a much more interesting question than, "how well this new guy with no established behaviors react?", at least as a member of the audience, IMO.

But trying to understand me, as opposed to just my posting style and opinions on role-playing, using just my posts as source material... Well, suffice it to say that would be beyond my skills to pull that off. :smalltongue:

But, other than the fact that Jack would not be me, what are you trying to get across?

jayem

2016-12-06, 07:20 PM

Like Rumplestiltskin, I don't expect you to guess my name :smallwink: Although some of my friends even call me "Quertus".

And I've played... probably around 1000 characters by now. I lost count somewhere around 350 or so. Some were role-playing stretch goals I just couldn't reach. Some I didn't enjoy playing. Some were for one shots, or in systems I never played again. Many died.

But a few survived, and were enjoyable enough (and had enough story to tell / enough personality to explore / whatever) that I've kept playing them, as often as possible. Well, that, and the fact that a character with an established history and personality are easier and more fun for me to roleplay. "How will Quertus react to the volcano?" is a much more interesting question than, "how well this new guy with no established behaviors react?", at least as a member of the audience, IMO.

But trying to understand me, as opposed to just my posting style and opinions on role-playing, using just my posts as source material... Well, suffice it to say that would be beyond my skills to pull that off. :smalltongue:

But, other than the fact that Jack would not be me, what are you trying to get across?

Partly that. The rules aren't to force Jane to play Jack how you or I see him in detail but to enable her to bring him to life and feel some of the pressures, even if in your case you are the inspiration of her character (so have a slightly privileged position).
Partly it was how you were coming across, it seemed to come up several times, it was an interesting feature that would make playing you different from me (lots of experience of the theory and passive culture, practical experience negligible).
Partly, to the extent that (again with it being a repeated theme) taking from there it seemed the pressures it would put on you in the context of this thread and issues involved were different. And beginning to wonder how that would actually work.

Cluedrew

2016-12-06, 07:37 PM

Why do posts in this thread have to be so long...

I'm not actually complaining, but after catching up from my last post I'm sure I'm sure I forgot something I wanted to talk about.

So there's an issue, not exactly of moving goalposts, but of there being lots of different goal posts set up. And I'm trying to hit them all.

So, who wants / needs role-playing rules? How will each potential audience react?

Here's the way I see it:
The pure war gamer crowd will view these rules as a bar to entry, and/or manipulate them for maximum benefit.
The freeform role-playing / acting crowd will feel constrained by these rules.
People learning how to roleplay may benefit from these rules, or may mistake them for the totality of role-playing. A tactical social manipulation war game is not role-playing. "Lawful good" is not a personality.
Bad roleplayers will likely be improved.
Some people want the rules to inform their role-playing; some people don't want the rules interfering with their role-playing.
Mixed groups (which some dislike) may be happy with the raised floor, or may have preferred when the war gamer was just not role-playing to them manipulating the system.
I will be frustrated when other gamers can't see how the system is interfering with or discouraging role-playing a character more complex than the system.
I will be frustrated by "double-whammy" systems, where, not only do I not get to work on my goals, I get punished for it.OK, so I am actually going to say I think you might be aiming at an impossible goal. I don't really think you can make a system that fits for all these people. Well you could, but you would but you would starting to run in the "lowest common denominator", they all might be able to play the came, but I don't think they will like it as much.

So you would probably be better off making different games for different people. I have different games for different moods even, before I moved I was the raining champion in a (very small) War Machine league, I have a huge history with free forum role-play and now most do pen & paper RPGs. (Of the given types of games.) And honestly I wouldn't go into War Machine looking for a role-play experience.

ComradeBear

2016-12-06, 09:28 PM

If the rewards are trivial you won't notice the ceiling or the floor. That's a crucial part of the floor and ceiling argument, the rewards have to be sufficient to motivate people into changing their behavior.

Now, say that BIG was the only source of XP in the game. Say that someone who regularly failed to meet one of those points might end up being half the level of the rest of the party, while someone who makes sure to check every one at every point is double the level of the rest of the party. Would you not see a ceiling there?

Also, you say you might just be really good at RP rules and author stance. Having to be in author stance is exactly what people mean by a ceiling; it is limiting our time in actor stance. If you are someone who is more comfortable in author stance of course you won't see a downside to a system that encourages you to be there.

I don't have to be not good at Actor Stance to be good at Author Stance. Nor limit my time in Actor Stance. If I switch into Author Stance at the start of my session long enough to pick good Belief, Instinct, and Goal, then I'm good to go from there.

Author Stance and Actor Stance aren't at odds. Nor do they compete. They just are what they are, and you use them when you need them. The idea that Actor Stance is anything other than "one of the stances" is not helpful to the point. Being good at Author Stance literally just means I'm able to say "ok, based on one or two meta factors I'm going to change this behavior, and here is the fictional reason my character has for doing so." And meta factors need not be rules or mechanics. They can also be social factors such as "Jim doesn't want PvP" so I have my character not make the choice to beat Jim's Character's skull in with a pipe, and then apply fictional reasoning to it after the decision is made. It can be things like "I want to pick up an extra bit of XP this session, but my belief won't really come into play as-is. How does Jethro feel about the current mission? I think he's feeling kinda brash and confident about it. So I'll change his belief to 'This plan is gonna go off without a hitch.' That's both accurate to his character, and relevant right now." Takes me 10 seconds between sessions, I get a little boost out of it, and everything works out great.

If BIG is the only XP source, you're blatantly using it incorrectly. And so yes, you'll run into problems. What you essentially asked me was an equivalent of "Yes, but imagine you use a hammer to put in a screw. Surely you can see how hammers limit your building options?"
That's not what the tool is for. So of course it will cause problems when you blatantly use it wrong. You also don't use a hammer to put in screws. Why are we talking about how good hammers are at putting in screws?
Why are we talking about BIG being used how it isn't supposed to be used as if that's a relevant point?
(It's not, is what I'm getting at.)

For the sake of argument, yes. You will implement a ceiling when you blatantly misuse BIG. That's entirely irrelevant to what I'm saying though, so it's a moot point.

And, even so, IF you insist on using it wrong, and IF someone is seriously lagging behind due to really having no idea how to word a good Belief, Instinct, and Goal (Something my 47 year old mom with 0 RPG experience was able to do successfully on her first try) then either the GM needs to help this person until they get it, or you need to stop using it wrong, or stop using it.

Systems aren't universal. Not everyone will comprehend all systems. Not everyone will enjoy all systems. Systems are not designed for everyone. That goal is as impossible as it is vague and stupid.

I have never had any RP system (even non-BIG ones) put a ceiling on my RP. I RP'd exactly like I would have without them and did just fine. Hell, in Apocalypse World you get XP by rolling highlighted stats. And I still did just fine even when my primary stat wasn't highlighted because my characters were not so one-dimensional as to only ever use one stat ever. (And levelling in Apocalypse World isn't as big an upgrade as in other systems. You get one new toy. And even when one person is way "higher" in level than the others, it has minimal influence on play. Source: Several campaigns of Apocalypse World both with and without vast "power gaps." (You'll notice I put those in quotes because they're trivially small.)

EDIT: sorry if I sound bitter or aggressive. I'm very tired.

Segev

2016-12-07, 12:34 AM

I am saying that he is using the argument that "The taco's aren't real so they can't tempt you," and I am using the counter argument "The speech is also not real, so the fear of failing at it should not stop you."

"The checkmate isn't real, so it can't tempt you. Therefore, you should role-play your knight's foolishness even if it costs your side the game of Chess."

You can't have it both ways: either the gameplay offers meaningful rewards that can influence your choices, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, do you really need the game's rules?

Talakeal

2016-12-07, 03:12 AM

"The checkmate isn't real, so it can't tempt you. Therefore, you should role-play your knight's foolishness even if it costs your side the game of Chess."

You can't have it both ways: either the gameplay offers meaningful rewards that can influence your choices, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, do you really need the game's rules?

I seriously don't even know how to begin deciphering this argument.

I already explained several posts up that the purpose of rules is to create a consistent framework for the world and to arbitrate disputes between players. I don't even know what "the gameplay offers meaningful rewards that can influence your choices" means or why that has anything to do with the game needing rules.

Can you really not comprehend someone having a goal in a game besides "winning"? Even if the game has no pre-set win conditions and it is up to the players to define what victory means to them?

Segev

2016-12-07, 12:09 PM

I seriously don't even know how to begin deciphering this argument.

(...)

Can you really not comprehend someone having a goal in a game besides "winning"? Even if the game has no pre-set win conditions and it is up to the players to define what victory means to them?That kind of is my point with the Chess analogy. If you feel that way, that's fine: you also should feel that the person who values more that his tale of courtly intrigue and battlefield tragedy play out "in character" is right to disregard the rules of Chess (or at least, to accept that the rules of Chess punish him for his choices) and play the game of Chess poorly in favor of playing his RP/storytelling well.

The point, therefore, that I'm trying to make is that if you are fine with the mechanics punishing you for your choices, that's fine. But it isn't "wrong" for somebody who wants a "role-playing game" to actually have the "game" complement the "role-playing" rather than encourage specific behaviors which may not be in character.

It's fine for Chess to punish role-playing in terms of Chess's mechanics and declared "good ends," because Chess isn't and doesn't claim to be an RPG. But if an RPG claims to want you to RP, claims to support you RPing, then having mechanics which make it "good" to make one choice and "bad" to make another, in terms of how well you'll be able to use the mechanics to your advantage in the future, and has absolutely no "help" to you in using the mechanics to your advantage now or later for the "bad" choice, is a game which is actively punishing you for RPing. Much the way Chess is actively punishing you for RPing with your "characters" on its checkered board.

Again: If you don't mind that Chess is punishing you, then it isn't a punishment and you're fine with that. But it doesn't change that, from the perspective of playing the game, you ARE being punished for certain moves.

I already explained several posts up that the purpose of rules is to create a consistent framework for the world and to arbitrate disputes between players. I don't even know what "the gameplay offers meaningful rewards that can influence your choices" means or why that has anything to do with the game needing rules.
When the consistent framework says that there is no benefit to "playing in character" and there is specific benefit to "breaking character," the punishment is that your choices do not accurately reflect the same outcomes in the game as they "should," if all you care about is "RPing as its own reward."

If the purpose of mechanics is to arbitrate disputes between players, then...how does that jive with your aversion to PvP being resolved by any means other than OOC discussion over what should be done? If using mechanics to arbitrate a dispute between players amounts to one player bullying another by forcing his way via his PC's superior mechanical advantages onto the other PC, how can mechanics ever arbitrate disputes between players in a constructive manner?

But we're moving away from my perspective on it. Let me try this one more time. Hopefully I can communicate the problem I, personally, as a player have that I feel this would help to solve.

Let me start off by saying that I probably am not nearly as good a role-player as you. I am an optimizer, and I like winning. I find not winning to be at best frustrating.

Let's say that I am going to play "Segev's Life, the RPG." I am my own player, and I have a good friend with a strong objective perspective on consequences running the game for me.

Segev is about 80 lbs. overweight, and could use a bit more definition to his muscles, and I'd honestly like to play him as being fit and attractive. I know that the mechanics of the game "Segev's Life, the RPG" state that my PC's weight is determined by a combination of factors, most notably his caloric intake. His muscle definition is controlled by how much he exercises (with various mechanics for diminishing returns and refractory periods on muscle-building, but I understand the system well enough to know how to at least get a significant improvement even if I make mistakes in the algorithm I choose to follow).

IC, Segev, my PC, finds exercise to be a miserable experience, and has a procrastination tendency on anything he doesn't like, plus a schedule that allows him to say, "oops, I procrastinated too long; guess I can't exercise today." On the other hand, if he goes to bed a bit earlier (cutting out some anime watching late at night) and gets up religiously on time, he can get exercise in just fine.

He also gets hungry and craves sweets, particularly soda. He prefers pizza and burgers to vegetables and chicken-without-bread. And his appetite is such that he's most comfortable with a caloric intake that maintains his current weight. When hungry, he's quite grumpy and may get headaches which are most easily handled by snacking or soda intake (possibly due to a mild caffeine addiction).

The game, however, doesn't model hunger beyond "if you go too long you start starving," and only models the discomforts of exercise with "exhaustion" rules, which kick in well past the point at which Segev's proper RP would indicate discomfort or lack of desire to even start his routine.

As Segev's player, because my goals (and Segev's, long-term) are to become fit and attractive (in his and my own opinion), I can say that he musters the willpower each and every day to go to bed on time, get up on time, quit drinking soda and having desserts, and eat healthy foods that have maximum "muscle gain" and minimum "caloric intake" to tailor his caloric intake to the number I know, from calculating the game's mechanics, will lead to the weight I want him to have.

Each time the temptation arises, I can evaluate how much progress he's made towards his goals, and simply say "no." I can do this every time, or I can make a nod towards "good RP" and, every couple of months, allow one indulgence, knowing that the points in the wrong direction won't hurt me much. Especially if I engage in an extra 3 hours of exercise instead of hanging out with friends on that next weekend.

As Segev's player, I can do all of this, because I don't actually feel his hunger. I am not suffering the mild nausea associated with exercise. I don't endure his headache. I can RP his grumpiness at hunger, or I can say "but he recognizes where it's coming from and forces himself to act wisely and not take it out on anybody." Because I'm in total control of his behavior. I can refuse to drink any soda, eat any dessert. I can say that he eats nothing but chicken and vegetables and fish, eats specifically portioned amounts, and never chooses to do anything that undermines his goal.

Because I don't suffer any of the unpleasantness, I can arbitrarily say Segev has iron willpower and never screws up.

Since my goal (and Segev's) is to achieve the end results the mechanics offer me if I do this, I am encouraged to do so. Any effort to play Segev's temptations as actually tempting will be nothing but punished by the game's mechanics. I will never enjoy the ice cream bar Segev eats, nor the late-night anime he enjoys while eating it. I will never enjoy the extra hour he spends in bed rather than exercising the next morning, nor suffer the tiredness he feels if he forces himself to get up anyway. There is no incentive to ME beyond "I want to play Segev faithfully" (despite the fact that I don't want Segev to be the overweight, unattractive guy he starts out as - think of it as not wanting your PC to be level 1, if it helps, and knowing that making "good RP, but bad mechanical" choices will lead to you dying and suffering level losses that slow your progression towards the level 13 you have as your goal) to actually DO the "bad" choices.

Therefore, absent the onus of "being a bad RPer," there is no reason for me to give more than lip service to Segev having aught but the most iron of wills when it comes to his new fitness regimen. In fact, the game system is punishing me for any "Segev's will was weaker than his hunger or laziness" choices. So he'll never, under my control, behave with a weak will.

I really am about 70 or 80 lbs. heavier than I should be, and I have been working on developing exercise habits that involve working out 3x per week. I honestly need to work up to more than that if I'm going to do anything appreciable in terms of looking better, but for now I'm just trying to get to the point where exercise isn't miserable.

I stay up late watching shows with a friend over Skype, because we enjoy it and it's nice to hang out with people even if it's online. I should probably go to bed about 30-60 min. earlier, but that would mean cutting this out entirely due to our mutual schedules. Plus, going to bed ironically requires overcoming a certain amount of laziness to go through the ablutions to get up from my desk and go get ready etc. etc.

Getting up early is easier for me than for some, but still is a chore when I know I have to do stuff I don't want to with the morning/day. Like exercise. And exercise is a miserable experience for me. I listen to Rush Limbaugh's podcast while doing it, which helps distract me from it, but I still take long pauses between exercises because I'm breathing heavily and dreading the next one. I even loathe the cool-down stretching, and have to remind myself that the sore muscles from NOT doing that will be really, really worse. And I still feel that temptation strongly, even knowing that, and HAVE skipped it once or twice (happily in that moment, really regretting it later).

And I can't stand the kinds of foods that I would have to eat to "eat healthy." Cutting back on calories is also hard; I like soda way more than I should, and in general to feel sated I need to eat about as much as I tend to. Cutting back makes me feel hungry, which leads to low blood sugar headaches and irritability (I expect this would change if I got my body used to the lower intake, but I haven't yet managed to cut back religiously enough), and spikes the temptation to eat SOMETHING to the point that I often give in.

Were I a character in an RPG with the level of "some mechanics support my long-term goals, but there aren't any which support the countervailing temptations" that you're saying is not only all that you need, but all that anybody should need, Talekeal, I-as-my-player would not be making the choices I-as-myself-IRL make. He would give lip service to my pains and then say "but Segev powers through it."

Any time I-as-my-player made a choice to "RP" my suffering by acknowledging that I-as-my-character would give in to temptation and have a soda or a dessert, or would sleep in rather than exercise, the game would punish both of us by delaying (or even stalling, depending how often I-as-my-player was faithful to me-as-my-character's temptations' efficacy) my achievement of my fitness goals. It would, however, NOT punish me-as-my-player for refusing the temptations, while it would still punish me-as-my-character for staying steadfast against the pains ans sufferings associated with exercising and "eating right." I-as-my-player only have to give lip service to this, rather than endure it.

This difference in rewards and punishments for me-as-my-player vs. me-as-my-character leads to me-as-my-player making much wiser decisions than I-as-my-character really do IRL.

It is this difference I am trying to remove, rendering the temptations and pains of the "poor" choices that nevertheless get me, IRL, to do things that, long-term, don't lead to my personal goals as real to my player as they are to me as a character.

Because I recognize that my own behavior would be much different if I ran my life the way I run a PC's in a system where I, the player, don't have to endure the sufferings and can't enjoy the pleasures with which my PC is tempted to make long-term-goal-damaging decisions, I know that I do not make the same choices as a disconnected player as my PC probably would.

I want mechanics to help me better evaluate what my character is really feeling. I want the game not to punish me for making the "wrong" game decision that's the "right" RP decision. Or, at least, I want both choices to have the right amount of trade-offs: short-term gain or loss (pleasure or pain) vs. long term goal achievement (or lack thereof).

The things we currently have only have rules for achieving or not achieving these longer-term goals. The reasons to consider doing things which would jeopardize these goals have no impetus to the player. So it's easy for the player to say, "Nah," to them. Or even "why would I?"

Were the dispassionate me that is sitting here, not hungry, not in the middle of a miserable bout of exercise, to make a determined decision that the me who is going to go through the day and the dietary adjustments and exercise routines must follow and lost his ability to refuse to do, my behavior would be very different than it likely is throughout the day.

Even knowing I shouldn't, I am likely to go get a soda with lunch in about 30 minutes, because I want to. I'll enjoy the taste, and the sugar spike, and the caffeine. Were I a dispassionate player, I'd say "no, Segev can just drink water," because as a player I couldn't taste the difference and there's no mechanical difference EXCEPT that the soda makes me less able to meet my long-term goals.

So the purpose of mechanics like this, while perhaps not to model this specific example (because let's be honest, nobody really wants to RP a fitness regimen in their characters; they're doing more exciting things), is to model these kinds of pressures on the character in a way that makes it tangible, palpable to the player.

So that the player really does see the same (relative) scale of temptation between the goals the character has.

Put one final way: When I RP, I try to put myself in my PC's shoes. I don't really try to ask "what would [PC] do?" so much as "As PC, what do I want to do?" And when the game mechanics offer me rewards that I-as-the-PC want on the one hand, and nothing (or punishments) on the other, it's a lot harder for me-as-PC to honestly evaluate the intangible temptations that I am not ABLE to experience even if my PC theoretically is. My goals and my PCs are aligned; you seem to be saying that your goals are not aligned with the PC's; instead, your goals are to make your PC act "as he really would," regardless of his goals.