It's not my fault, I am just doing what the dice say my character would do! [Archive] - Page 3

Quertus

2016-12-07, 04:21 PM

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:

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.

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.

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... 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.^^

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.

"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?

I have stated that, for myself, it is a playstyle preference. I don't want combat resolved person to person with padded weapons, or with realistic one-shot-kills rules - I prefer to roll dice with a (medium sized?) pad of HP, to give combatants time to realize that they are overmatched & surrender / retreat, or to try other combat options*. I prefer to just roleplay my character, without the system getting in the way. I care slightly if the people I'm having with are role-playing, but care much more whether they are having fun. I prefer etc etc etc.

This comes, at least in part, from what I want out of gaming. I enjoy "Undead Battletech", I enjoy role-playing, I enjoy puzzles, I enjoy rolling dice, etc etc.

If you take role-playing, and reduce it down to a tactical minigame of measuring relative bonuses & penalties instead of just being in tune with your character, even if it produces the same results, it won't scratch the same itch.

If you want to try to make a RP system I'll enjoy, that's tough, because it also has to be one all the various people in my gaming groups will enjoy, because I value their happiness more than the quality of their role-playing.

People saying that making a system that will please everyone is impossible... well, they're probably right. This goes along with my contention that role-playing issues should be solved at the group level, not the system level.

The idea that all games are inherently niche seems demonstrably false. Old-school D&D had huge market penetration, and make believe has it beat by orders of magnitude. To throw around some arbitrary numbers, I don't want to shell out $50 for something that has a 1% chance of being something I'll enjoy.

So, if we want to make a set of RP / social combat / whatever "BIG" is rules, we should, IMO, create them to solve a specific problem, for a specific group. That many of these rules may be reusable (and hopefully by more than my stated 1% of the population) should be viewed as an added bonus.

* "I shoot it with Mr Flame Thrower. It's immune? It's turn. It kills me." - what fun is that? There's no opportunity for the character to learn anything. You can build player skills that way, but it's really hard to build character skills under such a system. And I've moved past wanting or needing the game to have training wheels to teach me the player most things - theme is an exception.

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.

Oh, I wasn't talking about any scenario where there is some impetus for you to agree, such as starving on an island, merely an out of the blue "do X" request.

And I have no personal principle against cannibalism, so I already know what I'd do in the starvation scenario.

For things where I do have a principle... in game terms, I recover willpower, get a morale bonus to all rolls, and get several other benefits every time I follow my principles. So I've got a good idea how I'll respond, even on my as yet untested principles. It's when those principles come into conflict that things get... interesting.

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.

Is it? I wasn't aware that's what I meant. I'll have to think about that one.

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?

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.

First off, apologies for being unclear and absent minded. I know it can make discussions with me frustrating at times.

CB, AFAICT, the only part of your response that is relevant to, well, at least to what I'm aware that I'm trying to say about a ceiling, is the part you say is irrelevant.

Whether you have to switch stances or not is an interesting additional potential problem, but has nothing to do with whether or not the system is rewarding you for sacrificing correct role-playing choices in order to get a cookie.

If I picked "children are precious" as my belief for the session, then discover Tuscan Raiders have killed my mom, I'll lose out on my cookie when my character flips out, and I chose to murder the entire village, every man woman and child connected to my personal apocalypse.

That's the type of ceiling I'm trying to discuss, where you have to choose between "correct role-playing" and "get cookie".

At least I think it is. Maybe I've forgotten what I'm talking about again.

ComradeBear

2016-12-07, 05:12 PM

First off, apologies for being unclear and absent minded. I know it can make discussions with me frustrating at times.

I wasn't frustrated with you or anyone. Just got to the end of a long day and was tired.

CB, AFAICT, the only part of your response that is relevant to, well, at least to what I'm aware that I'm trying to say about a ceiling, is the part you say is irrelevant.

Whether you have to switch stances or not is an interesting additional potential problem, but has nothing to do with whether or not the system is rewarding you for sacrificing correct role-playing choices in order to get a cookie.

If I picked "children are precious" as my belief for the session, then discover Tuscan Raiders have killed my mom, I'll lose out on my cookie when my character flips out, and I chose to murder the entire village, every man woman and child connected to my personal apocalypse.

That's the type of ceiling I'm trying to discuss, where you have to choose between "correct role-playing" and "get cookie".

At least I think it is. Maybe I've forgotten what I'm talking about again.

You're forgetting one of my biggest things I said before:
This isn't your main XP source. It's a drop in the bucket that maaaaybe will tip you just over the levelling cap if youre really, really close but not quite there. Otherwise it's not gonna do much.

Your belief would be exactly one way to get XP out of 3. You'll usually get 2/3, and getting 1/3 for one session isnt going to make a huge impact. Meanwhile, acting directly contrary to your stated belief adds power to what just happened. We have context for how outside of normal that behavior was. You lose a tiny pip of XP that's gonna do about as much to fill up your levelling meter as an extra cup of water will help fill your bathtub. It's nice, but not needed. It's an after-reward for what you're already doing. You don't NEED that XP. It's the XP equivalent of "hey, thanks for RPing" at most and at its worst its "Wow. That really gave context to your character flying off the handle" or "Your character's beliefs, instincts, and goals dont match their behaviors AT ALL. Let's reword some of those so you can get those extra bits."

The end.

Edit:
I'm also gonna re-point out that a significant number of the systems I've mentioned are Free, or under $10. The idea that you have to invest 50 bucks for any more specific system is just not true for most of these.
Dungeon World is 10 bucks.
Apocalypse World is 20 bucks if you really want the book. The PDF edition with more stuff in it is 10-15 bucks.
Stars Without Number is free.
B.I.G. is free. It's not even a system. It's a thing you add to systems that lack it.
FATE is free.
Most PbtA hacks are free, too. Only a spare few cost anything and usually it's 10 bucks.
The only niche system that costs much that I can think of is the physical editon of Fall of Magic, at about 60 bucks, but it comes with a silk-screened scroll, four metal coins, a deck of cards, and all the other trappings.
But the digital edition is like 20 bucks. *shrug*

Niche systems also tend to be cheap systems.

Floret

2016-12-07, 08:09 PM

I have stated that, for myself, it is a playstyle preference. I don't want combat resolved person to person with padded weapons, or with realistic one-shot-kills rules - I prefer to roll dice with a (medium sized?) pad of HP, to give combatants time to realize that they are overmatched & surrender / retreat, or to try other combat options*. I prefer to just roleplay my character, without the system getting in the way. I care slightly if the people I'm having with are role-playing, but care much more whether they are having fun. I prefer etc etc etc.

This comes, at least in part, from what I want out of gaming. I enjoy "Undead Battletech", I enjoy role-playing, I enjoy puzzles, I enjoy rolling dice, etc etc.
If you take role-playing, and reduce it down to a tactical minigame of measuring relative bonuses & penalties instead of just being in tune with your character, even if it produces the same results, it won't scratch the same itch.
If you want to try to make a RP system I'll enjoy, that's tough, because it also has to be one all the various people in my gaming groups will enjoy, because I value their happiness more than the quality of their role-playing.

People saying that making a system that will please everyone is impossible... well, they're probably right. This goes along with my contention that role-playing issues should be solved at the group level, not the system level.
The idea that all games are inherently niche seems demonstrably false. Old-school D&D had huge market penetration, and make believe has it beat by orders of magnitude. To throw around some arbitrary numbers, I don't want to shell out $50 for something that has a 1% chance of being something I'll enjoy.
So, if we want to make a set of RP / social combat / whatever "BIG" is rules, we should, IMO, create them to solve a specific problem, for a specific group. That many of these rules may be reusable (and hopefully by more than my stated 1% of the population) should be viewed as an added bonus.

Sure. Style preference. I don't like additive dice systems (Diceroll+X, whatever the X is.) FATE manages to hit this in pretty much the only zone where I am ready to deal with it, but other then that... So what you are saying, in essence, is that you want to have both experiences, being in tune with a character, and having some dicerolling, at the same time.
That's perfectly fine! I don't think generally RP systems would be for you then, though. Just as with me and additive dice, there might just come along a system that does so many other things great and hits the one sweetspot - or there might not. Especially if you play in heavily mixed groups and don't want to influence anyones playstyle.
And, no. Just because a system pleasing everyone is impossible, relegating things to group level instead of system level can't be the answer. Such groups as yours are quite rare in my experience, and while I am happy that it works out for you, I know the majority of people I know wouldn't wanna deal with that. And, yes, systems can have quite some market penetration. There is absoultely ways to design systems that they appeal to more people, and ways that appear to smaller markets. But this is not only about being actually more inclusive, but also simply about market penetration giving immense visibilty, and DnD being somewhat synonymous with TRPGs, for example. If that is what you hear of? Surely you're gonna start with that. No matter if what you want might be better served with another system.
The point of the actual price has been adressed before me, but maybe as an additional perspective: If only 1% of people play it, but for them it is the best experience ever... would that not be worth it?
And I don't think that looking at RP rules as "solving a problem" is the right way of looking at things, and far from it. Just as all rules, I find they should be used to deliver a certain experience. To scratch a certain itch, as you put it. There is not inherently a problem there to solve. Things work fine without them, quite evidently. (At least for me, Segev at least does want to adress a problem with them. Which is valid, except not entirely shared by me as in practice, I seem to work much closer to Talakeal or Quertus in a "just do it for the RP, and rules and benefits be damned" kind of way.)
But things could work differently WITH them. And deliver experiences otherwise impossible to deliver. Scratch other itches. And that is where I want them.
As for social rules...

Oh, I wasn't talking about any scenario where there is some impetus for you to agree, such as starving on an island, merely an out of the blue "do X" request.

And I have no personal principle against cannibalism, so I already know what I'd do in the starvation scenario.

For things where I do have a principle... in game terms, I recover willpower, get a morale bonus to all rolls, and get several other benefits every time I follow my principles. So I've got a good idea how I'll respond, even on my as yet untested principles. It's when those principles come into conflict that things get... interesting.

Then I don't know what your point is. No, by just saying "yaknow, this might be a fun idea" you generally can't get people to commit extreme actions. That is not normal. Extreme actions require extreme situations to be taken, or people THINKING they are in extreme situations - quite a lot of reframing, potentially gaslighting, or other "fun" stuff like that.
But that is exactly why I want detailed social systems. Because I don't wanna gaslight my players. I wanna gaslight their characters, maybe. If I'm feeling evil. Move their opinions bit by bit, get them weak, reframe the situation... I want social mechanics to be able to portray the process, with all added difficulty and some detail, to no longer have to manipulate my players to get their characters to do things.
Because manipulating people on that level is just wrong. But manipulating fictional people, aka. player characters? Great! Playing evil people willing and capable of it is fun! I just don't wanna gaslight my players to get their characters affected.

CB, AFAICT, the only part of your response that is relevant to, well, at least to what I'm aware that I'm trying to say about a ceiling, is the part you say is irrelevant.

Whether you have to switch stances or not is an interesting additional potential problem, but has nothing to do with whether or not the system is rewarding you for sacrificing correct role-playing choices in order to get a cookie.
If I picked "children are precious" as my belief for the session, then discover Tuscan Raiders have killed my mom, I'll lose out on my cookie when my character flips out, and I chose to murder the entire village, every man woman and child connected to my personal apocalypse.
That's the type of ceiling I'm trying to discuss, where you have to choose between "correct role-playing" and "get cookie".

At least I think it is. Maybe I've forgotten what I'm talking about again.

No. Systems being possible to misuse is, in fact, entirely irrelevant to the discussion about how they should be done. If every system, no matter what it does, and if it deals with RP or not, can be misused (Which they can) then it is meaningless to point out that one specific one can. And that misusing systems can have unintended consequences... well, duh. And that is the only thing that was called irrelevant.
And to be honest? In the situation you describe? No, that is not a ceiling. That is you blatantly breaking character. If your character truly believes children are precious, and then goes on to murder some of them over some adults having killed his mom, then you either chose a belief that fit not at all to your character, or your rage actually broke character. "Killing everyone in sight of the same race as the murderers" is NOT a natural reaction to realising your mom has been murdered. (It was, very much, an example of life not being precious unless directly connected to the character, and emotions not being in check in its original incarnation.) Unless your character is emotionally unstable, and doesn't generally regard life highly - which would directly go against the chosen belief.

And, again, what about a system that does not have permanent rewards for RP, but temporary bonuses for rolls, as I am suggesting to give out? (I really dislike people getting different amounts of XP. Heck, I hand out the same amount to people whose characters were absent due to the player not being able to attend. Any "XP for good RP system" I stay away from.) Your character being left behind if not played according to the preselected stats would no longer be an argument. How does this produce a ceiling?

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.

Cluedrew

2016-12-07, 08:45 PM

(At least for me, Segev at least does want to adress a problem with them. Which is valid, except not entirely shared by me as in practice, I seem to work much closer to Talakeal or Quertus in a "just do it for the RP, and rules and benefits be damned" kind of way.)Personally, I'm not as interested as character personality rules as motivation (some interest yes), but my main thing I want to look into is personality rules as tools. When you get down to it is not so different from combat abilities or spell casting, except it stems from who the character is instead of what.

Talakeal

2016-12-07, 11:10 PM

Is it? I wasn't aware that's what I meant. I'll have to think about that one.

It wasn't? Please explain.

My understanding of author stance is you do what the game rewards and then retroactively come up with a justification for why the character would have done it. Actor stance is where you think up what the character would do and then act accordingly.

My whole understanding of the "ceiling" is that it gives a "cookie" for certain behavior, and if the cookie is important enough people will act in such a way that gets them said cookie. If that is not how the character would have acted normally then they have to retroactively justify their character's behavior in a way that warrants earning a cookie.

No. Systems being possible to misuse is, in fact, entirely irrelevant to the discussion about how they should be done. If every system, no matter what it does, and if it deals with RP or not, can be misused (Which they can) then it is meaningless to point out that one specific one can. And that misusing systems can have unintended consequences... well, duh. And that is the only thing that was called irrelevant.

While this is true, there are certainly degrees. 4E D&D is a heck of a lot harder to exploit than Mutants and Masterminds for example.

IMO a good system (at least one that even attempts to be "gamist") should try and minimize how easy it is to exploit and save the players from having to agree upon "unwritten rules" and stumbling about trying to figure out where the "line" is.

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.)

Neither have I, but I have certainly played games that punished you rather severely; for example I have played a fallen paladin in 3.5 D&D, I don't think that is something most people would do. But I am a very strong character actor / simulationist, and I routinely take actions that put me at a huge mechanical disadvantage for RP reasons, hence why I created the thread.

We started playing The Riddle of Steel Once, a game where RP and XP are directly linked and making in character decisions put me significantly behind in advancement, I stopped playing because my perfectionist side and my character actor side where constantly at war and the game just wasn't fun as a result.

It looked like Scion was going to be even worse, actively taking away control of my character if I didn't play the way the game thought I should, but (perhaps fortunately) I left that group for unrelated reasons so I don't know if it panned out.

Also, on the subject of belief and XP; if it is only giving you a piddly amount of XP then it really isn't worth discussing. A key element of this whole discussion is that the rewards / punishments have to be significant enough to influence player behavior. If it is just a little bit of extra back-patting at the end of the session it isn't really what I am talking about.

Segev

2016-12-08, 12:07 AM

I have certainly played games that punished you rather severely; for example I have played a fallen paladin in 3.5 D&D, I don't think that is something most people would do. But I am a very strong character actor / simulationist, and I routinely take actions that put me at a huge mechanical disadvantage for RP reasons, hence why I created the thread.

But... if the game CAN'T punish you, because you're not in it to "win," why do you care about the mechanical disadvantages to playing a fallen paladin, when you got the rewards you were seeking: playing the paladin the way you feel he would act?

And, even if you, yourself, were fine with it and didn't feel punished, you acknowledge here that others might feel that way. Why would they, if the mechanics can't be punishing and discourage RP by virtue of having rewards in the form of success at other goals for making choices which might be out of character, but where there's no reward in the mechanics for the in character choice?

Talakeal

2016-12-08, 12:55 AM

But... if the game CAN'T punish you, because you're not in it to "win," why do you care about the mechanical disadvantages to playing a fallen paladin, when you got the rewards you were seeking: playing the paladin the way you feel he would act?

And, even if you, yourself, were fine with it and didn't feel punished, you acknowledge here that others might feel that way. Why would they, if the mechanics can't be punishing and discourage RP by virtue of having rewards in the form of success at other goals for making choices which might be out of character, but where there's no reward in the mechanics for the in character choice?

Segev, I think you need to take a step back and have a deep breath. You are starting to wander into hyperbolic straw-man territory, you know that isn't what I meant. I already agreed with you that it would be nice if there were mechanical rewards for sacrifices made for RP reasons and that I dislike systems that punish you for RP, so clearly I understand the concepts of punishing an RPG player and of crunch vs. fluff.

Let me try and restate my point more clearly:

1: RPGs do not have predefined goals or win conditions. You, as a player, need to figure out what motivates your character and what in character goals they have, the rules don't define them for you. Now, of course, it is expected that you will have some vested interest in helping the rest of the PCs with their goals and with resolving whatever scenarios the DM puts before you, but those are not hard win / loss conditions coded into the game.

2: As a player, you do not personally feel any of the physical sensations your character does. You also do not feel the full range of emotions your character does. You don't suffer their pain, or thirst, or hunger, or cold, or cravings for their vices. But this cuts both ways, you don't feel the pleasures of their triumphs, but you also don't feel the pain of their failures.

3: Often times you will have both short term goals and long term goals, or conflicting goals. I think this is where we disagree, you want a "cookie" for goals which you deem to be of lesser important (or more temporary) if they could potentially cost you success in goals which you consider to be more important (or longer lasting). And this isn't wrong, I feel like mechanics like inspiration in 5E are perfectly fine for representing immediate gratification at the cost of long term advancement.

My real point though, is that you aren't "failing" just because you chose to pursue a short term goal. If I am playing a bard whose goal is to sleep with as many women as possible, and I choose to sleep with a woman who might give me the clap (and thus hurt my chances in the future) I am accomplishing a short term goal, just because I am potentially risking a larger payout (of the same type mind you) in the long run doesn't (IMO) mean that I haven't accomplished anything. Likewise if I am playing a heroic paladin whose goal is to free the slaves of the dark lord and I risk my life saving a single captive from a dungeon, even though I know my death will mean that hundreds more will remain in chains, doesn't mean that I haven't accomplished anything (or died trying).

Now, what I think, and forgive me if I am wrong or offend you, is that you place a higher priority on dice rolls than pure RP and / or you place a higher value on "defeating the bad guys" vs. more personal goals. Which is fine, that is just a different priority than I (typically) have.

4: Making someone play a weaker character for meta-game reasons (or the whims of incomprehensible gods if you want to keep it IC) is punishing to both the character and the player. It is making it harder for the character to accomplish all (or nearly all) of their goals, and it ruins the sense of fairness. This isn't simulation or RP, this is bull-crap.
But this might just be my particular hang-up, having everyone on the same playing field and having a character who looks good on paper are very important to me as I am both competitive and a perfectionist, this might not be the same motivation as everyone else.

Lorsa

2016-12-08, 02:07 AM

I have been skimming through this awesomely long thread, and it has some really interesting discussion in it. I wish I would've had the time to fully be part of it.

Before I share some of my thoughts, I just have to ask Quertus how 70-80 lbs counts as overweight for anyone above the age of 10? Seems like your weight problem is rather being underweight.

As for the topic of the thread; I've never really enjoyed mechanically enforced behavior either. I am not sure why really, but I think it has to do with the fact that I don't like GMs enforcing behavior either. When I play a character, I want to be free to portray it as I see fit. It is possible that I might be more inclined towards such a game if it was heavily embedded in the theme (which I know is the case for some games), or if the mechanics actually simulated the real emotional inner workings better. Not sure.

For the case of these "roleplay enhancing mechanics" which generates rewards for acting in a certain way; I've never really been a fan of those either. I've been thinking about why, since I really do like to roleplay a character, so it seems I would like them. Unfortunately, they never really worked out for me.

Part of the reason is that I have trouble internalizing them on a verisimilitude level. If the mechanic rewards my character for behavior that is in accordance with the stated personality traits and also puts the character into some form of trouble because of it, I have to somehow figure out what this means for the world. It means people would continuously try to put themselves into bad situations, as it is beneficial to them. There would be little imperative to "work on your problems". If you're an alcoholic, you better drink at your mother's funeral because while it does create a problematic situation, it is somehow good for your character (i.e. you will be rewarded).

This isn't really how any world works that I've wanted to simulate. Again, if the theme really was geared towards this kind of reality, and the mechanics simply reflected some metaphysical law that said it's really good to do bad things then sure, go ahead. For the most part, it just really seems like an out of place mechanic.

The world usually doesn't give you cookies for indulging in your bad behaviors. So why should a roleplaying game?

I think, however, that the standard way I like to roleplay is to make sure not to penalize behaving according to your character's personality. Most games give you experience for adventuring, or completing quests or whatever. It doesn't state you need to do this in any particular manner. In fact, most of the time, you don't even need to be successful. Simply doing things gives you XP. So the character gets rewarding for experiencing [whatever] with enhanced skills, and the player gets rewarded with fun for playing their characters.

Rewarding the character for player behavior seems strange to me. Why give cookies to the character when the player does something right? Isn't it better to give, you know, ACTUAL cookies to the player for playing "right"?

DracoknightZero

2016-12-08, 04:09 AM

The only system i can think of where you have enforced "character personalities" that put someone in trouble and is fun at doing so, would be: http://imgur.com/a/l51P3#0

Otherwise i feel the "enforced" roleplaying is actually counter productive as it useally clash either with mechanics, players, gm or even the situation. At least in my experience forced RP rarely add anything to the game other than just stiff, unnatural or even just awkward performances that players normally wont enjoy.

I think it was a Whitewolf game i tried back in the days where you get extra "points" to do stuff if you roleplay your "seven deadly sins" well, the problem is when theres a clash between what is "good enough" in your attempt to play to that. So then it becomes a mechanical matter how good your RP must be to do what you want to do. In my opinion that is destructive rather than constructive addition to a tabletop.

georgie_leech

2016-12-08, 09:20 AM

Before I share some of my thoughts, I just have to ask Quertus how 70-80 lbs counts as overweight for anyone above the age of 10? Seems like your weight problem is rather being underweight.

Meaning, if the healthy weight for them was 100 lbs, they weigh 170-180.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-08, 09:33 AM

I have been skimming through this awesomely long thread, and it has some really interesting discussion in it. I wish I would've had the time to fully be part of it.

As for the topic of the thread; I've never really enjoyed mechanically enforced behavior either. I am not sure why really, but I think it has to do with the fact that I don't like GMs enforcing behavior either. When I play a character, I want to be free to portray it as I see fit. It is possible that I might be more inclined towards such a game if it was heavily embedded in the theme (which I know is the case for some games), or if the mechanics actually simulated the real emotional inner workings better. Not sure.

For the case of these "roleplay enhancing mechanics" which generates rewards for acting in a certain way; I've never really been a fan of those either. I've been thinking about why, since I really do like to roleplay a character, so it seems I would like them. Unfortunately, they never really worked out for me.

Part of the reason is that I have trouble internalizing them on a verisimilitude level. If the mechanic rewards my character for behavior that is in accordance with the stated personality traits and also puts the character into some form of trouble because of it, I have to somehow figure out what this means for the world. It means people would continuously try to put themselves into bad situations, as it is beneficial to them. There would be little imperative to "work on your problems". If you're an alcoholic, you better drink at your mother's funeral because while it does create a problematic situation, it is somehow good for your character (i.e. you will be rewarded).

This isn't really how any world works that I've wanted to simulate. Again, if the theme really was geared towards this kind of reality, and the mechanics simply reflected some metaphysical law that said it's really good to do bad things then sure, go ahead. For the most part, it just really seems like an out of place mechanic.

The world usually doesn't give you cookies for indulging in your bad behaviors. So why should a roleplaying game?

Agreed. I'm not sure how cold rational mechanical rewards are supposed to help a player feel their character's temptation, when people who do things like drink too much at a party, or eat 10 cookies instead of 1, or whatever, don't do so for cold rational mechanical reasons. Rather, they know (on some level) that nothing good is going to come from it, and they do it anyway, and the drive to do so comes from a deep and utterly irrational place.

And yeah, I don't like mechanics, GMs, or other players, telling me what they think my character would do.

georgie_leech

2016-12-08, 09:37 AM

I'm not sure how cold rational mechanical rewards are supposed to help a player feel their character's temptation, when people who do things like drink too much at a party, or eat 10 cookies instead of 1, or whatever, don't do so for cold rational mechanical reasons. Rather, they know (on some level) that nothing good is going to come from it, and they do it anyway, and the drive to do so comes from a deep and utterly irrational place.

The rationale is that for such irrational urges the player isn't actually feeling, the Morales points or whatever act as a stand in. That is, there's a reason for the player to give in to these urges they aren't feeling.

Segev

2016-12-08, 11:55 AM

Segev, I think you need to take a step back and have a deep breath. You are starting to wander into hyperbolic straw-man territory, you know that isn't what I meant. I already agreed with you that it would be nice if there were mechanical rewards for sacrifices made for RP reasons and that I dislike systems that punish you for RP, so clearly I understand the concepts of punishing an RPG player and of crunch vs. fluff.I must have missed this, somewhere, and for that I apologize.

1: RPGs do not have predefined goals or win conditions. You, as a player, need to figure out what motivates your character and what in character goals they have, the rules don't define them for you. Now, of course, it is expected that you will have some vested interest in helping the rest of the PCs with their goals and with resolving whatever scenarios the DM puts before you, but those are not hard win / loss conditions coded into the game.The thing, though, is that "ability to better succeed at what I want to have my character do" is a mechanical fact. So if I want, say, to be better able to get soldiers onto a battlefield, I need Armus to be the Minister of War, and that's the position his speech is running for. If I take "in character" actions which don't yield, to me, more satisfaction than I, the player, would get from Armus having the Minister of War position, then I am punished by the game for taking actions which lessen my chances of gaining that position for Armus.

Armus experiences the temptations of those tacos in the moment and weighs the chances of a gassy interruption to his speech causing "real" harm to his chances vs. a very visceral desire. I experience only a vague "well, am I being a bad RPer if I say Armus powers through his hunger and desire for tacos?" and am weighing that against the Constitution check my DM is likely to force, and the -2 circumstance penalty to my speech-making roll(s) if I fail said Constitution check, and whether the chance at a -2 penalty to those rolls is worth the vague sense that I'm "a good RPer" for something that has no chance of a positive impact on something I will experience the full pleasure of.

2: As a player, you do not personally feel any of the physical sensations your character does. You also do not feel the full range of emotions your character does. You don't suffer their pain, or thirst, or hunger, or cold, or cravings for their vices. But this cuts both ways, you don't feel the pleasures of their triumphs, but you also don't feel the pain of their failures.See, here, I disagree. While I may not get the "full measure" of their triumphs, there are triumphs which I will feel very strongly, because I will get to exult in them and take advantage of them as my character...and there are visceral pleasures and physical sensations which I will feel far less strongly because their intensity is what normally "makes up" for their fleeting nature. And I won't get that intensity of enjoyment (nor a surcease from that intensity of discomfort...since I am not experiencing that discomfort, myself).

3: Often times you will have both short term goals and long term goals, or conflicting goals. I think this is where we disagree, you want a "cookie" for goals which you deem to be of lesser important (or more temporary) if they could potentially cost you success in goals which you consider to be more important (or longer lasting). And this isn't wrong, I feel like mechanics like inspiration in 5E are perfectly fine for representing immediate gratification at the cost of long term advancement.Inspiration is way, way too weak a reward for the kind of thing I'm talking about. Generally speaking, I've only seen it kick in the same way I complained about "hero points" earlier in the thread: "do this and get a re-roll that you can only use this session, and it's likely to take multiple rolls, at least one of which you'll have to use this on, to even recover the IMMEDIATE losses you suffer for that bad but in-character decision."

It also falls into the same "bigger spider" problem as other "one-off" powers (of which once per day abilities tend to be practically the same sort): "I don't know that I dare use this resource, because I might need it later, and I can't get more of it reliably if I do use it."

Hence "morale points" being a pool that can be expended over time or in big bursts.

My real point though, is that you aren't "failing" just because you chose to pursue a short term goal.If these achievements really are character-defining to you, that's great. There is something to be said for heroically dying and ending your PC's story in a "futile" way that stands for the kind of man he was.

The "bard who wants to sleep with everyone" example's a bit weaker, because that's forest/trees territory. If your goal is to chop down a forest, you can't refuse to chop down trees because of the risks entailed. This is why the tacos/speech example is better.

Now, what I think, and forgive me if I am wrong or offend you, is that you place a higher priority on dice rolls than pure RP and / or you place a higher value on "defeating the bad guys" vs. more personal goals. Which is fine, that is just a different priority than I (typically) have.You're off base, here, I'm afraid. It's not "defeating the bad guys." It's "achieving goals which will let me experience the kinds of rewards and gameplay I want."

"Armus eats the tacos, and wouldn't you know it, if I could've rolled 1 higher on 1 or 2 of the rolls I had to make during his speech, I'd be playing the Minister of War, not a disgraced dude who's unable to do the kinds of things I want him to do. Those darned -2 circumstance penalties!"

For Armus, the temptation is much stronger to eat those tacos than it is for me. For me, the satisfaction of playing the Minister of War is far greater than the intensity of discomfort I'm relieving (or the intensity of satisfaction I receive) by having Armus eat the tacos. Armus, in the heat of the moment, is facing intensities of discomfort and satisfaction that actually cause him to view that risk of a -2 penalty (in whatever terms he sees a -2 penalty) as perhaps less important. He's more able to talk himself into viewing it as negligible. He can handle it. Because the intensity of his immediate desire is greater than the intensity of desire I feel to "play in character this one time."

4: Making someone play a weaker character for meta-game reasons (or the whims of incomprehensible gods if you want to keep it IC) is punishing to both the character and the player. It is making it harder for the character to accomplish all (or nearly all) of their goals, and it ruins the sense of fairness. This isn't simulation or RP, this is bull-crap.Except that it's not the whims of incomprehensible gods. There are rules about the behaviors you have to engage to keep your powers.

But here you make my point for me: in exchange for one "IC" decision, you've lost the ability to accomplish your ongoing goals, and you feel punished by this.

Armus, in exchange for one IC decision to eat tacos, could lose all ability to achieve his personal goals, ongoing in the campaign. Or at least severely diminish them.

Sure, you can have a fun campaign of playing Armus as the disgraced politician trying to gain power in other ways, traveling with the party as a semi-nobody with influence that is less than before his disgracefully flatulent speech. But you can also have a fun campaign of playing Falinpal O'Din, who is weaker than a trained fighter without the divine powers he once had, but still struggles to achieve his goals as he learns a new trade (or seeks atonement, or whatever).

Doesn't change that it's not the fun you wanted, and thus you feel punished by having your character's utility and your ability to play the KIND of character you wanted to diminished long-term in return for one IC decision that could not possibly net you any tangible benefit that is in any way comparable, even as a short-term intense bonus.

But this might just be my particular hang-up, having everyone on the same playing field and having a character who looks good on paper are very important to me as I am both competitive and a perfectionist, this might not be the same motivation as everyone else.See, so am I. That's why I value a system like this, so that I don't feel like I am having to see the Stormwind fallacy cease to be fallacious because the system has set optimal choices directly opposed to good RP.

Agreed. I'm not sure how cold rational mechanical rewards are supposed to help a player feel their character's temptation, when people who do things like drink too much at a party, or eat 10 cookies instead of 1, or whatever, don't do so for cold rational mechanical reasons. Rather, they know (on some level) that nothing good is going to come from it, and they do it anyway, and the drive to do so comes from a deep and utterly irrational place.

The rationale is that for such irrational urges the player isn't actually feeling, the Morales points or whatever act as a stand in. That is, there's a reason for the player to give in to these urges they aren't feeling.

The quote by georgie_leech captures my position well. The thing about playing a character is that, as player, you are inherently more coldly rational than your character is, in the heat of the moment. This isn't to say you can't also have intense flares of emotion (I know I'm sometimes blinded by anger and pride on my PC's behalf), but those are fewer and further between than the temptations and intense urges being discussed. Heck, Max_Killjoy's example of eating 10 cookies instead of one is a good example. It's going to be extremely hard to get the player to feel any of that temptation at all, barring something like saying, "The platter of cookies on the gaming table is identical to the platter of cookies your PCs see. Each time you eat a cookie, your PC does."

So the goal of mechanics such as those I propose are to represent the intensity of non-rational motivations in a game mechanic which tempts the player. Perhaps with coldy rational temptations, or perhaps with semi-irrational ones. "The thrill of gambling" is something some people find so strong that they do foolish things. Heck, while I am hardly a gambler by nature, I find the enjoyment of fantasizing about what I'd do with that kind of money enticing enough to be worth spending a maximum $1 per $100 million that a lottery is worth for a single ticket (as that takes it from "literally cannot win" to "theoretically possible, albeit practically not going to happen"). (The fact that I'm not much of a gambler is seen in that I won't buy more tickets to "improve my odds.")

But "I could get a payoff of morale points here, and the risks are manageable for the future, so...I'll do it" could be a less-than-coldly-rational influence on the player with these mechanics. Giving an immediately intense reward (to the player) to at least provide a shadow of the immediately intense sensations promised (to the character) helps combat this cold/rational distance between player and character. It helps bring immediate concerns which are not really something the player can share in to the fore in comparison to alternative concerns that the player could much more strongly share in.

It strengthens the link between player and character experience of desire.

Talakeal

2016-12-08, 02:24 PM

@ Segev:

I think we are more or less on the same page now, but I do have one question:

Is this a hypothetical situation or something that actually happens to you? I have played in a lot of RPGs, and I have never been seriously or permanently screwed over by giving in to temptations. I have suffered a lot of set backs because I have stuck to my principles, but I haven't ever had anything close to having to abandon my chosen career path because I ate a plate of tacos.

Except that it's not the whims of incomprehensible gods. There are rules about the behaviors you have to engage to keep your powers.

The alignment system in D&D is, to put it bluntly, bad. It is inconsistent with itself and with any real world system of morality. Out of character you have to accept it as badly written rules to curtail player behavior that isn't conductive to the standard D&D game, while in character you just have to accept that you live in a universe where the objective morality just doesn't make sense to the human mind. Pick your poison.*

*Not literal of course; Gygax decided that poison was always evil because it wasn't dramatic to simply poison the dragon. Of course hacking it to bits with a sword is perfectly ok.

Segev

2016-12-08, 02:52 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-08, 03:19 PM

I actually think poison is evil because heroes just don't use poison, at least in the mythoi from which the original D&D games were trying to draw. It's always the dirty, underhanded tactic of the bad guy. And it stuck.

I do, not frequently but often enough to be irritated by it, find myself facing situations like this in gameplay. Where there's an obvious optimal choice for my (and my character's) long-term goals, but theoretically my character is persuaded or tempted to the point that it's reasonable to question whether he'd really forgo the temptation for that goal. But me, I'm not tempted. I don't see anything enjoyable about it for me. But while I could justify it as in character to make the optimal choice, it does lead to my PCs being much more strong-willed and forward-thinking than I think is necessarily believable for all of them.

I also tend to notice that, when it comes to "do something fun" vs. "work for 8+ hours straight on this constructive project," I am far more prone to force my PCs do to the latter, even though I know I would be strongly tempted IRL to do the former. Whether it's making a magic item or meditating for mana, I'd be bored out of my skull doing what I have my characters frequently do. But there are no "boredom" rules and I get a lot more enjoyment out of the fruits of my characters' downtime when they spend them productively than I do out of a vague sense that my characters had a good time doing something I didn't even get to play out, and probably wouldn't have enjoyed playing out (even if I'd have enjoyed actually being involved in it IRL).

This second case is far more typical. Actually, if you want a fanfic that touches on this pretty clearly, I highly recommend Harry Potter and the Natural 20. It involves a D&D character summoned into the HP-verse. He behaves very much like a PC under the control of a player who doesn't experience his character's boredom nor pleasures would, at least at first, and it's a good examination of the issue.

Part of the disconnect here, I think, is that I don't regard feeling what the character feels, or a simulacrum of what the character feels, or a mechanical substitute of what the character feels, as anything like necessary to base decisions on the character's perceptions and thoughts.

Another part is that I just don't play characters who would make "narratively appropriate" terrible choices for the sake of "drama" or "theme" or "genre". I don't mind -- actually, I really enjoy -- playing characters whose virtues or principles or conflicting priorities or worries make things more complicated, or whose past conflicts come back to haunt them, and I don't need a mechanical contrivance to entice me down those paths. But I DO have a problem with something or someone that tries to convince me to have my character do downright stupid things because someone else thinks it's "appropriate".

To me, a lot of these mechanics come across as more of a "enforce genre" stick than a role-playing carrot. They don't look like something that frees me to play the character, they look like something designed to get me to play the way someone else sees as correct.

On all of these dilemmas you list, what I'm going to have my character do is what I think my character would do, and screw the mechanics. Not that the mechanics need to really get involved, as characters have a good deal of downtime in most campaigns.

Something to consider is that a character who wasn't the sort to take the hard road would often not be in the position to be a protagonist in the first place. Unless you're playing a game of "mundane average people caught up in extraordinary events", the characters are more likely than typical people to be the sort to spend significant chunks of time studying or working out or meditating or practicing their weapons or going over old newspaper articles in the local library or whatever.

My long-running Vampire character was not me, she was someone who had spent time almost every day/night for decades, since before she became a vampire mastering armed and unarmed combat. Why would it ever be in character for her to blow off her workout for some random nonsense? Why should her priorities be anything like my priorities, when she's not me?

And really, if you were to use a game to model me, then a "RP encouragement" system based on "temptations" and "desires" would do a TERRIBLE job of modelling my personality. My makeup is much more about what I avoid than about what I seek.

(An aside to the poison thing, as counter-point, Hercules used poisoned arrows... and was regarded as THE hero by the Greeks and others for a very long span of time.)

Segev

2016-12-08, 03:34 PM

Part of the disconnect here, I think, is that I don't regard feeling what the character feels, or a simulacrum of what the character feels, or a mechanical substitute of what the character feels, as anything like necessary to base decisions on the character's perceptions and thoughts. I disagree. As I've said in an overly-long post, if I were a player who shared my long-term goals with me, but didn't experience my short-term temptations of pleasure and discomfort, I would have me-as-a-character make VERY different choices than I do, IRL.

Another part is that I just don't play characters who would make "narratively appropriate" terrible choices for the sake of "drama" or "theme" or "genre". I don't mind -- actually, I really enjoy -- playing characters whose virtues or principles or conflicting priorities or worries make things more complicated, or whose past conflicts come back to haunt them, and I don't need a mechanical contrivance to entice me down those paths. But I DO have a problem with something or someone that tries to convince me to have my character do downright stupid things because someone else thinks it's "appropriate".

To me, a lot of these mechanics come across as more of a "enforce genre" stick than a role-playing carrot. They don't look like something that frees me to play the character, they look like something designed to get me to play the way someone else sees as correct. I think here is a major breakdown in communication. You seem hung up on "genre-appropriate mistakes" or the like, and that's not at all what I'm getting at.

In fact, this part:

I just don't play characters who would make "narratively appropriate" terrible choices for the sake of "drama" or "theme" or "genre".

...and this part:

I don't mind -- actually, I really enjoy -- playing characters whose virtues or principles or conflicting priorities or worries make things more complicated, or whose past conflicts come back to haunt them, and I don't need a mechanical contrivance to entice me down those paths.

...seem in conflict with each other in the context of the conversation I'm having.

I believe - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that the conversational context in which you mean this is different, that there is a decided and important difference between "narratively appropriate terrible choices" and "terrible choices made for the sake of conflicting priorities/worries/temptations."

If I am reading you correctly, than I want to drive home the point that I am in no way really talking about the first. I am talking solely about the second.

There is no "genre-appropriate"-ness to Armus eating those tacos. It's purely "character priorities" of immediate hunger and associated discomfort combined with IC love of tacos vs. the RISK of flatulence causing a slight but significant difficulty in presenting a winning speech.

I don't know about you, Max_Killjoy, but I would, barring social pressure that made me worry about everybody else having fun, probably have Armus not eat the tacos, no matter how hungry he supposedly was (short of actual mechanical penalty being applied). No, not even if they were the best tacos that were ever created and he'd never have another opportunity. Because while I acknowledge that this would be important to him, it isn't as important to me as him successfully becoming Minister of War. My priorities are different from Armus's, in this case.

Now, maybe you're a superior role-player. You don't mind that you'd feel like you were being punished for playing in character by eating those tacos, and get the satisfaction that the tacos were really that awesome as far as Armus was concerned.

I'm not. I would like mechanics that actually do give me a hint of the conflicting pressures Armus is facing. I would like, as well, to have mechanics which can give me a metric by which to judge just how tempted he really is, rather than it being an arbitrary, subjective thing. Which gives me a taste of his emotional struggle to resist the temptation, if I choose what I, as a coldly rational player not experiencing the temptation of the taco, would choose as what I want (to have a maximal chance at winning that Min

(An aside to the poison thing, as counter-point, Hercules used poisoned arrows... and was regarded as THE hero by the Greeks and others for a very long span of time.)
Oh, absolutely. But that isn't really considered "heroic" by modern standards, for whatever reason. I think the pendulum is shifting back a bit on this one, viewing poison as utilitarian rather than inherently immoral, but for whatever reason, there is a zeitgeist about poison being "cheating" or "evil," still.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-08, 03:48 PM

Oh, absolutely. But that isn't really considered "heroic" by modern standards, for whatever reason. I think the pendulum is shifting back a bit on this one, viewing poison as utilitarian rather than inherently immoral, but for whatever reason, there is a zeitgeist about poison being "cheating" or "evil," still.

If you look at it historically, tactics which were considered dirty/underhanded/evil were always tactics which didn't favour the economically dominant at the time. :smallsmile:

If you're a guy who's rich enough to spend 16 hours a day training and can afford expensive armour and a big horse then things like poisons and crossbows are going to be called poor sportsmanship.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-08, 03:49 PM

I disagree. As I've said in an overly-long post, if I were a player who shared my long-term goals with me, but didn't experience my short-term temptations of pleasure and discomfort, I would have me-as-a-character make VERY different choices than I do, IRL.

I think here is a major breakdown in communication. You seem hung up on "genre-appropriate mistakes" or the like, and that's not at all what I'm getting at.

In fact, this part:

...and this part:

...seem in conflict with each other in the context of the conversation I'm having.

I believe - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that the conversational context in which you mean this is different, that there is a decided and important difference between "narratively appropriate terrible choices" and "terrible choices made for the sake of conflicting priorities/worries/temptations."

If I am reading you correctly, than I want to drive home the point that I am in no way really talking about the first. I am talking solely about the second.

There is no "genre-appropriate"-ness to Armus eating those tacos. It's purely "character priorities" of immediate hunger and associated discomfort combined with IC love of tacos vs. the RISK of flatulence causing a slight but significant difficulty in presenting a winning speech.

I don't know about you, Max_Killjoy, but I would, barring social pressure that made me worry about everybody else having fun, probably have Armus not eat the tacos, no matter how hungry he supposedly was (short of actual mechanical penalty being applied). No, not even if they were the best tacos that were ever created and he'd never have another opportunity. Because while I acknowledge that this would be important to him, it isn't as important to me as him successfully becoming Minister of War. My priorities are different from Armus's, in this case.

Now, maybe you're a superior role-player. You don't mind that you'd feel like you were being punished for playing in character by eating those tacos, and get the satisfaction that the tacos were really that awesome as far as Armus was concerned.

I'm not. I would like mechanics that actually do give me a hint of the conflicting pressures Armus is facing. I would like, as well, to have mechanics which can give me a metric by which to judge just how tempted he really is, rather than it being an arbitrary, subjective thing. Which gives me a taste of his emotional struggle to resist the temptation, if I choose what I, as a coldly rational player not experiencing the temptation of the taco, would choose as what I want (to have a maximal chance at winning that Min

I wish we could drop this "superior" and "inferior" role-player thing, I don't like where it goes, and makes me feel like I'm coming across as an RP snob or something.

Honestly, I'm wondering why we're even worried about what Armus is eating before his big speech, unless the game is a sort of "comedy of errors" that I'd probably not enjoy playing in the first place. I've rarely had food come up as an issue in games, outside of very specific circumstances that make food a non-trivial matter.

E: and how is Armus even at this point in his career where he has a chance to become an important minister if he can't even control his appetite for tacos for one night?

E: as for "terrible choices", I don't consider hard choices or "less than optimal" decisions based on conflicting or "inconvenient" values or priorities or principles to be "terrible choices". An example of a "terrible choice" would be "let the seductress into the secret base because I really want to sleep with her". Or, similar stupidity that's often "genre appropriate" but makes me feel like the writer of the fiction thinks I'm an idiot.

Segev

2016-12-08, 04:11 PM

I wish we could drop this "superior" and "inferior" role-player thing, I don't like where it goes, and makes me feel like I'm coming across as an RP snob or something. I am being perhaps a bit more passive-aggressive about the use of those terms than I should, but you're picking up on the vibe to which I feel like I'm reacting, yeah. "I don't need these because, to me, the reward IS playing the character making these stupid, but IC, decisions" comes across, to me, as, "...and therefore nobody who is concerned with RP should need them, either."

Maybe that's me being over-sensitive, but I don't know how to take such comments as useful counterpoints without reading them that way. :smallannoyed:

Honestly, I'm wondering why we're even worried about what Armus is eating before his big speech, unless the game is a sort of "comedy of errors" that I'd probably not enjoy playing in the first place.

It is a bit of a contrived example. Do you never have PCs who face similar considerations?

What about my example of the PC who, under the control of a player who only gets to share in their enjoyment of the fruits of their labor (but neither suffers the tedium and stress of 8+ hours a day of work, nor would share the enjoyment of slacking off for a day), is an almost unrealistically hard worker?

Or of how I'd live a very different life if I were a character under the control of me-as-player than I do since I actually do experience the short-term temptations, pleasures, and pains that make less optimal choices desirable?

Do your PCs never encounter such concerns? Are they just optimized personalities who never make personal mistakes for petty reasons or short-term rewards (or to avoid short-term/immediate suffering)?

"Armus and the Temptation of the Tacos" is an attempt at creating an easy-to-grasp example of these kinds of situations.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-08, 04:51 PM

I am being perhaps a bit more passive-aggressive about the use of those terms than I should, but you're picking up on the vibe to which I feel like I'm reacting, yeah. "I don't need these because, to me, the reward IS playing the character making these stupid, but IC, decisions" comes across, to me, as, "...and therefore nobody who is concerned with RP should need them, either."

Maybe that's me being over-sensitive, but I don't know how to take such comments as useful counterpoints without reading them that way. :smallannoyed:

I'm trying to explain why I view these proposed mechanics as more of a hindrance than an enhancement, for me personally.

If they were totally optional within the game for any particular character, I'd be fine with that, but the usual course is either for these sorts of mechanics to be made required, or for the makers and general playing "public" of the game to consider a character who doesn't include them "a bad character".

Of course, you're talking to the person who played a droid and an "inter-dimensional alien" to completely forego the use of Force Points -- good and bad -- in the old WEG d6 SW game. I didn't consider the benefits of the Force Points worth worrying about the potential effects, even for non-Force-Sensitives.

It is a bit of a contrived example. Do you never have PCs who face similar considerations?

What about my example of the PC who, under the control of a player who only gets to share in their enjoyment of the fruits of their labor (but neither suffers the tedium and stress of 8+ hours a day of work, nor would share the enjoyment of slacking off for a day), is an almost unrealistically hard worker?

Or of how I'd live a very different life if I were a character under the control of me-as-player than I do since I actually do experience the short-term temptations, pleasures, and pains that make less optimal choices desirable?

Do your PCs never encounter such concerns? Are they just optimized personalities who never make personal mistakes for petty reasons or short-term rewards (or to avoid short-term/immediate suffering)?

"Armus and the Temptation of the Tacos" is an attempt at creating an easy-to-grasp example of these kinds of situations.

In part, the utterly mundane tasks took place in down time, we (my former long-standing gaming group) didn't worry about repeatedly playing out mundane things every session, any more than we worried about the minutia of ever meal or making sure the characters had all used the restroom recently enough.

In part, I'm not interested in playing the character who chooses banal temptations over the hard things that make them a character with heroic potential in the first place. We had a player who repeatedly tried to play the most mundane, banal, unspecial, undriven, character that was possible, utterly lacking in potential or interest that would make him a protagonist... Mr "I'll guard the horses", Mr "I didn't take the skills necessary to use my powers and never will because I never wanted the powers", etc. We finally asked him -- and never did get a coherent response -- what motivated him to create character after character who didn't even have the potential to be a protagonist.

E: some things added to previous post as well.

Segev

2016-12-08, 05:23 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-08, 07:20 PM

It's not "Let the seductress into the secret base." It's "have sex with the bar maid (who may be a skilled seductress vamping as an ingénue) even though I know I shouldn't because of the risks of blackmail." Even though the odds of her really being a blackmail plant are low, as far as the character can tell.

And remember: Armus is weighing what is, to him, a low probability of a minor penalty even occurring against his appetite for tacos. Not a definite failure of his speech.

The thing is, I, as Armus's player, don't see the benefit of letting Armus have his tacos. Let's say it's a 10% chance that Armus fails the constitution check, and that the flatulence is only a -10% to his chances of doing well if he suffers it. That's a net -1% probability that he'll do well enough to win the ministry.

Armus is weighing this against "but I really like tacos; I can totally handle this." I am weighing this against, at most, "I might be playing out of character if I make Armus resist the tacos." To me, who has too often been burned by RP vs. optimality decisions, I won't take the chance. Depending on just how hungry Armus is, however, I-as-a-real-person might give in to it if I had to actually endure the hunger pangs.

I strongly suggest you read that Harry Potter fanfic I recommended. I think it gets my point across well. If you believe Milo is behaving like a real person and that anybody who plays characters who don't act like Milo is failing to play believable heroes, okay, fine. We disagree.

In think you're excluding the middle here.

A character who always does exactly the most efficient thing, lives on the most cost-to-nutrition effective rations, spends every waking moment doing something to "advance", never does anything for the simply enjoyment of it, only views people are "interaction nodes", etc, isn't realistic (unless that's part of what's being explored, some rare people are that "robotic")

However... a character who can't or won't set aside his "temptations" when it matters isn't a "protagonist" I'm interested in reading about, watching, or playing.

If I'm driving somewhere and have all day to get there, I can freely take the back roads, stop to look at something, get lunch at my leisure, etc. Those are all things that I enjoy. But if I told someone I'd get them to the airport on time, I'm going to take the highway, get something to eat and a drink for the road before I go, use the facilities at home before I leave, etc. When there's something on the line, I make different choices -- and I don't agonize over it.

Why should my character in an RPG (or something I'm writing) be any different?

Segev

2016-12-09, 10:34 AM

In think you're excluding the middle here.

A character who always does exactly the most efficient thing, lives on the most cost-to-nutrition effective rations, spends every waking moment doing something to "advance", never does anything for the simply enjoyment of it, only views people are "interaction nodes", etc, isn't realistic (unless that's part of what's being explored, some rare people are that "robotic")

However... a character who can't or won't set aside his "temptations" when it matters isn't a "protagonist" I'm interested in reading about, watching, or playing.You're forgetting something important: as a player, you have a much better idea of "when it matters" than does your character. And perhaps a different one, as well.

On the one hand, you have metagame knowledge that you're actually being asked to RP out this scene, at least to the point of making a choice. That elevates this to "probably, it's important now," because let's be honest, you'd be annoyed if your GM had you RP out every mercantile interaction, every flirt with every potential paramour, and every decision whether to eat your favorite food before an event.

On the other, without some mechanic to tell you just how much is actually reasonable, you're back in "how badly do you want to avoid being judged a 'bad RPer' for playing an 'unrealistic' character?" territory. As well as a subjective question of what the dividing line between "realistic" and "unrealistic" is.

Sure, there's middle ground between "slacks off and works less than an hour a day" and "works every second of every day not absolutely required by the mechanics for sleep and eating." But where does that middle ground shift from "unrealistically hard worker" to "realistic, but impressively hard worker?"

In the block I quote above, you talk about how being impressive is part of being a protagonist (I am paraphrasing a bit; hopefully not changing your meaning). But where does "he's the protagonist because he works that hard" stop and "that's an unrealistic character" begin? "I know it when I see it" is one approach, and what most people seem to use, but it also leads to the pressure from the mechanics the pressure to RP, rather than the mechanics supporting RP.

If I'm driving somewhere and have all day to get there, I can freely take the back roads, stop to look at something, get lunch at my leisure, etc. Those are all things that I enjoy. But if I told someone I'd get them to the airport on time, I'm going to take the highway, get something to eat and a drink for the road before I go, use the facilities at home before I leave, etc. When there's something on the line, I make different choices. Why should my character in an RPG (or something I'm writing) be any different?
How much leeway do you give yourself to be "on time?" If you told somebody you'd pick them up from the airport, how long is acceptable to keep them waiting? How much before they arrive do you intend to get there? How much time for unexpected delays do you put into your planned travel (and therefore leave "early" to accommodate)?

If you're highly conservative in this, and find yourself on schedule to arrive particularly early, will you stop for a snack at your favorite fast food place that isn't normally in convenient driving distance, since it's on the way? (For example, the nearest Steak & Shake is 30 min. from where I live, but is on the way to the airport; I have taken advantage of this when I've had the luxury of time to get a milkshake.)

How early would you have to be?

In character, Armus could very reasonably be thinking, "I'm hungry, and tacos are delicious, and I don't want to do this speech on an empty stomach." Armus isn't even considering the potential flatulence. As his player, however, I know the GM has this in mind from prior experience, perhaps in other games (so Armus wouldn't share this experience with this GM), and I also know that there's no penalty for giving speeches on empty stomachs. No, not even if you've not eaten all day. (Starvation rules don't kick in after just one day.)

This isn't about "Have a bag of gold to let the party die." This isn't about "make out with this seductress on the night the King you're guarding was predicted to be assassinated."

This is about whether you take those back roads because you like to do so, even though you, the player, won't actually get anything out of it, the increased travel time will mean you spend less time working on that spell research you, the player, want finished for use as soon as possible (even if your character, though eager, might consider it less pressing than his leisure time for this one day-long trip), and you could wind up being waylaid on one of those back roads by a random encounter that makes you delayed for a day.

It may be that these things happen rarely! That'd be a great reason not to worry, in character, overmuch about them. But when you, the player, gain nothing from these diversions, and the GM could, at any moment, decide that this time it's a "hook" for some inconvenience or problem that could undermine your overall goals, it starts to feel like a punishment for having RPed.

This is often why GMs are given strong advice not to treat PC families and backgrounds as murder-fodder just to "make it interesting." Because it leads to incentivizing homeless orphans with no ties to the world to be exploited. So yes, some of this is "it's a bad GM for exploiting such activities."

And sure, if there's no mechanical effect either way, why NOT describe whatever leisures you like?

But let's take your "travel" example, and examine it from another angle:

There are no mechanics for making travelling First Class any different - from the player's perspective - than travelling Economy. Well, almost none. Due to verisimilitude, travelling First Class costs 5x as much. And the GM might deign to describe the differences to the players travelling in each. But to the player, that cost difference is significant, since after this travel, the First Class traveler is less able to buy cool gear, bribe informants and cops, and otherwise do things that make them shine in the game's focal activities.

Now, you could argue that "well, as a protagonist, he would never waste resources; he's just awesome that way." But is his comfort really that negligible? Does he NEVER fly anything but the cheapest seats, to maximize his gp for "important" things?

(Maybe he does; I mean, I always fly as cheaply as I can, because I don't have the money to spare on the luxury.)

This extends to fantasy, too, of course. "Lifestyles" is something that at least 3e and 5e D&D both cover, and different lifestyles have different costs. But there's little to no mechanical advantage to actually playing the game for having high-priced lifestyles. And having them means you can afford less actually-game-important gear (or, in the case of wizards, spells).

By having game mechanical COSTS for RP choices which don't actually have game mechanical benefits, you create unrealistically one-sided pressures to avoid those costs, even though real people would find there to be pressure in both directions. Maybe not enough to change them from the "optimal" choice anyway, but it would be more of a pressure than exists without any emotion/drive/urge mechanics.

Heck, there's no incentive to "try it once" when one is flush. And even that carries a real cost. So doing it EVER is a bad idea, mechanically.

Stormwalker

2016-12-09, 12:55 PM

I think some of this depends on your GM.

With my current GM, I rarely feel any conflict between "doing what my character would do" and "doing what is optimal". This is partly because he views the goal of the game as "tell an interesting story". As such, he encourages us to do the things that are in-character rather than those things that are "optimal"... and freely interprets the rules in a fashion that favors the characters we are playing.

This isn't to say we don't have consequences for doing foolish things, because that is part of an interesting story. When my swashbuckler does something exceptionally risky, the GM is not going to remove the risk that makes that action exciting. When she pulls off that act of daring, though, she'll be rewarded for it in other ways, possibly via morale bonuses on subsequent actions, or by the enemy being thrown into confusion by her impetuous approach.

Similarly for out of combat situations, doing things "my character's way" will have both benefits and drawbacks. Perhaps a task becomes more difficult if I do it in an in-character way, but if I pull it off in my signature style, it improves my local reputation, granting me additional benefits down the line such as discounts with local shopkeepers or cultivating a new information source.

In other words, acting in-character may make things more difficult, but it generally leads to greater rewards-tangible ones, often things I never would have expected-when I do succeed.

I find that if you have a DM who is flexible enough to make these kind of adjustments on the fly, they are much more effective at encouaging players to roleplay their whole personalities than any rigid system of enforced mechanical incentives or penalties.

Floret

2016-12-09, 01:30 PM

However... a character who can't or won't set aside his "temptations" when it matters isn't a "protagonist" I'm interested in reading about, watching, or playing.

If I'm driving somewhere and have all day to get there, I can freely take the back roads, stop to look at something, get lunch at my leisure, etc. Those are all things that I enjoy. But if I told someone I'd get them to the airport on time, I'm going to take the highway, get something to eat and a drink for the road before I go, use the facilities at home before I leave, etc. When there's something on the line, I make different choices -- and I don't agonize over it.

Why should my character in an RPG (or something I'm writing) be any different?

You might not be interested in doing that, but it can make for an interesting protagonist. Actually, I'd argue that someone who can set aside temptations every time "it matters" is not a protagonist I'd be interested in reading/watching. And calling that still temptations might be a misnomer. Playing... maybe not so strong objection. But doing your darndest to try and power through it to only fail at the last minute can produce incredibly intersting scenes and experiences as well.
I do agree that a protagonist should have SOMETHING that makes them proactive, or "protagonist-y". But always powering through everything makes them just a bit bland, and misses out.
Now, my perspective here is probably somewhat influenced by having played in contexts where you HAVE to go through all these motions as you character. You get hungry, need to eat, need to use the bathroom, and remember all of that while around you **** is hitting the fan, undead attack, you need to barter with pirates with peace on the line, the usual. And... it did change my view on things. What I am saying is: You are claiming that mechanical people would not be realistic, so seem to at least care about realism. Yet you reject approaches and arguments that might force/produce more (consistently) "realistic" characters. From my experience of playing characters both with and without being directly "with" them, and realising the world of difference it can make, I'd ask you to take a look at yourself and your characters. Are they ACTUALLY human-level realistic, non-flawless people? Or are they, in some parts, a more efficient caricature of a human?
And if your answer is yes, they are human-level realistic? Good for you! And great that it works for you without these sorts of rules. But just because you don't need them, doesn't mean others wouldn't profit.

Also I think your example is a bit weak, in so far as the temptation isn't one that is generally very great. Sure I can overcome that. Humans generally can.
As for the temptation to post on a message board with looming deadlines? Well. Draw your own conclusions.

You're forgetting something important: as a player, you have a much better idea of "when it matters" than does your character. And perhaps a different one, as well.

This, as well as the originally following paragraphs, is rather close to what I am getting at, if from a more theoretical perspective.

This extends to fantasy, too, of course. "Lifestyles" is something that at least 3e and 5e D&D both cover, and different lifestyles have different costs. But there's little to no mechanical advantage to actually playing the game for having high-priced lifestyles. And having them means you can afford less actually-game-important gear (or, in the case of wizards, spells).

By having game mechanical COSTS for RP choices which don't actually have game mechanical benefits, you create unrealistically one-sided pressures to avoid those costs, even though real people would find there to be pressure in both directions. Maybe not enough to change them from the "optimal" choice anyway, but it would be more of a pressure than exists without any emotion/drive/urge mechanics.

With the lifestyle, I'd offer up a different, somewhat more extreme example: Shadowrun. Now, with the 5th edition, there are SOME rules influenced by your living conditions... if you have the Allergic-flaw. If you don't? Why not just stay in a garage. Sure, your character is not comfortable, but why bother? The rules for lower living conditions influencing your mood and ability to perform are there, but they only take effect if you take a flaw that makes you get them.
For added fun, there is also a flaw, giving you chargen points, that restricts you to staying below a certain level of comfort. Rewarding you double, with more money and more charpoints. Great! Now, none of my players actually took that (aptly named as "Hobo with a shotgun") flaw. Instead, one took the flaw restricting him to (unnecessarily) expensive lifestlyes. But even I, who mostly I would say handles things like Max, with a "Yaknow, this is what my character would do/the sort of character I want to play, who cares about efficiency" attitude, found myself wondering... why not take that? And sure, the character idea now has a great justification for the flaw and all... but that is definitely author stance. Which I'm personally fine with. I like author stance. But... yeah. My point with this, mostly: Make this problem bad enough, and you will tempt people. How bad it needs to be to tempt any given player, depends of course on the player. I think there is value in reducing the power of this issue, even though this is not what I personally primarily want RP-rules for.
Also, as I have learned over years of gaming: You can justify pretty much anything with "In-world-logic". What seems like "perfectly in-character decisions" might just be construed as such retroactively, consciously or not.

In part, I'm not interested in playing the character who chooses banal temptations over the hard things that make them a character with heroic potential in the first place. We had a player who repeatedly tried to play the most mundane, banal, unspecial, undriven, character that was possible, utterly lacking in potential or interest that would make him a protagonist... Mr "I'll guard the horses", Mr "I didn't take the skills necessary to use my powers and never will because I never wanted the powers", etc. We finally asked him -- and never did get a coherent response -- what motivated him to create character after character who didn't even have the potential to be a protagonist.

Playing the second fiddle, the follower, what have you, can be really fun and relaxing. Not my style generally, but I know people who swear on it. Similar reasons people are BDSM-subs: Not everyone wants a power fantasy. Can't speak for your player, of course, but I know a lot of people who, especially in Larp contexts go for these things. They have developed the term "Bauer-gamer" (As a pun on "Powergamer", Bauer meaning farmer) for people who get their kicks from the opposite of those "powergamers". Not being powerful and winning, but being a small, unimportant cog in the machine, subject to the whims of the world.

Segev

2016-12-09, 02:02 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-09, 02:32 PM

In the last fantasy-type campaign I played in which featured treasures and stuff, I played a character who had both his own family and the family of his dead brother to support, so I sent a chunk of every haul and payment back home via the "merchants and trading guild". I didn't get any character points or XP or special consideration for this. It was simply part of the character's background as I had written it up. He was out adventuring because he effectively had two families to support, and sending that money home was the whole point of risking his life hunting down artifacts and fighting monsters and whatnot.

There was NO mechanical benefit to sending that money back.

In modern games, I've always played out issues of money and resources and living arrangements and entertainment expenses based not on keeping track of money like it's a bank account, but rather simply based on the general idea of what the character is supposed to have access to, and what sort of character they are in terms of frugality. If I was playing a character who cared about "the finer things", then they traveled first class and stayed at nicer hotels and rented nicer cars and so on -- because that's who they were (Using the travel example). I also played characters who had money but whose spending habits were ingrained during points in their lives when they had far less, so they'd balk at spending $200+ a night on a hotel room or renting a Jaguar or that $100 per person restaurant.

There was NO mechanical benefit either way.

Maybe a different solution is to stop treating things like "gold pieces" as closely-tracked game-critical resources. Personally, I've always found it tedious, and a bit too much like having real-life bank accounts and crap.

But, the reason to spend more on lifestyle for a particular characters is that it's because it's what that character would do. For most REAL people, there's little practical, utilitarian benefit to a lot of what they spend money and time on -- and yet they spend it anyway. Why do real people go out to eat when they could make all their own meals? Why do real people bring home a bottle of diet soda or a bottle of wine or a bottle of whatever, when they could just drink water with every meal at home? Why do people buy a 50" TV when they could watch the same shows on a 32" TV? Why do they buy new books when they could re-read the books they have or go the library?

Segev

2016-12-09, 03:16 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-09, 03:26 PM

Playing the second fiddle, the follower, what have you, can be really fun and relaxing. Not my style generally, but I know people who swear on it. Similar reasons people are BDSM-subs: Not everyone wants a power fantasy. Can't speak for your player, of course, but I know a lot of people who, especially in Larp contexts go for these things. They have developed the term "Bauer-gamer" (As a pun on "Powergamer", Bauer meaning farmer) for people who get their kicks from the opposite of those "powergamers". Not being powerful and winning, but being a small, unimportant cog in the machine, subject to the whims of the world.

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about making character after character with no reason to be involved in the story, a personality that's antithetical to getting involved, no potential to be a protagonist, and no willingness to "grow" into the role at all.

The only two things I can think of. One, at heart he was coming to gaming sessions for reasons other than actually gaming, and this was the manifestation of that (subconscious) issue. Two, he'd taken modern lit-fic too much to heart, and felt the need to "explore the condition of the everyman". :smallyuk:

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-09, 03:33 PM

So... in those games, were you functionally behind the other PCs in terms of your gear and what you were able to do, because they spent their gp in more efficacious, game-mechanics-beneficial ways? If so, did that not ever frustrate you? Did it ever make the others feel like you were failing to contribute sufficiently? If not... then it was just fluff that you were sending it back, because the DM gave you more resources to make up for it, or because wealth wasn't a factor in mechanical power.

Most games aren't D&D and don't fixate on gear as part of the character progression, especially to the degree of characters falling behind because their sword doesn't have a sufficient number to the right of the +.

And yes, "remove it as a mechanical factor at all" would do it, too. But we're back to "why not just play a free-form game?" at that point. Because literally anything can be removed to stop it from being a mechanical factor that gets in the way of RP.

...

To me, that reads like "If you're not going to mechanize everything in the game to the last bit of minutia, you might as well not mechanize anything."

Segev

2016-12-09, 03:51 PM

Most games aren't D&D and don't fixate on gear as part of the character progression, especially to the degree of characters falling behind because their sword doesn't have a sufficient number to the right of the +. Max, come on. You know you're shifting the goalposts with that.

I was very clearly referring to game systems where equipment/gear are important, and bought with the same resource as "lifestyle."

You then bring up games you've played where you sent home a resource that isn't, in game mechanical terms, a resource. It's just fluff.

You know better than that. Can you please address the point I'm making, rather than pretending I'm talking about something that shouldn't be a problem because it doesn't have any mechanical impact at all?

To me, that reads like "If you're not going to mechanize everything in the game to the last bit of minutia, you might as well not mechanize anything."
Not quite. Please note that the things I'm talking about already are mechanized, but only "one-sidedly." Such that there is mechanical impetus to behave in an optimal way, and the LACK of impetus to support an IC decision that has no mechanical impact serves as an effective "Choose to lose a level or you're a bad RPer" sort of decision.

No, not literally. But apparently "choose to do something which has only downsides or you're a bad RPer" doesn't get the point across. As that gets warped around to "it's not good RP to make bad decisions when it's important." Which ignores that ...

... well, going back to "Segev has as a goal that his player shares with him to lose 80 lbs as quickly as he can in a healthy fashion," there is no "big" decision that is "when it's important" to the exercise and caloric-reduction regimen. Yet Segev-the-character endures a great deal of temptation he has to keep overcoming with myriad individual choices in order to pursue that goal successfully. Segev's player suffers none of that, so just says, "Yeah, Segev never breaks from this regimen, at all." And thus Segev's player gets to enjoy the better stats associated with being 80 lbs. lighter without having had to endure any of the difficulty of getting there. Segev benefits, too, of course, but his struggle wasn't modeled well. It's a wonder that anybody in that setting ever makes the short-sighted mistakes of eating junk, drinking too much soda, and skimping on exercise, since it's so easy to ignore the pangs and yearnings.

Playing "a realistic person" isn't just about only forgoing temptations "when it's important." Tell me that I can't have that soda or you'll shoot my baby sister, and I will forgo that soda a lot easier than if it's just "don't drink that soda; you're trying to reduce your caloric intake." You've just made it two immediate concerns rather than one immediate concern and one far-off concern that can be...procrastinated.

Do you really not see that? Can you really not understand the "me, as a person," vs. "how I would be if I were playing myself as a character in a game" divergence between behaviors?

Are YOU doing what you would do with your life if you could turn off all the things you "know you shouldn't do" in the moment, but want to because they're more fun right now? If you, Max_Killjoy, were playing a game where you play yourself, and the game only let you experience what a player experiences of his character's life, would you be better able to drive Max_Killjoy-the-character towards his goals than you are yourself? I know I would be with Segev-the-character, because the temptations to do things that are sub-optimal compared to my long-term goals would be so much less.

Floret

2016-12-09, 04:28 PM

Maybe a different solution is to stop treating things like "gold pieces" as closely-tracked game-critical resources. Personally, I've always found it tedious, and a bit too much like having real-life bank accounts and crap.

I mean, noone said that you can just not think about the drawbacks and do things unthinkingly and in character. Sure you can, I have even said that most times I do. (I do want social and RP mechanics for different reasons, anyways.)
But this is missing the point of what Segev and I are trying to say, by focussing on the example instead of the argument. Sure, my personal favourite of dealing with Gear and money is the version of FATE (Make it a skill, don't model too closely), so far that I have copied it pretty much for my own system (Some tweaks, but same general idea.)
And this doesn't deal with the actual point: Characters feel the temptations differently than a removed player. You might think you aren't, and you are just in character. But there is a degree of separation, that for me got really, really highlighted by actually being physically in the spot and having to feel all these things myself. There is a world of difference.
And that is what I think Segev is trying to get across: What you call "just playing a realistic character" might just, when you actually look at it in detail and compare it to a real human, be incredibly strong-willed, hardly ever tempted and without many weakness that they can't just brush aside. I don't know if that's the case, but the possibility is there.
And if you have more fun your way, sure, go for it! Play the strong-willed hardly tempted badass! But don't go around and argue for more realistic characters, because that "is how people are" if you are, in fact, not playing such a character. (To stress again, I don't know if you are. Just throwing out the possibility of you doing something subconciously.)

I'm not even talking about that. I'm talking about making character after character with no reason to be involved in the story, a personality that's antithetical to getting involved, no potential to be a protagonist, and no willingness to "grow" into the role at all.
The only two things I can think of. One, at heart he was coming to gaming sessions for reasons other than actually gaming, and this was the manifestation of that (subconscious) issue. Two, he'd taken modern lit-fic too much to heart, and felt the need to "explore the condition of the everyman". :smallyuk:

Nonono, this is the point. When a player enjoys being lower down the hierarchy, being a nobody and having little responsibility, short, being part of the supporting cast, potentially the last they want is them "growing into" the role. That would be antithetical to what they want. And... where would the problem be with that, other than you not wanting it for yourself? Were they disrupting the game with it?

To me, that reads like "If you're not going to mechanize everything in the game to the last bit of minutia, you might as well not mechanize anything."

"To the last bit of minutia" is a strawman and you know it.
My point is, that I WANT to mechanize social interactions, because more possibility to act and separating player and character skills. I WANT to mechanize character, so WHO my character is can have an influence on how well they perform at given tasks that should get easier or difficult because of it.
Because I want that experience including these mechanics can offer.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-09, 04:39 PM

Max, come on. You know you're shifting the goalposts with that.

I was very clearly referring to game systems where equipment/gear are important, and bought with the same resource as "lifestyle."

You then bring up games you've played where you sent home a resource that isn't, in game mechanical terms, a resource. It's just fluff.

You know better than that. Can you please address the point I'm making, rather than pretending I'm talking about something that shouldn't be a problem because it doesn't have any mechanical impact at all?

Part of my response there is because we seem to be talking about very different sorts of games -- in terms of systems and in terms of groups/campaigns -- at certain points in this discussion. A lot of the costs and setbacks you're talking about are things that either don't come up or are handled in a different way in the games I became used to.

To me you seem to be talking about a game in which there's little to no margin, and the characters all have to be on the cutting edge of resource and build efficiency to the degree that even the choice between the value menu and a sitdown restaurant once a week (if you'll forgive a touch of hyperbole) can be critical to the character's resources and thus efficacy. It comes across as a sort of unrelenting pressure that creates a sense of punishment for anything less than what is the most "mechanically efficient" choice in every single instance.

Not quite. Please note that the things I'm talking about already are mechanized, but only "one-sidedly." Such that there is mechanical impetus to behave in an optimal way, and the LACK of impetus to support an IC decision that has no mechanical impact serves as an effective "Choose to lose a level or you're a bad RPer" sort of decision.

No, not literally. But apparently "choose to do something which has only downsides or you're a bad RPer" doesn't get the point across. As that gets warped around to "it's not good RP to make bad decisions when it's important." Which ignores that ...

Again, I'm not interested in this "good RP" vs "bad RP" judgement sidetrack.

... well, going back to "Segev has as a goal that his player shares with him to lose 80 lbs as quickly as he can in a healthy fashion," there is no "big" decision that is "when it's important" to the exercise and caloric-reduction regimen. Yet Segev-the-character endures a great deal of temptation he has to keep overcoming with myriad individual choices in order to pursue that goal successfully. Segev's player suffers none of that, so just says, "Yeah, Segev never breaks from this regimen, at all." And thus Segev's player gets to enjoy the better stats associated with being 80 lbs. lighter without having had to endure any of the difficulty of getting there. Segev benefits, too, of course, but his struggle wasn't modeled well. It's a wonder that anybody in that setting ever makes the short-sighted mistakes of eating junk, drinking too much soda, and skimping on exercise, since it's so easy to ignore the pangs and yearnings.

Playing "a realistic person" isn't just about only forgoing temptations "when it's important." Tell me that I can't have that soda or you'll shoot my baby sister, and I will forgo that soda a lot easier than if it's just "don't drink that soda; you're trying to reduce your caloric intake." You've just made it two immediate concerns rather than one immediate concern and one far-off concern that can be...procrastinated.

Do you really not see that? Can you really not understand the "me, as a person," vs. "how I would be if I were playing myself as a character in a game" divergence between behaviors?

Are YOU doing what you would do with your life if you could turn off all the things you "know you shouldn't do" in the moment, but want to because they're more fun right now? If you, Max_Killjoy, were playing a game where you play yourself, and the game only let you experience what a player experiences of his character's life, would you be better able to drive Max_Killjoy-the-character towards his goals than you are yourself? I know I would be with Segev-the-character, because the temptations to do things that are sub-optimal compared to my long-term goals would be so much less.

I'm not the person to ask these questions, I don't think the answers are going to be instructive either way. So far today the only thing I've done that resembled anything even vaguely like what I wanted to do, was post on this forum. Everything else was because the alternative, what I'd rather have done, has worse results in the long term, and it's only being aware of that result that got me to do what I did at all. I literally did not care at all about 95% of what I did today. Furthermore, most of what I actually want, is never going to happen, it's literally impossible.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-09, 04:56 PM

I mean, noone said that you can just not think about the drawbacks and do things unthinkingly and in character. Sure you can, I have even said that most times I do. (I do want social and RP mechanics for different reasons, anyways.)

But this is missing the point of what Segev and I are trying to say, by focussing on the example instead of the argument. Sure, my personal favourite of dealing with Gear and money is the version of FATE (Make it a skill, don't model too closely), so far that I have copied it pretty much for my own system (Some tweaks, but same general idea.)

And this doesn't deal with the actual point: Characters feel the temptations differently than a removed player. You might think you aren't, and you are just in character. But there is a degree of separation, that for me got really, really highlighted by actually being physically in the spot and having to feel all these things myself. There is a world of difference.

And that is what I think Segev is trying to get across: What you call "just playing a realistic character" might just, when you actually look at it in detail and compare it to a real human, be incredibly strong-willed, hardly ever tempted and without many weakness that they can't just brush aside. I don't know if that's the case, but the possibility is there.

And if you have more fun your way, sure, go for it! Play the strong-willed hardly tempted badass! But don't go around and argue for more realistic characters, because that "is how people are" if you are, in fact, not playing such a character. (To stress again, I don't know if you are. Just throwing out the possibility of you doing something subconciously.)

I wish we could avoid what, to me, looks like a false dichotomy of "no temptations badass" vs "at risk of succumbing to temptations even at the most critical of moments guy". Most people's responses to their "temptations" vary with the context and situation -- and I really think that's what most of these systems miss. Most of us "succumb to temptation" during the moments that are off-screen in fiction and roleplaying. What makes it seem contrived to me is when characters in fiction (and games) inevitably can't seem to keep their issues in check long enough to deal with the life-threatening crisis at hand. Because "drama" or some crap, I don't know.

Nonono, this is the point. When a player enjoys being lower down the hierarchy, being a nobody and having little responsibility, short, being part of the supporting cast, potentially the last they want is them "growing into" the role. That would be antithetical to what they want. And... where would the problem be with that, other than you not wanting it for yourself? Were they disrupting the game with it?

It disrupts the game because he wastes GM time on trying to include him, or he makes everyone feel uncomfortable as he sits there uninvolved. The GM either has to "conveniently" ignore him when combat or other challenges start, or present contrived challenges that his intentionally useless character can somehow still manage to deal with, or the other characters have to risk their lives protecting him, to the point that one has to ask why the hell they don't leave him behind in the next town (or along the side of the damn road, tied to a tree if necessary).

"To the last bit of minutia" is a strawman and you know it.
My point is, that I WANT to mechanize social interactions, because more possibility to act and separating player and character skills. I WANT to mechanize character, so WHO my character is can have an influence on how well they perform at given tasks that should get easier or difficult because of it.
Because I want that experience including these mechanics can offer.

No, it's not a strawman. "If you're not going to mechanize this, why mechanize X or Y?" is not an argument, and I'm tired of seeing it.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-09, 05:19 PM

Floret

2016-12-09, 06:28 PM

I wish we could avoid what, to me, looks like a false dichotomy of "no temptations badass" vs "at risk of succumbing to temptations even at the most critical of moments guy". Most people's responses to their "temptations" vary with the context and situation -- and I really think that's what most of these systems miss. Most of us "succumb to temptation" during the moments that are off-screen in fiction and roleplaying. What makes it seem contrived to me is when characters in fiction (and games) inevitably can't seem to keep their issues in check long enough to deal with the life-threatening crisis at hand. Because "drama" or some crap, I don't know.

I don't think anyone is creating this dichotomy, though. Or, rather, I find "at risk of succumbing to temptations even at the most critical of moments" to be a perfectly legitimate goal, if one does actually want to create humans. That is what temptations ARE. If there isn't some pull to them regardless of the situation, they are hardly something deserving the label "tempting". The counterextreme to "no temptations badass" would also not be "AT RISK of succumbing" but "Always succumbing to everything". And while I do play a character at least close to that extreme, it is an intentionally selected extreme. But "AT RISK" is not an extreme, but a very human thing, is what I am saying.
And, yes, sure, they do. And a system might miss it - but that then would be the fault with the specific system, and not with these systems in general.
The third point... no. No, we don't. Or, actually, we do, but this is somewhat missing the point. Because out of all our lives, pretty much every moment would be offscreen in fiction. The average human does not, in fact, have any experience with anything close to the situations RPG characters regularly deal with. We feel temptations, but we can't say how much we would if we were actually on the spot - not from our daily lives.
Which is why I am so insistent on bringing up Larp in this case: Because through it, I have been there. (Well, sort of) I have been in the situation where you are put in the spot between temptation and really, really important stuff. Where you can't do anything off-screen (Well, mostly). And temptations stayed tempting. (Really, try sitting on the toilet when Undead are attacking your friends, and all the other fighters have gone somewhere else. And then try weighing "Do I finish this in peace, surely these few seconds won't kill anyone" and "Do I save my friends NOW and oh **** the screams are getting more panicked" against each other. Or "Do I sleep through this, dammit I'm tired" against "Outside the room I'm in, people/friends are being attacked". Or even just, as was the example: "Do I eat, or is this other thing more important?")
Issues can be hard to keep in check, is my point. Exceedingly hard.

It disrupts the game because he wastes GM time on trying to include him, or he makes everyone feel uncomfortable as he sits there uninvolved. The GM either has to "conveniently" ignore him when combat or other challenges start, or present contrived challenges that his intentionally useless character can somehow still manage to deal with, or the other characters have to risk their lives protecting him, to the point that one has to ask why the hell they don't leave him behind in the next town (or along the side of the damn road, tied to a tree if necessary).

Alright, legitimate reasons. I feel like this is an issue of different playstyle colliding, and would, as ever, advise not to game in groups with too differing playstyles. But I don't feel like having such characters is in and of itself inherently bad.

Cluedrew

2016-12-09, 07:39 PM

I personally like the idea of loosening up balance a bit so you don't have to be maximally efficient to be viable in the game. Give players rooms to make interesting (and non-game ending) decisions definitely helps.

But I want to actually propose a slightly different question. We have mostly been talking about decision making in the face of temptation. Which is very far into the softer character side of the game. I want to bring it out closer to the mechanical side for a moment. It starts with initiative.

Initiative in some theoretical system where it determines turn order characters have an initiative bonus, maybe roll on top of it at the start of a fight, and no surprise round mechanic. That should be enough.

So, two adventurers are walking down a path in the forest of low-to-mid-level monsters when a bunch of giant level spiders appear in nearby branches. Now the adventurers have similar initiative scores, and say it is about even with the spiders scores once you add the circumstance bonus on they got for appearing suddenly. But one of the adventurers has previously established to have arachnophobia, what happens?

Option 1: Nothing, arachnophobia has no mechanics associated with it or none that come up in this situation. Combat proceeds as normal except for and extra things the player throws in.

Option 2: The character gets a penalty to initiative from the shock of fear they get.

Option 3: The character has a chance to spend their first turn running away in terror before pulling themselves together (they are an adventure, we will say that happens automatically at the beginning of there next turn.

And you could go on, I just felt these three examples provided a good spectrum. #1 is the "I'll just role play" solution. #2 has a mechanical effect, but only in an area that you already use your character sheet. #3 just strips away player control for a moment as the character runs away screaming.

So is #1 "We don't support that, you will have to make your own solution." Is #3 too intrusive? Is #2 the best of both worlds or the worst of both? What do you think?

Talakeal

2016-12-09, 07:54 PM

As an example of why "lifestyle" mechanics reflect the problem I'm attacking, I'll do a modest adaptation of the earlier broad-strokes system I outlined to a Lifestyle System.

Let's say that there are 3 choices for "Lifestyle" (maybe 4): Poor, Average, and Rich. With "destitute" being the 4th one, reflecting literally having no money spent on shelter and food and your own space at all.

Poor costs 5 cp/week.
Average costs 10 sp/week.
Rich costs 20 gp/week.

Under most extant systems, the "destitute" lifestyle has problems of always being fatigued and having to basically camp out every night. "Poor," "Average," and "Rich" all have the same "meets your needs, so no penalties" rules. Maybe there's some nod to "rich" lifestyle letting you hobnob with the upper crust, but usually that's accompanied by "but you're more of a target for thieves, too, with your conspicuous consumption." (Worse still are the systems where the latter is present without even the nod of the former).

There are two ways to make this into anything but a punishment to the players who choose anything above "Poor:"

1) Have there be mechanical rewards for better lifestyles, worth the expenditure.
2) Make the "social hobnobbing" rules actually matter (which is a form of 1, but softer).

Option 1 can be achieved by playing with my morale points, even. The simplest model would be that "camping out" (which "destitute" always is) under the best conditions yields back 1 morale point per night, and has a chance of draining them if done too long. "Poor" living conditions restores 1 morale point per night, period. "Average" restores your level in morale points per night. "Rich" nets you the same, but also lets you roll your morale dice once per day for a quick recharge by indulging in a luxury that's part of your lifestyle (an hour at a private club, eating an expensive snack, getting a massage from your manservant, or other such indulgence of the wealthy).

Option 2 can be richer and more interesting, and isn't mutually exclusive with option 1. Here, each lifestyle gives you bonuses to interacting with certain crowds, and penalties with others. If you make these evenly balanced, it still is net "better" to be poor than rich, because it's cheaper for the same benefits. But if either moving in the richer circles yields more gameplay opportunities/advantages, or the dangers are less, or there is a wider expanse of opportunity and a narrower class of disfavor the higher your lifestyle, it starts to balance out.

If you combine it with 1, you could go with the "even balance" across all levels, or you could tweak it so the shift is still to the more expensive lifestyle's advantage, but not having to be quite so much so.

But the idea here is that, if you're going to spend game-important resources like gp on your "lifestyle," you should get something worth those resources back in gameplay rewards. Just as you would for buying a magic item with those gp.

Honestly I think you (or your DM / gaming group) just spends too much time worrying about the little stuff. RPG crafting systems and economies don't work as written. I prefer to just abstract it; just say that everyone character gets X days of crafting time between each adventure and just let people declare their character's lifestyle as they see fit; its so minor (and irrelevant to the rest of play) that it is more or less just a flavor thing. If I was playing a game where the DM enforced lifestyle costs I would just mark down whatever was appropriate to my character and then pay it, if it was more than other people were playing I would just shrug and accept it as part of the system's built in stupidity, just like having to choose between being a fighter or a monk and having a functioning class*.

Which is not to say that I don't like your morale system, it is pretty good and not too different from what I do in my own game. I am just curious how you would model certain edge cases and get it so that it is specific enough for each character.

Out of curiosity, how would you handle this situation that occurred in my last campaign:

The party was travelling to a monastery on top of a tall mountain. To reach it you had to climb tens of thousands of stairs. The rest of the party made their way up leisurely, periodically stopping to rest, have picnics, or just stare out in wonder at the landscape below. My character was too determined and fixated on her goal to stop, so the Game Master had me roll periodic stamina tests to resist resting, I was rolling like crap all evening, and ended up burning through almost all of my willpower points to keep going. So when we finally got to the top, where the real adventure started, my character was completely exhausted both mentally and physically.

*: Honestly if you are playing a broken system like 3.5 worrying about how many hours a day you spend scribing scrolls or spending 50gp a month on upkeep should be the least of your balance concerns.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-09, 08:11 PM

So, two adventurers are walking down a path in the forest of low-to-mid-level monsters when a bunch of giant level spiders appear in nearby branches. Now the adventurers have similar initiative scores, and say it is about even with the spiders scores once you add the circumstance bonus on they got for appearing suddenly. But one of the adventurers has previously established to have arachnophobia, what happens?

It depends entirely on the tone of the game/system.

The player going "Eek a spider" with no mechanical effects is appropriate for a tactical combat simulator like D&D where RP is more or less optional.

For a gritty system then some sort of morale test would practically be required to maintain the appropriate tone. I do suggest making a test instead of having a flat effect, because this is an RPG and testing is fun, and characters should have the opportunity to surprise people with unexpected ability.

For somewhere in between then an incentive system of "You don't have to take a penalty here, but if you volunteer to then you get some sort of bonus later down the line in exchange." might work well.

---

For my own ways I'd handle it:

In D&D, nothing happens unless we'd previously agreed to a gritter than usual style of gameplay, in which case some sort of will test would be in order. Magnitude of failure determines severity of penalty from temporary minuses to attack, or something, to losing round(s) of combat.

In Dungeon World/Apocalypse World I'd probably ask the player if they thought there was any chance at all that their character might possibility hesitate as a result of this. If they said yes, then I'd get them to roll "Act Under Fire"/"Defy Danger with wisdom". Partial success would probably result in -1 forward (-1 to their next roll), total success is powering through the fear.

In Burning Wheel there's an actual stat for exactly this sort of situation called Steel which is essentially your character's courage. And if a giant spider jumped out at you every person in the party would be rolling it, arachnophobia or not. Almost every part of this is mechanized so I'd need to make very few decisions myself. Make a steel test, difficulty 10 - your will. If you fail the player has the choice of "running screaming" "falling prone and begging for mercy" "standing and drooling" and "swooning" for a number of actions equal to how much you failed the test by. The only decision I'd have to make as a GM would be deciding if I'd add an additional disadvantage for the arachnophobia, which I think I would.

In Torchbearer I'd do nothing if it wasn't some sort of magical spider fear aura. But players would have an opportunity to penalize themselves while fighting the spider to get bonuses down the road from it.

Lorsa

2016-12-11, 05:24 AM

For me, the Chess analogy seems rather weird when applied to RPGs. I don't understand how an RPG has a "win condition" such as Chess. I've always thought the point of the RPG WAS to "play out a game of courtly intrigue" (in the Chess analogy) and not "check-mate the opponent's king". It could be a difference with approaching RPGs differently than others, but that's what they've always represented to me.

I mean, the only real "win condition" in RPGs is to have fun. That's it! I personally have fun when I can take on the viewpoint of a made-up character and immerse myself in a pretend world full of adventure. Maybe you have different goals, but I've never viewed an RPG as something like "I play vs. the GM and hope to win" (because frankly, you can't).

So, as far as making sub-optimal decisions, that's always seemed natural to me. When I play an RPG, I try to put myself into the character as much as possible, to really feel whatever the character is feeling, and act accordingly. This includes buying first-class tickets whenever possible if I play a character that cares about such things.

Trying to put in game mechanics for these kind of things always fall short on the mark for me. They don't help me FEEL what the character is feeling, instead, they actually drag me out of the game a little, in order to interact with some mechanics which often is on a weird level of abstraction. Thus they are counter productive to the fun I'm trying to have.

If there are some type of "roleplaying mechanics" though, it seems much more logical if they work as some sort of penalty rather than a bonus. It never made sense to me that "IF you act out your arachnophobia, you get points". To me, that has some problems because you are partly reliant on the GM giving you the right situations that can potentially give you points in the first place, but also because, as I said before, that's not really how phobias work.

I have a fear of needles, so I avoid vaccinations whenever possible. I doubt I get any bonuses for increasing my infection risk. But it certainly would require some form of willpower roll (with incredibly high penalties) to ever get some form of injection.

So, if you really want to model emotions, do it with penalties.

Unfortunately, it is very very hard to do this. I mean, most game systems even fail to do so in combat situations (despite being combat focused). I don't really think any decent level of abstraction come anywhere close to reality, which is why I prefer to leave it up to, you know, imagination. Since game mechanics can hardly accurately simulate what it is like to be on a sugar low when you are a sugar addict, or what minor sleep deprivation does to your mood (which is different for everyone), or the strength of temptation to gamble etc etc. I've always thought that was my job, as a player. I can simulate those things far better than any mechanics could.

So, I don't really understand why you would want mechanics for this. What is the point? That you really want to play a game of courtly intrigue but end up playing Chess unless the mechanics forces you to do the intrigue? That seems like you are somehow the enemy of your own fun. Why not simply play the game you want instead of the other game?

tl, dr; I think the human imagination is better at taking complex emotional input into account than any form of abstracted game mechanics. If mechanics should be there, I think they're better off working as penalties rather than some weird bonus for "acting in accordance with your personality" or whatever.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-11, 05:50 AM

Lorsa

2016-12-11, 08:13 AM

Of course RPGs have win conditions. They're just player defined ones. And, like any good game, you should be able to have fun losing as well as winning.

Win conditions assumes you are competing against someone. Which player(s) are you competing with in an RPG? How do you win against them? Aquire the most XP / "good RP cookies" / magic weapons with your character?

To me, roleplaying has always been a group activity. It's not a "I win, you lose, HAHA" kind of game. If it all goes right, everyone has fun.

Obviously, the CHARACTERS can win and lose depending on what they set out to do. That is a different story though, and isn't really what I thought we were discussing, especially in regards to the Chess analogy?

ComradeBear

2016-12-11, 08:32 AM

Win conditions assumes you are competing against someone. Which player(s) are you competing with in an RPG? How do you win against them? Aquire the most XP / "good RP cookies" / magic weapons with your character?

To me, roleplaying has always been a group activity. It's not a "I win, you lose, HAHA" kind of game. If it all goes right, everyone has fun.

Obviously, the CHARACTERS can win and lose depending on what they set out to do. That is a different story though, and isn't really what I thought we were discussing, especially in regards to the Chess analogy?

Win conditions don't in any way require that players be adversarial. They're simply a fixture of how to know when the game is over and if we're happy about the outcome.

Pandemic is a board game and not an RPG. It is 100% cooperative. Everyone is on the same team, playing against the game itself. It has a win condition.

D&D has many win conditions at many scales. You might win when "The great lich Gaximat is defeated" or when "The Abonial Treasure Hoard is yours" or when "everyone trying to kill you in this room right now is dead." These are all win conditions. They're set forth by the group, and are still win conditions.

Other RPGs also have win conditions, though they may shift a bit compared to D&D.
Win Conditions do not require competition between players, or between players and GM.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-11, 08:35 AM

Win conditions assumes you are competing against someone. Which player(s) are you competing with in an RPG? How do you win against them? Aquire the most XP / "good RP cookies" / magic weapons with your character?

To me, roleplaying has always been a group activity. It's not a "I win, you lose, HAHA" kind of game. If it all goes right, everyone has fun.

Obviously, the CHARACTERS can win and lose depending on what they set out to do. That is a different story though, and isn't really what I thought we were discussing, especially in regards to the Chess analogy?

Step 1: Define a goal for your character. Something like "I will become king."
Step 2: Compete against the GM in pursuit of your goal. RPGs are about conflict, it's the GM's objective to hinder you in pursuit of your goal and make you work for it. "There's already a king and he's not too happy about your goal."
Step 3: There should eventually come a point where it becomes clear if you've won or lost at your goal. Either you become king, or it becomes clear that you will never become king.
Step 4: Either end the game because you've gotten everything you wanted out of it, or go back to step 1.

Obviously there's way more nuance than this simplistic overview offers. And there are other types of RPGs that don't really follow this model, but I think they're less common.

There are various ways of going about step 2 in particular, and 2 doesn't necessarily have to be an adversarial relationship. I think in most games, though, the results of 3 should be unclear. There should be a realistic possibility of victory and defeat. And it can be frustrating if you have to decide between achieving 3 or roleplaying your character faithfully.

Segev

2016-12-11, 03:22 PM

Honestly I think you (or your DM / gaming group) just spends too much time worrying about the little stuff. RPG crafting systems and economies don't work as written. I prefer to just abstract it; just say that everyone character gets X days of crafting time between each adventure and just let people declare their character's lifestyle as they see fit; its so minor (and irrelevant to the rest of play) that it is more or less just a flavor thing. If I was playing a game where the DM enforced lifestyle costs I would just mark down whatever was appropriate to my character and then pay it, if it was more than other people were playing I would just shrug and accept it as part of the system's built in stupidity, just like having to choose between being a fighter or a monk and having a functioning class*.Eh, this comes off as "ignore the rules, and they aren't a problem," to me. Sure, if you say that you don't have to spend money on "lifestyle," and can just pick whatever level you want for your character, then there isn't a need to have mechanics for it. That's a fine way to run that particular element.

But it's also somewhat ignoring the core point: If you have a mechanical resource which can be spent on something with positive mechanical effect OR which can be spent on no mechanical effect, then the game creates pressure to spend it on the positive mechanical effect. My whole goal is to alleviate this issue when the "no mechancial effect" is the more "in character" thing for the CHARACTER to do, because he in theory would enjoy it more than NOT having it.

And to Max_Killjoy's "cutting edge of resource management" concern, I think he's missing that this "lifestyle" is an ongoing expense. It's not just 20 gp vs. 5 cp once, when dealing with tens of thousands of gp in magical gear. No. It's 20 gp over and over and over gain, which adds up over time. It can make the difference between 3 and 4 potions for the next adventure. Or, if 3 is "enough," between being able to afford a +1 flaming sword in 2 adventures or 3. "Oh, that's just waiting a little longer!" is a bad argument, since the counterargument is "Oh, that 'comfort' (that the player doesn't experience) in that lifestyle isn't worth the wait."

Out of curiosity, how would you handle this situation that occurred in my last campaign:

The party was travelling to a monastery on top of a tall mountain. To reach it you had to climb tens of thousands of stairs. The rest of the party made their way up leisurely, periodically stopping to rest, have picnics, or just stare out in wonder at the landscape below. My character was too determined and fixated on her goal to stop, so the Game Master had me roll periodic stamina tests to resist resting, I was rolling like crap all evening, and ended up burning through almost all of my willpower points to keep going. So when we finally got to the top, where the real adventure started, my character was completely exhausted both mentally and physically.Here's a case where the expended wp points to keep going are actually buying something, unless the GM screws you over. (Though in this case, perhaps it wouldn't buy you something GOOD.)

Because you pushed through, you must have arrived before the other PCs. Presumably quite some time before. I mean, let's assume they took 10 5 minute breaks. One every thousand steps. That's hardly ridiculously many for a "leisurely" walk up 10 thousand stairs. (Oh, okay, you had tens of thousands, but...you know what I mean. Roll with this example, please.) You didn't stop. Even assuming you didn't run faster than they walked - that every moment you were moving you were moving as fast as they were moving every moment they were moving - that's 50 minutes ahead of them that you arrive at the top.

You had 50 minutes up there without them.

Now, maybe being exhausted (mentally and physically) and alone is even worse. So that's one way it could have bought you only "bad." It would've been wiser to rest and take your time climbing up.

I was in a PF Society game where the party knew an ally had been kidnapped, and so we were rushing to try to rescue him. There were opportunities to take breaks - even call it a day and recover spells and such - but we felt time was of the essence. Unfortunately, we learned after the fact that the adventure module assumed you rested before the final confrontation. And yet, we arrived just as our ally was on his last legs in a fight (turned out he hadn't been kidnapped, but waylaid), just as we would have if we'd taken the night to rest. Because the GM ran it in "RPG time," we had screwed ourselves over by arriving drained and depleted.

If your GM was playing a bit better than ours, you might've arrived some 50 minutes before the events at the proper adventure kicked off, and had time to exploit the situation before it was settled.

At the least, you should've been able to rest 50 min. to recover while waiting for the party. Or gotten scouting done, if that's your bailiwick, while you waited.

I think the choice to spend "willpower" to avoid resting is a valid one, and models for you, the player, closer to what the character is feeling. "I just... if I just rest a bit... huff... huff... no,... must push on..."

Honestly if you are playing a broken system like 3.5 worrying about how many hours a day you spend scribing scrolls or spending 50gp a month on upkeep should be the least of your balance concerns.Eh, it's part of the rules. Again, "I house rule away those concerns" is one way to deal with it.

For me, the Chess analogy seems rather weird when applied to RPGs. I don't understand how an RPG has a "win condition" such as Chess. I've always thought the point of the RPG WAS to "play out a game of courtly intrigue" (in the Chess analogy) and not "check-mate the opponent's king". It could be a difference with approaching RPGs differently than others, but that's what they've always represented to me.
Let's say that my goal is to "play out a game where Segivus Maximus maneuvers to become Emperor." I 'win' each time I get closer to that goal. I 'lose' each time I fail, or worse, suffer a drawback to that goal.

Win conditions assumes you are competing against someone. Which player(s) are you competing with in an RPG? How do you win against them? Aquire the most XP / "good RP cookies" / magic weapons with your character?Have you ever played a cooperative game, where it's the game itself against you? Arkham Horror or Betrayal at the House on the Hill come to mind, for me. In those, you win by beating the game. Similar to how you win by beating Bowser in a Mario Bros. game. There's no other player.

In an RPG with a GM, you win when you achieve whatever gameplay goals you laid out.

Do you "win" in Sim City? Yes, each time you achieve some goal you set. Can you lose Sim City? Absolutely; you can have your city's problems prevent you from building what you want, or even send it into ruin and bankruptcy. There's no other player, and you're not even playing against the game so much as trying to see if you can use the mechanics to achieve your goals or if your own misuse of them will cost you.

To me, roleplaying has always been a group activity. It's not a "I win, you lose, HAHA" kind of game.And nothing I've been discussing has been about "I win, you lose." It's been about making it so that "I want to play my character" isn't in such sharp opposition to "the game wants me to do this."

Obviously, the CHARACTERS can win and lose depending on what they set out to do. That is a different story though, and isn't really what I thought we were discussing, especially in regards to the Chess analogy?
So, then, Mario can win or lose, but you can't lose at Mario, even in the short term.

Talakeal

2016-12-11, 03:56 PM

Because you pushed through, you must have arrived before the other PCs. Presumably quite some time before. I mean, let's assume they took 10 5 minute breaks. One every thousand steps. That's hardly ridiculously many for a "leisurely" walk up 10 thousand stairs. (Oh, okay, you had tens of thousands, but...you know what I mean. Roll with this example, please.) You didn't stop. Even assuming you didn't run faster than they walked - that every moment you were moving you were moving as fast as they were moving every moment they were moving - that's 50 minutes ahead of them that you arrive at the top.

You had 50 minutes up there without them.

Now, maybe being exhausted (mentally and physically) and alone is even worse. So that's one way it could have bought you only "bad." It would've been wiser to rest and take your time climbing up.

I was in a PF Society game where the party knew an ally had been kidnapped, and so we were rushing to try to rescue him. There were opportunities to take breaks - even call it a day and recover spells and such - but we felt time was of the essence. Unfortunately, we learned after the fact that the adventure module assumed you rested before the final confrontation. And yet, we arrived just as our ally was on his last legs in a fight (turned out he hadn't been kidnapped, but waylaid), just as we would have if we'd taken the night to rest. Because the GM ran it in "RPG time," we had screwed ourselves over by arriving drained and depleted.

If your GM was playing a bit better than ours, you might've arrived some 50 minutes before the events at the proper adventure kicked off, and had time to exploit the situation before it was settled.

At the least, you should've been able to rest 50 min. to recover while waiting for the party. Or gotten scouting done, if that's your bailiwick, while you waited.

I think the choice to spend "willpower" to avoid resting is a valid one, and models for you, the player, closer to what the character is feeling. "I just... if I just rest a bit... huff... huff... no,... must push on..."

The whole point of the example was that there was no advantage to getting their first. I was not capable of starting the next encounter without the rest of the party, and if I had somehow been able to it would have been disastrous. When I got to the top of the stares I pulled out my text book and studied while I impatiently waited for the rest of the party to catch up to me.

The thing is, I expended all of my "morale" in the attempt. That was the sacrifice. I got nothing out of it, but it was appropriate to the character. In this instance if you have an in character benefit to the expenditure, than it isn't a sacrifice for RP at all, merely a tactical decision. On the other hand, if you reward morale for sacrificing morale, what do you accomplish?

If you award an equal amount to what was spent, you basically undo the sacrifice, and make it so people have no reason not to have their characters push themselves to their limits because their is no cost. If you reward less, you haven't actually done what you set out to do and offer mechanical benefits to offset the loss.

Eh, this comes off as "ignore the rules, and they aren't a problem," to me. Sure, if you say that you don't have to spend money on "lifestyle," and can just pick whatever level you want for your character, then there isn't a need to have mechanics for it. That's a fine way to run that particular element.

But it's also somewhat ignoring the core point: If you have a mechanical resource which can be spent on something with positive mechanical effect OR which can be spent on no mechanical effect, then the game creates pressure to spend it on the positive mechanical effect. My whole goal is to alleviate this issue when the "no mechancial effect" is the more "in character" thing for the CHARACTER to do, because he in theory would enjoy it more than NOT having it.

And to Max_Killjoy's "cutting edge of resource management" concern, I think he's missing that this "lifestyle" is an ongoing expense. It's not just 20 gp vs. 5 cp once, when dealing with tens of thousands of gp in magical gear. No. It's 20 gp over and over and over gain, which adds up over time. It can make the difference between 3 and 4 potions for the next adventure. Or, if 3 is "enough," between being able to afford a +1 flaming sword in 2 adventures or 3. "Oh, that's just waiting a little longer!" is a bad argument, since the counterargument is "Oh, that 'comfort' (that the player doesn't experience) in that lifestyle isn't worth the wait."
Here's a case where the expended wp points to keep going are actually buying something, unless the GM screws you over. (Though in this case, perhaps it wouldn't buy you something GOOD.)

I thought your premise was that you wanted to add in complex house rules for morale to alleviate the problem? If we are going to be tinkering with the rules anyway why not do the simpler thing?

Also, (assuming 3.5) the rules for D&D state that you work 8 hours a day when crafting, no more no less. So if you are playing by RAW to begin with the choice is out of your hands, either you work for eight hours or you don't make the item.

Eh, it's part of the rules. Again, "I house rule away those concerns" is one way to deal with it.

Exactly my point. D&D is a game full of stupid rules. Unless you are playing Pun-Pun every choice you make is going to hurt you. Worrying about having to spend a few gold now and again to properly RP an upper-class lifestyle is absolutely miniscule compared to the choice to, say, be unable to contribute in almost any situation because you want to RP a mundane swordsman.

I don't need to house rule away the problem, when I sit down to play D&D I just accept that my character is going to be mechanically screwed in a dozen ways if I play the game in a way that I find fun.

Have you ever played a cooperative game, where it's the game itself against you? Arkham Horror or Betrayal at the House on the Hill come to mind, for me. In those, you win by beating the game. Similar to how you win by beating Bowser in a Mario Bros. game. There's no other player.

In an RPG with a GM, you win when you achieve whatever gameplay goals you laid out.

Do you "win" in Sim City? Yes, each time you achieve some goal you set. Can you lose Sim City? Absolutely; you can have your city's problems prevent you from building what you want, or even send it into ruin and bankruptcy. There's no other player, and you're not even playing against the game so much as trying to see if you can use the mechanics to achieve your goals or if your own misuse of them will cost you.

And nothing I've been discussing has been about "I win, you lose." It's been about making it so that "I want to play my character" isn't in such sharp opposition to "the game wants me to do this."

So, then, Mario can win or lose, but you can't lose at Mario, even in the short term.

Mario and Arkham Horror have built in win and loss conditions even if they aren't competitive.

RPGs do not. I don't even know how you would define a win or a loss in an RPG. The closest I can come up with would either be accomplishing some arbitrary number of in character goals or maybe surviving until I have gone through all the content the DM has planned for the campaign? But even then I don't know, I know a lot of people have found that games that ended with a noble sacrifice or tragic last stand to be to be some of their best RPG experiences.

Segev

2016-12-11, 04:17 PM

The whole point of the example was that there was no advantage to getting their first. I was not capable of starting the next encounter without the rest of the party, and if I had somehow been able to it would have been disastrous. When I got to the top of the stares I pulled out my text book and studied while I impatiently waited for the rest of the party to catch up to me.

The thing is, I expended all of my "morale" in the attempt. That was the sacrifice. I got nothing out of it, but it was appropriate to the character. In this instance if you have an in character benefit to the expenditure, than it isn't a sacrifice for RP at all, merely a tactical decision. On the other hand, if you reward morale for sacrificing morale, what do you accomplish?

If you award an equal amount to what was spent, you basically undo the sacrifice, and make it so people have no reason not to have their characters push themselves to their limits because their is no cost. If you reward less, you haven't actually done what you set out to do and offer mechanical benefits to offset the loss.If you're asking how I think the "character motivation to continue" should be modeled, then we'd have to go a bit beyond what I've posited. Please recall that I said it was a rough idea, not a complete and elegant system.

Your character clearly wanted to get there, and did not care that he'd get there ahead of the party. Without more information as to WHY he felt motivated in that way, I can't really even begin to suggest what mechanics perhaps should "reward" making that choice. I can only assume that he thought getting there faster would let him act faster, and that he was therefore factually wrong.

Though thinking about it, it seems that modeling the "you're exhausted; you want to stop, but you can press through" with morale is perhaps the wrong way to go about it. You're modeling an emotional COST into doing something you emotionally WANT to do, which is backwards.

So maybe - and please, again, recall that I'm donig this ad hoc, and don't have a complete, elegant, firmly-grounded system - the way this should be modeled is that it COSTS you morale (or willpower) to STOP. If we go with "morale," that's slightly different than WP in that it can be stripped from you by circumstances (demoralizing you, if you will), so stopping could be forced upon you and make your morale points drop even if you "don't want to."

The stamina rolls to keep going could either be in the same vein as a climb check - if you fail, you can't keep progressing until you succeed (after some rest) - or could be related to a "stamina points" reserve (if you wanted to model stamina to that degree). Heck, in 3.5, you could just say "take X nonlethal due to exhaustion to continue without resting." Or "gain the exhausted condition."

In short, though, on examination, I think it a mistake to have your emotional drive be to stop. It clearly is quite the opposite.

I thought your premise was that you wanted to add in complex house rules for morale to alleviate the problem? If we are going to be tinkering with the rules anyway why not do the simpler thing?Note that this is meant to be used on more than "lifestyle." "Lifestyle" is one sub-example.

"Just remove all social rules" works, too. Heck, "Just remove equipment" would solve it!

What I'm looking to do is create a system which models at least a lot of character drives and dilemmas in a way that allows the player to experience them with the appropriate relative strength to their alternatives, as the character would. Again: "I want to lose weight. As a player, I don't suffer my character's hunger pangs nor do I enjoy the taste of his fattening desserts. So I only have the drive to make him diet perfectly to lose weight." That is just an example of the myriad self-control issues and the like I'm trying to build a system to model overall. And it all ties together with social mechanics and character drives and urges and flaws and whatnot.

Also, (assuming 3.5) the rules for D&D state that you work 8 hours a day when crafting, no more no less. So if you are playing by RAW to begin with the choice is out of your hands, either you work for eight hours or you don't make the item.Sure. But I can work 8 hours a day, every day, without fail, never slacking, never shirking, never taking a day off. If I deign to go to that fair one day with my friends, not only do I lose a day of crafting, but I spend some gp! And I get nothing for it (unless the DM planned an adventure there, and I got more out of the adventure than I spent in GP plus the cost of a day's work). While there are certainly people who live their lives like that, there is no reason for any PC to do anything else. Whereas relatively few real people live that way, and are more prone to WANT to do things like go to a fair every once in a while, even viewing that as a cool thing to save money to spend on, rather than a "waste" of money.

Exactly my point. D&D is a game full of stupid rules. Unless you are playing Pun-Pun every choice you make is going to hurt you. Worrying about having to spend a few gold now and again to properly RP an upper-class lifestyle is absolutely miniscule compared to the choice to, say, be unable to contribute in almost any situation because you want to RP a mundane swordsman.

I don't need to house rule away the problem, when I sit down to play D&D I just accept that my character is going to be mechanically screwed in a dozen ways if I play the game in a way that I find fun.I'm sorry, if you genuinely cannot see the difference between what you describe here and the issues I'm talking about, I don't know how to get it across to you. "If you aren't going to earn all of the money in the world every day, I don't see how you can possibly care whether you take a job that pays $10/hour or a job that pays $1 billion / year," is what this reads as to me.

Mario and Arkham Horror have built in win and loss conditions even if they aren't competitive.

RPGs do not. I don't even know how you would define a win or a loss in an RPG. The closest I can come up with would either be accomplishing some arbitrary number of in character goals or maybe surviving until I have gone through all the content the DM has planned for the campaign? But even then I don't know, I know a lot of people have found that games that ended with a noble sacrifice or tragic last stand to be to be some of their best RPG experiences.Wrong. RPGs have tons and tons of wins and losses. Every time you want your character to do something, but there's a chance of failure, you win if he succeeds, and you lose if he fails.

You lose when you can't hit the stupid monster you're fighting, and are forced to retreat (or worse, die). You lose when you wanted to persuade the crowd to support you for Minister of War, but they go with the NPC who is your rival. You lose when a pickpocket steals from you and you fail to get back what was taken.

The degree and seriousness of the loss may vary. Perhaps you really do'nt care that the pickpocket got your bag of 30 gp; you have many thousands more.

You win when you succeed at things you want to accomplish. You win when you kill that doggon dragon. You win when you finally get that Helm of Brilliance you've been striving for. You win when you get appointed Grand Vizier.

Each time you have some power in the game system to ATTEMPT something, but you have to play through mechanics to determine if you succeed, you can win or lose.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-11, 04:55 PM

That's like saying that despite whatever the actual the final score, there were dozens or hundreds of "wins" or "losses" inside a sporting event.

It's the outcome that matters, and there comes a point where you break things down to such tiny granularity that it becomes silly.

A batter that hits a homerun on an 0-2 count "won" the at-bat... the idea that he went 1 of 3 against the pitcher in that at-bat because he missed on the first two swings is a classic example of missing the forest for the trees. On the flip side, a batter can get 4 hits in 4 plate appearances in a game, and his team can still lose the game -- it's meaningless that he "won" 4 times out of 4 at-bats.

Cluedrew

2016-12-11, 07:54 PM

So much I want to reply to, so little time (which is why I haven't replied already).

For my own ways I'd handle it: [...different systems in different games...]I like that; different systems for different games. I don't think there is one solution. Thanks for responding by the way.

One particular advantage of the player activated effects (your Torchbearer example, FATE does something similar) is that it address the "but the game can't simulate my character" because it doesn't try, it just gives you more tools to do so.

So, if you really want to model emotions, do it with penalties.I want to disagree. Personally I think personality should also give bonuses. First off because say there is a "strong willpower" trait, it should provide a bonus where "weak willpower" would provide a penalty.

Besides I want to reward people for playing their character, not punish them. (Having fun being its own reward thing aside.)

If you award an equal amount to what was spent, you basically undo the sacrifice, and make it so people have no reason not to have their characters push themselves to their limits because their is no cost. If you reward less, you haven't actually done what you set out to do and offer mechanical benefits to offset the loss.Actually, I don't think it should always be one or the other. Sometimes it will work out even, other times it will be to your disadvantage, other times the bonus can turn things into your favour. Of course that means bonuses and penalties probably aren't directly comparable.

Spend some money on a treat for yourself, get a moral bonus, later spend the moral bonus to preform a feat of strength. Is that money equal to, less than, or greater than the strength bonus in value? Who knows.

Personally, I just want to have something about the character's character on the sheet. That way it is in the rules, mechanical enforced and everything, that your character is not an unfeeling killing machine.

To Max_Killjoy: I think you meant it as a counter argument, but that analogy makes sense to me. Especially when you factor in there is no final "win/lose" state in most role-playing games, you just keep on going accumulating partial wins and loses and hopefully having a grand old time.

Talakeal

2016-12-12, 12:11 AM

Actually, I don't think it should always be one or the other. Sometimes it will work out even, other times it will be to your disadvantage, other times the bonus can turn things into your favour. Of course that means bonuses and penalties probably aren't directly comparable.

Spend some money on a treat for yourself, get a moral bonus, later spend the moral bonus to preform a feat of strength. Is that money equal to, less than, or greater than the strength bonus in value? Who knows.

In this particular example, though, the reward and the sacrifice both use the exact same currency. You are using up your "morale points" to succeed at a task that only matters for RP reasons, only to (presumably) be rewarded with more morale points to compensate you for the loss.

If you're asking how I think the "character motivation to continue" should be modeled, then we'd have to go a bit beyond what I've posited. Please recall that I said it was a rough idea, not a complete and elegant system.

Your character clearly wanted to get there, and did not care that he'd get there ahead of the party. Without more information as to WHY he felt motivated in that way, I can't really even begin to suggest what mechanics perhaps should "reward" making that choice. I can only assume that he thought getting there faster would let him act faster, and that he was therefore factually wrong.

Though thinking about it, it seems that modeling the "you're exhausted; you want to stop, but you can press through" with morale is perhaps the wrong way to go about it. You're modeling an emotional COST into doing something you emotionally WANT to do, which is backwards.

So maybe - and please, again, recall that I'm donig this ad hoc, and don't have a complete, elegant, firmly-grounded system - the way this should be modeled is that it COSTS you morale (or willpower) to STOP. If we go with "morale," that's slightly different than WP in that it can be stripped from you by circumstances (demoralizing you, if you will), so stopping could be forced upon you and make your morale points drop even if you "don't want to."

The stamina rolls to keep going could either be in the same vein as a climb check - if you fail, you can't keep progressing until you succeed (after some rest) - or could be related to a "stamina points" reserve (if you wanted to model stamina to that degree). Heck, in 3.5, you could just say "take X nonlethal due to exhaustion to continue without resting." Or "gain the exhausted condition."

In short, though, on examination, I think it a mistake to have your emotional drive be to stop. It clearly is quite the opposite.

My character was disgusted that the rest of the party was treating a somber task (carrying out an execution sentence) like it was a camping trip. She was also very proud and competitive, and after she slipped on the stairs near the very beginning and had one of the other PCs catch her she decided that she was going to be the first one to the top and didn't need anyone's help.

Yes, it is backwards, it is a situation that turns the entire morale system on its head. Morale is supposed to give you a bonus to rolls. You gain morale by giving into your vices. But in this case, your roll is helping you give into your vice, and the only "sacrifice" you are making is with said morale.

I'm sorry, if you genuinely cannot see the difference between what you describe here and the issues I'm talking about, I don't know how to get it across to you. "If you aren't going to earn all of the money in the world every day, I don't see how you can possibly care whether you take a job that pays $10/hour or a job that pays $1 billion / year," is what this reads as to me.

To continue the money analogy, to me what you are saying is the equivalent of a guy who gives up a $500,000 a year job to pursue a minimum wage job that he loves only to then bitch and moan about how his new job charges him thirty bucks a year for an employee parking permit.

3.X is so broken that almost every choice you make for the sake of "fun" or "flavor" is going to punish your mechanical effectiveness, worrying about your character power being diminished by lifestyle costs is like rearranging the furniture when the house is on fire.

Other (imo better) games typically either have your social class / lifestyle come with built in advantages and disadvantages or are just relegated to "fluff" and mostly glossed over from a mechanical standpoint.

Wrong. RPGs have tons and tons of wins and losses. Every time you want your character to do something, but there's a chance of failure, you win if he succeeds, and you lose if he fails.

You lose when you can't hit the stupid monster you're fighting, and are forced to retreat (or worse, die). You lose when you wanted to persuade the crowd to support you for Minister of War, but they go with the NPC who is your rival. You lose when a pickpocket steals from you and you fail to get back what was taken.

The degree and seriousness of the loss may vary. Perhaps you really don't care that the pickpocket got your bag of 30 gp; you have many thousands more.

You win when you succeed at things you want to accomplish. You win when you kill that doggon dragon. You win when you finally get that Helm of Brilliance you've been striving for. You win when you get appointed Grand Vizier.

Each time you have some power in the game system to ATTEMPT something, but you have to play through mechanics to determine if you succeed, you can win or lose.

Chess (and the other example games like it) have singular printed win condition, RPGs do not.

You seem to be saying that in an RPG the player defines their own objectives, which is exactly what I have been saying for the last several pages, so I am not sure what we arguing about at this point, except maybe that your characters' goals are different from my character's goals.

Lorsa

2016-12-12, 02:50 AM

Step 1: Define a goal for your character. Something like "I will become king."
Step 2: Compete against the GM in pursuit of your goal. RPGs are about conflict, it's the GM's objective to hinder you in pursuit of your goal and make you work for it. "There's already a king and he's not too happy about your goal."
Step 3: There should eventually come a point where it becomes clear if you've won or lost at your goal. Either you become king, or it becomes clear that you will never become king.
Step 4: Either end the game because you've gotten everything you wanted out of it, or go back to step 1.

Obviously there's way more nuance than this simplistic overview offers. And there are other types of RPGs that don't really follow this model, but I think they're less common.

There are various ways of going about step 2 in particular, and 2 doesn't necessarily have to be an adversarial relationship. I think in most games, though, the results of 3 should be unclear. There should be a realistic possibility of victory and defeat. And it can be frustrating if you have to decide between achieving 3 or roleplaying your character faithfully.

Have you ever played a cooperative game, where it's the game itself against you? Arkham Horror or Betrayal at the House on the Hill come to mind, for me. In those, you win by beating the game. Similar to how you win by beating Bowser in a Mario Bros. game. There's no other player.

In an RPG with a GM, you win when you achieve whatever gameplay goals you laid out.

Do you "win" in Sim City? Yes, each time you achieve some goal you set. Can you lose Sim City? Absolutely; you can have your city's problems prevent you from building what you want, or even send it into ruin and bankruptcy. There's no other player, and you're not even playing against the game so much as trying to see if you can use the mechanics to achieve your goals or if your own misuse of them will cost you.

Alright, fine. I accept that you can have win conditions in RPGs without there being an adversarial relationship between the players.

Let's say that my goal is to "play out a game where Segivus Maximus maneuvers to become Emperor." I 'win' each time I get closer to that goal. I 'lose' each time I fail, or worse, suffer a drawback to that goal.

If that is your goal, then why do you need or want any roleplaying mechanics?

And nothing I've been discussing has been about "I win, you lose." It's been about making it so that "I want to play my character" isn't in such sharp opposition to "the game wants me to do this."

But what DOES the game want you to do? In general the answer is: nothing. Except, possibly, if taken literally in D&D; kill stuff. So as long as you make a character that wants to do that, you're fine. There are tons of RPGs that offer XP for other things than killing monsters though, so it's not very hard to find one which will simply reward you for participating.

If "I want to play my character" is your WIN condition, then I don't know any game which actively tries to stop you from doing this.

It seems to me that the only reason you want the game to force you to play a character a certain way, is if the win conditions you set for yourself are contrary to the game you actually want to play. Why do you expect the game to fix that disconnect for you?

Besides I want to reward people for playing their character, not punish them. (Having fun being its own reward thing aside.)

Actually, I don't think it should always be one or the other. Sometimes it will work out even, other times it will be to your disadvantage, other times the bonus can turn things into your favour. Of course that means bonuses and penalties probably aren't directly comparable.

I don't really see any situation in which a phobia is an advantage. In my case the only thing I can think about is that my fear of needles makes it less likely for me to be a heavy-duty drug addict.

If characters are rewarded for engaging in behavior which is essentially bad for them, then it creates a world in which people have 0 motivation to ever stop being alcoholics, gamblers, work on their anger issues or stop insulting strangers. I haven't really seen any setting where this is taken to be the case.

Spend some money on a treat for yourself, get a moral bonus, later spend the moral bonus to preform a feat of strength. Is that money equal to, less than, or greater than the strength bonus in value? Who knows.

Well, if they're in the mechanics, people WILL know which is greater.

But yeah, I could potentially see something with morale bonuses, or maybe some "happiness score" work.

Personally, I just want to have something about the character's character on the sheet. That way it is in the rules, mechanical enforced and everything, that your character is not an unfeeling killing machine.

So, if I understand this correctly; you want to play a character with feelings, but unless the rules take feelings into account, you will play an unfeeling killing machine?

While I would wonder why you need the game to help you in this way, if you have found a solution to your problem; go nuts with finding the right game for you!

I think, overall, what I have a problem with is the attitude that:

"If you like roleplaying, you should like roleplaying mechanics, as they simply reward you for doing something you like in the first place!"

The fact that you personally like roleplaying mechanics is perfectly fine.

Floret

2016-12-12, 04:29 AM

Wrong. RPGs have tons and tons of wins and losses. Every time you want your character to do something, but there's a chance of failure, you win if he succeeds, and you lose if he fails.

You lose when you can't hit the stupid monster you're fighting, and are forced to retreat (or worse, die). You lose when you wanted to persuade the crowd to support you for Minister of War, but they go with the NPC who is your rival. You lose when a pickpocket steals from you and you fail to get back what was taken.

The degree and seriousness of the loss may vary. Perhaps you really do'nt care that the pickpocket got your bag of 30 gp; you have many thousands more.

You win when you succeed at things you want to accomplish. You win when you kill that doggon dragon. You win when you finally get that Helm of Brilliance you've been striving for. You win when you get appointed Grand Vizier.

Each time you have some power in the game system to ATTEMPT something, but you have to play through mechanics to determine if you succeed, you can win or lose.

I feel like chiming in here. Yeah, RPGs have win conditions. And yes, these are formulated by the player rather freely and CAN be "get my character power/recongnition/fullfill my characters goals".
But just because you fail at those, doesn't mean you as the player fail your goals as well. If my goal is "Live through intense/epic/entertaining/emotional moments", as so often is for me in Larp (Theoretically can apply to TRPGs as well, just doesn't really for me), my character failing at their goals can actually be beneficial to me as the player fulfilling mine. Now, say my character just wants to do whatever they can without consequences. And what they want to do right now is kill a bounty hunter because he threatens to kill my "boss". My character then just wants to walk away from it.
I as the player don't actually want that. My character being caught in the act and dragged before the judges for what they did was actually beneficial to my personal goals. Not for my character, they suffered markings, threats of execution by two different parties and other fun stuff. But I as the player wanted that.
Or, much simpler: My character (same one, rather ****ed up person...) wants to kill themselves. I, as the player, don't actually want them to succeed at that. I want them to try, but fail.
So I think what from my perspective you are missing, is that player and character goals need not align, and can, in extreme circumstances, even be at odds. They can also align, sure.

I like that; different systems for different games. I don't think there is one solution. Thanks for responding by the way.

One particular advantage of the player activated effects (your Torchbearer example, FATE does something similar) is that it address the "but the game can't simulate my character" because it doesn't try, it just gives you more tools to do so.

I want to disagree. Personally I think personality should also give bonuses. First off because say there is a "strong willpower" trait, it should provide a bonus where "weak willpower" would provide a penalty.
Besides I want to reward people for playing their character, not punish them. (Having fun being its own reward thing aside.)

Actually, I don't think it should always be one or the other. Sometimes it will work out even, other times it will be to your disadvantage, other times the bonus can turn things into your favour. Of course that means bonuses and penalties probably aren't directly comparable.
Spend some money on a treat for yourself, get a moral bonus, later spend the moral bonus to preform a feat of strength. Is that money equal to, less than, or greater than the strength bonus in value? Who knows.
Personally, I just want to have something about the character's character on the sheet. That way it is in the rules, mechanical enforced and everything, that your character is not an unfeeling killing machine.

I think this is a first of someone seemingly wanting the rules for something similar that I do. (Though I don't know about morality points, but having your characters personality be written down in some way, not to simulate the character, but for it to be able to influence dicerolls and just help you get in character (As I said, focussing on a few central traits helps me immensely, even though they are not the only aspects of the characters personality).)
And, taking from the example of "different systems for different games": Yes. Yes of course, not every system should be the same. Some benefit from RP-rules though, I find FATE does (though not explicitly, but you can put personality traits as your aspects) a rather nice groundwork for what I think RP rules would be capable to be used for.
Requiring, of course, that the GM is using the Fatepoint economy in a way that does not require you to spent multiple to get through the complication that got you one. But, as I said, systems can be abused. That is not a point against the system in and off itself. I would, though, also advise for more guidelines.
(Btw, this discussion helped me get some things about my own system formulated more clearly and helped me visualise what to do there. So thanks everyone for that :smallsmile:)

Also, why is everyone talking about DnD and "houserules" as being what this is aimed at? The threat started explicitly focussed on another system^^ And I am unsure if, while we are all still discussing IF such a system has value (for some reason) the threat has suddenly shifted to "does such a system have value to put as houserules upon DnD" which I find to be a rather weird tangent. Maybe just cause I can't follow though, I dunno. I just find "but this doesn't work well with DnD" to be such a weird, and rather... irrelevant point to make?

Lorsa

2016-12-12, 07:22 AM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-12, 07:48 AM

In this particular example, though, the reward and the sacrifice both use the exact same currency. You are using up your "morale points" to succeed at a task that only matters for RP reasons, only to (presumably) be rewarded with more morale points to compensate you for the loss.

My character was disgusted that the rest of the party was treating a somber task (carrying out an execution sentence) like it was a camping trip. She was also very proud and competitive, and after she slipped on the stairs near the very beginning and had one of the other PCs catch her she decided that she was going to be the first one to the top and didn't need anyone's help.

Yes, it is backwards, it is a situation that turns the entire morale system on its head. Morale is supposed to give you a bonus to rolls. You gain morale by giving into your vices. But in this case, your roll is helping you give into your vice, and the only "sacrifice" you are making is with said morale.

And the very fact that things can get this convoluted is, to me, one of the reasons character "internals" are better left to the player, and not systemized in the manner we're discussing here.

That, and the fact that a player who's into this sort of character-driven decision is going to do it and enjoy it regardless... while the player who isn't into it is just going to do it begrudgingly to play the system. Just how big is the fraction of players who are "on the edge" and would get into character-driven decisions if the system just "helped" them?

To continue the money analogy, to me what you are saying is the equivalent of a guy who gives up a $500,000 a year job to pursue a minimum wage job that he loves only to then bitch and moan about how his new job charges him thirty bucks a year for an employee parking permit.

3.X is so broken that almost every choice you make for the sake of "fun" or "flavor" is going to punish your mechanical effectiveness, worrying about your character power being diminished by lifestyle costs is like rearranging the furniture when the house is on fire.

Other (imo better) games typically either have your social class / lifestyle come with built in advantages and disadvantages or are just relegated to "fluff" and mostly glossed over from a mechanical standpoint.

I keep wondering if part of the problem isn't that certain systems don't encourage character-driven RP, but rather that certain systems do their damnedest to discourage it.

Having thought about this a little more (or rather, having time to write a post), I want to shed further light into my viewpoint (which may or may not be obvious already).

When I make a character, it typically has tons of goals. Some small, some big, and some that I am not even aware of until they show up in the game.

To use some examples that have shown up here: "Eating tacos" might be a goal, so could be "living in luxury" or "becoming king of Fantasyland".

During the game, I expect there to be situations where these goals contradict each other or in other ways make it difficult to full fill two at the same time. At this point, I have to make a decision which motivation to follow, which goal to choose, which win condition to go for. Making this decision is something I take great pleasure in, it's part of the ROLEplaying in RPG.

I have never gotten any satisfaction out of playing a non-emotional one-goal fullfilling robot. To me, a character is a complex creation. I'll spend 500 gold buying a couple of Noble's outfits in D&D just because the character likes to look fancy.

I've never really thought D&D, or any other "non-RP mechanic" RPG rewards or punishes any particular character goal. The ONLY game mechanic that actually works to reward behavior would be XP, and it is SUCH a small fix to change it from "killing monsters grants XP" to "playing your character grants XP". Apart from that, I really don't see any reason why eating tacos would be punished compared to becoming the king. In fact, if following the RAW, unless you have to kill something to become king, the two goals are mechanically identical. So the only thing you could possibly say about D&D is that it encourages you to play a psychopath. Which can be solved with an easy fix.

This "roleplaying mechanic" thing, means you have to write down a limited set of personality traits and character motivations. Whenever there is the opportunity to full fill the goal, the character will be rewarded for doing so. Whenever there is a chance to act in accordance to a personality trait, the game either forces or rewards you for doing so.

This means that it is no longer MY job, as a player, to weight all the personality traits and motivations of the character, the game will now do it for me. Instead of "being" the character, I get the job of a puppet master. In fact, to me, this turns the character into MORE of an emotionally blank zombie.

It's like I am asking the game to play my character for me. I simply write down the personality, some goals and motivations, and then the game will run the character. Perhaps this is fun for some people, but for me it takes away the very thing I consider to be my thing.

So, I guess that's it. If people like the dice to tell their characters what to do, then play with these mechanics! Everyone should enjoy whichever game they like.

The only thing I don't understand, is when people say they don't like them that "if you like roleplaying, this should be perfect!" or "it only rewards you for what you are already doing!". I don't think that is the case.

Very well said.

Many of these "mechanized character internals" systems I've come across, in my opinion, would seem to reward a less nuanced and complicated character than I'm already playing. On the flip side, most systems I've played don't seem to be "punishing" character-driven decisions at all.

E: regarding the part I bolded, that appears to be what some people want, what with "author stance (https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2011/08/31/stances-101/)" and related metagamey... stuff.

ComradeBear

2016-12-12, 08:41 AM

>MFW they claim that they experience no "ceiling" from having less resources due to playing their character, but claim that some of the options we've listed have a ceiling because you might not have quite so many resources by playing your character

http://i.imgur.com/zl8Be3w.gif

Cluedrew

2016-12-12, 08:42 AM

OK, a lot of little replies, because the things I wanted to reply to are kind of spread out.

In this particular example, though, the reward and the sacrifice both use the exact same currency. You are using up your "morale points" to succeed at a task that only matters for RP reasons, only to (presumably) be rewarded with more morale points to compensate you for the loss.Even if it doesn't happen here it probably will happen somewhere... in these cases I should stay it should work generally out to be about even but a little bit behind for the player. That way they can make a sacrifice, have it actually mean something, but doesn't take away all your resources.

I would gladly restore some moral just for reaching the top and feeling completely awesome. And some more for that nap you take while waiting.

Alright, fine. I accept that you can have win conditions in RPGs without there being an adversarial relationship between the players.... {Bursts into applause} I'm serious, if you could hear me I would be clapping.

I don't really see any situation in which a phobia is an advantage. In my case the only thing I can think about is that my fear of needles makes it less likely for me to be a heavy-duty drug addict.I don't mean that each trait will be good & bad, just that over all the system will provides both benefits and drawbacks for your character. Although I can think of one bonus a phobia could provide, situational bonus to spotting things related to your phobia, which is apparently is a thing.

Well, if they're in the mechanics, people WILL know which is greater.

But yeah, I could potentially see something with morale bonuses, or maybe some "happiness score" work.People will probably figure it out in general, but the exacts could be harder. For instance what is stronger (from a card game), the ability to place a virus token on every virus card you play or the ability that, if you perform the same type of action 3 times in one turn preform it a fourth time for free.

You would have to build the system correctly, but I think it can be done.

So, if I understand this correctly; you want to play a character with feelings, but unless the rules take feelings into account, you will play an unfeeling killing machine?No that's not... my reasons for wanting... actually unfeeling killing machine might be described as perfect tactical pawn. But the reasons for it are different than that. First of communication: the fact that there are rules about something does means it is part of the game. If the game has traits like "victim of domestic abuse" and "unemployed" it implies a much different tone then "unbreakable will" and "traveller from the east". Now there are other parts of the rules that can cover this, but this can cover a bit more.

One of those things that always seems to break down if you look at it closely: Why does every character in D&D default to fighting to the death? Because there are no rules for their courage or their desire to live. I'm sure there are GMs that insert that all the time. But they aren't there in the rules and so the default puts you against killers with no fear of death.

(Btw, this discussion helped me get some things about my own system formulated more clearly and helped me visualise what to do there. So thanks everyone for that :smallsmile:)

Also, why is everyone talking about DnD and "houserules" as being what this is aimed at?To the latter: because we are on Giant in the Playground. To the former: I'm glad that some solid improvement has come out of this thread. I hope to what I learn here for my ongoing work but I have no idea if that will pan out.

Kish

2016-12-12, 08:50 AM

One of those things that always seems to break down if you look at it closely: Why does every character in D&D default to fighting to the death?
Because you/your DM arbitrarily decided that they will.

This is fundamentally the same as the "perfect tactical pawn" thing: it's a "I want to have roleplaying, but the game doesn't give me specific mechanical benefits for it, so I'm forced not to" argument. The DM decides, without mechanical encouragement in any direction, whether enemies stand and fight to the death, try to surrender when the fight turns against them, accept bribes to change sides or just to go away, or try to flee. Apparently you only play with DMs who constantly, unimaginatively, choose the first option there, but the terrible horrible no-good problem you've found in the system is entirely of the PEBCAB* variety, and I'm actually seriously surprised that you're acting like this weird-ass approach to play is a default assumption. Of course lots of enemies will break off from combat if it's what those characters would do--what, that's not how you play? Huh.

*Problem Exists Between Chair And Book.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-12, 10:33 AM

Because you/your DM arbitrarily decided that they will.

This is fundamentally the same as the "perfect tactical pawn" thing: it's a "I want to have roleplaying, but the game doesn't give me specific mechanical benefits for it, so I'm forced not to" argument. The DM decides, without mechanical encouragement in any direction, whether enemies stand and fight to the death, try to surrender when the fight turns against them, accept bribes to change sides or just to go away, or try to flee. Apparently you only play with DMs who constantly, unimaginatively, choose the first option there, but the terrible horrible no-good problem you've found in the system is entirely of the PEBCAB* variety, and I'm actually seriously surprised that you're acting like this weird-ass approach to play is a default assumption. Of course lots of enemies will break off from combat if it's what those characters would do--what, that's not how you play? Huh.

*Problem Exists Between Chair And Book.

(Speaking to the broader topic, and not directly at any one one poster in particular.)

It has seemed to me that there is this particular sort of "gaming table" out there, quite common, which informs default assumptions, against which a great deal of the Ron Edwards whining, and attempts at analysis, and "stances", and the Forge whatnot, and so on, all exist in unspoken reaction to.

So much of it elicits a bit of a "huh?" from some of us because our gaming experiences weren't the same, we were engaged in character-driven RP, getting XP for things other than killing green people and taking their stuff, not pinching copper pieces in resource scrounging management games... long before we'd ever heard of the Forge, long before we'd heard of GNS, long before we'd been told that we're "brain damaged" by badwrongRPGs by Mr Edwards. And we never felt "punished" for it, never felt like we were working against the system...

(Speaking to the broader topic, and not directly at any one one poster in particular.)

ComradeBear

2016-12-12, 10:42 AM

(Speaking to the broader topic, and not directly at anyone one poster in particular.)

It has seemed to me that there is this particular sort of "gaming table" out there, quite common, which informs default assumptions, against which a great deal of the Ron Edwards whining, and attempts at analysis, and "stances", and the Forge whatnot, and so on, all exist in unspoken reaction to.

So much of it elicits a bit of a "huh?" from some of us because our gaming experiences weren't the same, we were engaged in character-driven RP, getting XP for things other than killing green people and taking their stuff, not pinching copper pieces in resource scrounging management games... long before we'd ever heard of the Forge, long before we'd heard of GNS, long before we'd been told that we're "brain damaged" by badwrongRPGs by Mr Edwards. And we never felt "punished" for it, never felt like we were working against the system...

>mfw attempting to analyse RPGs in the same way game designers analyze interactions going on in any other kind of game is apparently somehow weird or entirely unwarranted because TRPGs are somehow different

>mfw the only reason people might want to examine the really neat forms of human/game interactions within a trpg is because of bad experiences in other games and not because those things are really neat and worth examining

>mfw talking about stances means you weren't involved in character-driven RP

>mfw getting xp for things other than killing stuff is exactly what a lot of us are talking about

>mfw my rpg experiences are being dictated to me.

>mfw this post

http://i.imgur.com/zl8Be3w.gif

Segev

2016-12-12, 12:23 PM

I had a lot of multi-quotes ready to go, but too many were on the same theme, and I don't know how to address them without getting lost in the weeds at this point.

The main thrust I'm getting, to which I wish to respond, is this: "Your goals are not your character's. Your goals are (or should be) to play your character and enjoy his successes and failures, and you do (or should) derive exactly as much enjoyment from him eating a delicious taco or sleeping in a comfortable bed or getting that comely bar maid to spend a night of debauchery with him as you do from his becoming Minister of War or using that Armor of Flight or being eligible to ride that virgins-only unicorn."

Now, I expect a certain amount of protest: "No, no, there is no 'should'! Your goals are your goals! Have fun however you like!"

Except that, inherent to every objection to my position has been the assumption that all players should derive the same satisfaction from having Armus eat a taco as the player does from having Armus beat his opponent at winning over the people with that speech. And yes, there is that assumption of "should." Except, of course, when "oh, obviously, Armus resists when it's important, or he's not a protagonist." Completely and utterly ignoring that the whole point of the temptation of the taco is that it's only "important" if you have a cold, rational analysis of probability and benefit to apply, and the equation has 0 benefit from "eating a taco" aside from "playing in character."

Meanwhile, "making a choice that will get him his Ministry" gets both "playing in character" and "more power in the game with which to do more cool stuff."

The dismissal of "little victories" and "little losses" as you play is...odd, to me. I get the "oh, but you shouldn't CARE if your PC is winning or losing; you should enjoy his story no matter how it goes!" argument. It speaks to a particular kind of RP and enjoyment of stories.

It does, however, dismiss the power fantasy that is absolutely a part of what I want when I play a game. I do identify with my PCs enough that their "little wins" and "little losses" add up. If I experience more "little losses" throughout, I get frustrated. I don't have fun. From a rational, objective standpoint, if I want to have fun, I need to play a character who can accumulate more wins than losses in the aggregate.

Since I also want to actually play a character, and not some perfect cardboard cutout of an optimization engine (else, of course, I'd just play Pun-Pun, or as close as I could trick the GM into letting me get), I have conflicting goals, here. But I know from experience that allowing myself to sacrifice the little victories and the ability to gain them for "bad decisions that are in character" leads to more and more "little losses" which compound upon themselves as I become progressively less able to do anything useful, and thus progressively less able to win even the tiniest of victories.

This isn't, again, about "bleeding edge of optimization." Don't get me wrong, I can play there. But it doesn't have to be that extreme for this problem to arise.

Obviously, most people in this thread think I'm silly (at best) for wanting mechanics that actually support RP decisions. They don't view mechanics as rewarding or punishing anything. Taking this thread alone, I would be forced to believe that they honestly don't care whether their character succeeds or fails at any particular thing, as long as they made the right IC choice. That is, of course, fine, but it also renders mechanics irrelevant to whether you're having fun.

What flabberghasts me is that it seems that nobody is actually capable of even seeing the one-sided pressure that mechanics that support only particular tasks and choices creates.

Max_Killjoy not withstanding (as, apparently, he is actually a paragon of strong will who never lets himself be tempted by short-term pleasures over long-term goals; I admire that and wish I had his willpower), nobody has actually addressed my comparison of how I actually live my life as a real person (i.e. "a character whose player literally experiences everything he does") vs. how I'd live my life if I were a character controlled by a version of me who didn't experience my physical pleasures and pains personally.

Please, examine that thought experiment. I know, for a fact, I am not the only weak, fallible human being in existence who, on the one hand, wants something long-term achievable (in my case: be more physically fit and attractive), but on the other so hates every step he has to take to achieve it that progress is slow to non-existent as he continually succumbs to short-term temptations (hunger, delicious food over healthy food, not enduring the misery of exercise...).

And yet, were I playing "Segev, the character," and I could enjoy sharing in his achievement of losing weight and putting on a little bit of muscle, especially by the bonuses to physical activities he'd enjoy with higher ST and CN, but I had no way of gaining any shared enjoyment (nor any need to endure shared suffering) during the effort it took to get there... Segev'd eat nothing but an optimal diet, heedless of flavor, and would exercise an optimal amount of time each day for an optimal amount of effort, heedless of discomfort. Heroically pushing through it because the one suffering it has no say in the matter; his player doesn't have to endure more than a passing nod to "oh, it's awful."

Floret

2016-12-12, 12:25 PM

Having thought about this a little more (or rather, having time to write a post), I want to shed further light into my viewpoint (which may or may not be obvious already).
When I make a character, it typically has tons of goals. Some small, some big, and some that I am not even aware of until they show up in the game.
To use some examples that have shown up here: "Eating tacos" might be a goal, so could be "living in luxury" or "becoming king of Fantasyland".
During the game, I expect there to be situations where these goals contradict each other or in other ways make it difficult to full fill two at the same time. At this point, I have to make a decision which motivation to follow, which goal to choose, which win condition to go for. Making this decision is something I take great pleasure in, it's part of the ROLEplaying in RPG.
I have never gotten any satisfaction out of playing a non-emotional one-goal fullfilling robot. To me, a character is a complex creation. I'll spend 500 gold buying a couple of Noble's outfits in D&D just because the character likes to look fancy.
I've never really thought D&D, or any other "non-RP mechanic" RPG rewards or punishes any particular character goal. The ONLY game mechanic that actually works to reward behavior would be XP, and it is SUCH a small fix to change it from "killing monsters grants XP" to "playing your character grants XP". Apart from that, I really don't see any reason why eating tacos would be punished compared to becoming the king. In fact, if following the RAW, unless you have to kill something to become king, the two goals are mechanically identical. So the only thing you could possibly say about D&D is that it encourages you to play a psychopath. Which can be solved with an easy fix.

The taco-example was specifically about the goal being something other then tacos (Making a grand speech with a goal later introduced as becoming minister of war, iirc), and the desire to eat tacos putting the speech (so the goal) at risk, cause getting gassy. The catch being, the character is really, really hungry.
Now, do you take the risk and eat, thereby giving yourself a penalty on the speech? Or do you power through the hunger?
So, in broader terms: What do you do when "roleplaying" the emotions, personality and base desires of a character conflict with the goals you set for the game?
(Sure, you can answer "Playing the emotions, personality and base desires IS my goal", and then the answer would be obvious. But for the points where it ISN'T, where your goal is (at least as well) something else, the game is punishing you for playing to them with a penalty. At least in the example. That is what Segev wants RP mechanics for, to offset this "cost". At least that is what I understood.)
Basically the point is, to get the impetus that some people (You don't seem to, but who knows) have looking at a situation like this and saying "Yaknow... This kinda screws me over?", making them inclined to make decisions based on what is mechanically (far) more optimal rather then "their character". And to counter this impetus, give the "RP" decision some mechanical value to offset the percieved cost.
And, yaknow, I can understand that. If a system offers blatant favour for some mechanical decisions over others, I will feel an inclination to take a more optimal one over one that is blatantly disadvantageous.
Story time: If I create a character, and see that the way I made my backstory screws me out of like 3 points (In a system where you get 6 naturally), I feel cheated. Now I did not go back and redo the backstory. Partially because I had been playing the character for years before the edition change made backstory relevant in that way. But I am, to this day, three years past that point, still pissed and would not create the character the same way with the same story under the new system. And miss out on a character that is incredibly fun to play.

This "roleplaying mechanic" thing, means you have to write down a limited set of personality traits and character motivations. Whenever there is the opportunity to full fill the goal, the character will be rewarded for doing so. Whenever there is a chance to act in accordance to a personality trait, the game either forces or rewards you for doing so.
This means that it is no longer MY job, as a player, to weight all the personality traits and motivations of the character, the game will now do it for me. Instead of "being" the character, I get the job of a puppet master. In fact, to me, this turns the character into MORE of an emotionally blank zombie.
It's like I am asking the game to play my character for me. I simply write down the personality, some goals and motivations, and then the game will run the character. Perhaps this is fun for some people, but for me it takes away the very thing I consider to be my thing.
So, I guess that's it. If people like the dice to tell their characters what to do, then play with these mechanics! Everyone should enjoy whichever game they like.
The only thing I don't understand, is when people say they don't like them that "if you like roleplaying, this should be perfect!" or "it only rewards you for what you are already doing!". I don't think that is the case.

No. This is a blatant misunderstanding of two things:
1) There are, as I count, three different systems being proposed. "tradeoff for currently mechanically suboptimal decisions"; "BIG/Get more XP for playing your character" and "Get bonusses to rolls based on personality".
2) This is not "the game playing your character for you". Noone actually asked for a system where the player doesn't make the actual decisions anymore. Or leave it up to the dice - apart from the example that started the thread, but that deals with a very specific thing trying to model something else entirely. We don't wanna write AI. We want to put rulefocus, in whatever way, on the character's personalitys.

Do you not write down anything about your character, I ask myself? Do you not have any sheet of paper with notes on your character's personality?

No that's not... my reasons for wanting... actually unfeeling killing machine might be described as perfect tactical pawn. But the reasons for it are different than that. First of communication: the fact that there are rules about something does means it is part of the game. If the game has traits like "victim of domestic abuse" and "unemployed" it implies a much different tone then "unbreakable will" and "traveller from the east". Now there are other parts of the rules that can cover this, but this can cover a bit more.

Kinda second this. Informing the game, getting the personality directly and deliberately involved, hard-coding it as part of the experience is something I think can be a boon through these rules. Which is probably why I like FATE so much. (As well as "your personality can actually influence the dicerolls as per intended mechanics" which is my OTHER goal with these mechanics.)
Basically I want something similar to FATE, but a bit more hard-coded so it might be applicable in a more "traditional" TRPG.

To the latter: because we are on Giant in the Playground. To the former: I'm glad that some solid improvement has come out of this thread. I hope to what I learn here for my ongoing work but I have no idea if that will pan out.

Well, alright, yeah, this is a DnD-dominated forum, granted. My point, if phrased somewhat tongue-in-cheek was: Why limit the discussion to that, and insist on the mechanics having to work with DnD to be valuable at all :smallwink:
And... I wouldn't know about solid :smalltongue: But I wish you the best!

The main thrust I'm getting, to which I wish to respond, is this: "Your goals are not your character's. Your goals are (or should be) to play your character and enjoy his successes and failures, and you do (or should) derive exactly as much enjoyment from him eating a delicious taco or sleeping in a comfortable bed or getting that comely bar maid to spend a night of debauchery with him as you do from his becoming Minister of War or using that Armor of Flight or being eligible to ride that virgins-only unicorn."

Except that, inherent to every objection to my position has been the assumption that all players should derive the same satisfaction from having Armus eat a taco as the player does from having Armus beat his opponent at winning over the people with that speech. And yes, there is that assumption of "should." Except, of course, when "oh, obviously, Armus resists when it's important, or he's not a protagonist." Completely and utterly ignoring that the whole point of the temptation of the taco is that it's only "important" if you have a cold, rational analysis of probability and benefit to apply, and the equation has 0 benefit from "eating a taco" aside from "playing in character."

I, for one, did NOT include that assumption in my protest. I merely sought to point out that the goals CAN be, not HAVE TO BE distinct. I would heartily agree that you DON'T get the same satisfaction, as I have personally experienced the difference between your character and your own sleep, food, what have you being synonymous (Larp), and them not being (TRPGs), and do support a close examination of why certain people think it is so easy to push aside temptations if put in the spot. Because it isn't, at least in my experience.
But it is also true that many players derive huge satisfaction from their characters failing spectacularly, because the goals are not aligned. And that some people do get as much enjoyment out of both sides, or even more out of the failing side. This should not be an attack on the people who don't, however. There is no BADWRONG way to RP, unless you are not having fun.
It reads to me as if you are taking this somewhat personally, as I have not read any post that tried to imply that you HAVE to seperate the two. Maybe my reading comprehension is worse than yours, but I feel like it could do some good to try and get some distance to the discussion. :smallsmile:

Obviously, most people in this thread think I'm silly (at best) for wanting mechanics that actually support RP decisions. They don't view mechanics as rewarding or punishing anything. Taking this thread alone, I would be forced to believe that they honestly don't care whether their character succeeds or fails at any particular thing, as long as they made the right IC choice. That is, of course, fine, but it also renders mechanics irrelevant to whether you're having fun.

What flabberghasts me is that it seems that nobody is actually capable of even seeing the one-sided pressure that mechanics that support only particular tasks and choices creates.

I do! I see this! Or at least think I am seeing this?
I do not necessarily agree with you that thinking up these mechanics to fullfill your goal with them is a worthwhile way to spend my time on, I can readily understand why you would want it. Just not my cup of tea.
And, as I have said: For the kind of play where I actually don't care, I play free-form Larp. Where I at the same time HAVE to feel the same pressures my character feels, due to the medium being somewhat... physical, as well as a relatively low power level where acquiring more will never put you to the heights that TRPGs can. So while a power fantasy is possible, the level is somewhat limited.
I did not respond to the thought experiment, but mainly because I simply agree with the conclusion, and do that from experience. I can say that much. And I have given, earlier in this thread, examples of real things happening, where the **** hitting the fan, and things being really, really important now did not, in fact, remove any pressure from vices and base desires.
Maybe take this away: While I do have a different stand on what I get out of RPGs, and do advise people to not conflate character and player goal, I do think I understand where you are coming from, and you are not silly, or insane. At least not for what you said in this thread, I cannot attest to your personal life. :smallwink:

Segev

2016-12-12, 01:41 PM

(Sure, you can answer "Playing the emotions, personality and base desires IS my goal", and then the answer would be obvious. But for the points where it ISN'T, where your goal is (at least as well) something else, the game is punishing you for playing to them with a penalty. At least in the example. That is what Segev wants RP mechanics for, to offset this "cost". At least that is what I understood.)
Basically the point is, to get the impetus that some people (You don't seem to, but who knows) have looking at a situation like this and saying "Yaknow... This kinda screws me over?", making them inclined to make decisions based on what is mechanically (far) more optimal rather then "their character". And to counter this impetus, give the "RP" decision some mechanical value to offset the percieved cost.Yes! That is what I'm trying to get at. Thanks!

I, for one, did NOT include that assumption in my protest. I merely sought to point out that the goals CAN be, not HAVE TO BE distinct. I would heartily agree that you DON'T get the same satisfaction, as I have personally experienced the difference between your character and your own sleep, food, what have you being synonymous (Larp), and them not being (TRPGs), and do support a close examination of why certain people think it is so easy to push aside temptations if put in the spot. Because it isn't, at least in my experience.Fair enough. I did have something of yours in the list of multiquotes, but I don't even remember what specifically I was going to say to it. Such is the danger of blanket-replying.

But it is also true that many players derive huge satisfaction from their characters failing spectacularly, because the goals are not aligned. And that some people do get as much enjoyment out of both sides, or even more out of the failing side.Sure. And "oh, awesome, if I do this in-character thing, I get to experience my PC's utter disastrous failure!" is a way some people might play.

But I don't think "and I get some morale points out of it to represent how much he enjoyed that bad decision" is going to ruin that experience for them. Heck, if it's REALLY that big of a disaster, it might not be enough to tempt the player to make the "bad decision" anyway, just for some morale points. Or it might, if he wants to play it that way anyway.

This should not be an attack on the people who don't, however. There is no BADWRONG way to RP, unless you are not having fun.
It reads to me as if you are taking this somewhat personally, as I have not read any post that tried to imply that you HAVE to seperate the two. Maybe my reading comprehension is worse than yours, but I feel like it could do some good to try and get some distance to the discussion. :smallsmile:Perhaps, though it's more that there's a lot of "I don't see your point at all because I never care if my PC succeeds or fails; I just care that I'm playing him in character" in the objections. And what I take personally is the implication that, because that's how they play, wanting mechanics to aid in how I play is bad. Which either comes off to me as "you should play how we play, and you're a bad RPer for not doing so," or evidence of a personal peeve of mine: that I am woefully failing to communicate my point.

Fortunately for my ego, you at least seem to grasp what I'm getting at, Floret!

I do! I see this! Or at least think I am seeing this?
I do not necessarily agree with you that thinking up these mechanics to fullfill your goal with them is a worthwhile way to spend my time on, I can readily understand why you would want it. Just not my cup of tea.And that's fine. Honestly, were I to magically have a game system that did exactly what I want it to, the ideal mechanics for this wouldn't get in the way of those who don't care about it. In fact, it would be immaterial to them, because they'd make the decisions they want to anyway, and morale points would flow as much as any other mechanic. They're making the choices they want to. The character succeeds or fails as mechanics dictate. All is well.

Maybe take this away: While I do have a different stand on what I get out of RPGs, and do advise people to not conflate character and player goal, I do think I understand where you are coming from, and you are not silly, or insane. At least not for what you said in this thread, I cannot attest to your personal life. :smallwink:
Eh, to me, it's nearly impossible to RP without sharing character goals. I can't care about a character if I can't stand in his shoes, at least insofar as the mechanics will let me.

Quertus

2016-12-12, 05:00 PM

There's a lot going on in this thread, some of which I've never really thought about before, so it's hard for me to try to parse it all... let alone try to tie it back to the original topic.

There's the idea that no mechanics punish roleplaying, and the idea that roleplaying mechanics punish roleplaying. There's the idea of player skills vs. character skills. There's the idea of carrot vs. stick / reward vs. punishment. There's the idea of the appropriate type of reward/punishment. There's talk of "good RP" and "bad RP". There's plenty of questions about false dichotomies, of which people will probably believe I've made several just in this paragraph.

So let me start with a parallel. One I've already made, in fact: combat with padded weapons. So, imagine if all combat in all RPGs had always been done with padded weapons. Player Skills. Sure, you can make characters different, by giving different amounts of damage reduction, different weapons allowed, different number of hits required to damage / incapacitate / destroy a location, etc, so it doesn't have to be just player skills.

Now, imagine someone came up with the idea of rolling dice to represent combat. Rolling dice! The very idea! There's no possible way to model all the complexities of combat in some sort of combat abstraction system - at least, not one that anyone would ever want to play. It just can't be done! You'll lose out on all the cool stance / footwork / grip / read opponent/terrain / feint / weapon interaction / everything else that goes into "real" (padded) sword fighting, and replace it with some sort of ridiculous oversimplification that doesn't really resemble the real thing beyond a surface semblance. And it would be so much slower, trying to emulate all that combat with dice, instead of just playing it out. Why would you ever want to do this?

But, if you do create a combat minigame, you (seemingly) remove the "player skills" from the equation (really, munchkins laugh at that idea - there's still plenty of skill in building a character). You no longer require people to learn advanced swordsmanship in order to play a skilled swordsman; you no longer require people to scale back their skill to play someone below their level. You have mechanics to represent their level of skill. You free people up to spend their time learning whatever skills they want, instead of forcing them to learn their character's skills in order to play the character.

You create an uncaring, unbiased world in which to measure the character's skills. Instead of it depending on which random kids you got to play the goblins (or even needing to find said kids to play the goblins in the first place!), you have simple mechanics to represent how difficult the goblins are to hit, and how skilled at hitting things the characters are.

But the experience is completely different, for good and ill. There is no way whatsoever that these bloody dice are a "combat aid" - they're a bane to padded weapons enthusiasts! They're replacing "real" combat with some sort of combat simulation minigame - one which discourages* people from actually learning any "real" combat skills. Instead, they're learning a completely different skillset - combat mini-game mechanics - and, worse, likely learning a different skillset for a different set of combat mechanics for each game.

This parallels what I continue to feel is my fairly reasonable view of "roleplaying" mechanics - while a completely valid concept, they are clearly quite antithetical to my play style. Having a roleplaying minigame is not the same as roleplaying, will not build roleplaying skills**, and does not translate well from system to system, unlike "just roleplaying".

Now, all that having been said, I'll admit, there are plenty of limits to what I call "roleplaying". First off, even using the mighty human mind, the only thing likely to see play in an RPG that could possibly correctly emulate something as complex as, well, the human mind, roleplaying will never be 100% accurate. And, as anyone who has ever used an emulator can tell you, it'll be slower, too. So it inherently creates the issue of "play your character correctly" vs. "play your character quickly" - at least, for those who, like me, care about trying to get as close to that "100% accuracy" as possible.

But, even so, it's a bit... skewed. Some people have suggested that RPG characters are inherently going to be a bit more... "reasonable"... than real people. In point of fact, I'd argue that my RPG characters are a bit less reasonable than real people, because I've built them that way, because it's fun. Yes, I enjoy my characters getting into trouble because of their various unreasonable quirks. Not to the level of being useless, mind you, but certainly "burn all my willpower to obtain this meaningless (to the campaign) goal (such as, say, climbing all these steps without stopping)" is well within the possible design of my characters.

People have discussed the concept of "goals" and "winning". I'll admit, I understand the "win" camp, and, yes, I prefer "winning". However. Armus will still eat those tacos. Because I want Armus to win Armus' way. And if that way is "botch the speech, have to gather up a small army of rebels in order to have a power base" instead of the easier, "succeed at the speech, have a position of power in the government", so be it. No, not just "so be it"... make that "even better!". Yes, sometimes, my characters have to take the hard road. Sometimes, my characters even suffer a loss from which they cannot come back (such as, say, losing the faith of their fellow PCs, or dying (AFAIK, I've never had a character resurrected, even though I've played a lot of D&D)). But my characters rarely have a single, single-minded goal. In fact, I find how "good" my characters are is fairly synonymous with how many goals they have.

Also, what I consider a "win" and what my character considers a "win" are not the same thing (see also, "roleplaying is not 100% accurate"). I may very well want my character to fail - perhaps because that would be more fun, perhaps because I see the bigger picture and realize it would be advantageous to fail (say, Robin Hood in disguise in an archery tournament), or perhaps because of any number of other reasons.

A question has come up about whether someone with arachnophobia should suffer an initiative penalty when fighting spiders to provide appropriate "teeth" to their flaw. Hah! As anyone who has ever seen me encounter my fear(s) would attest, I get a huge bonus to initiative, and run away before anyone else gets to act! So, once again, a system which provides a penalty to initiative because of a stated phobia clearly fails to model me, so badly that it models me worse than having no rules at all***.

There's also the issue of what the reward/penalty system should look like. Most people seem to agree that "bonus XP" is a horrible way of going about rewarding roleplaying. But, as has kind of been hinted at, the concept of giving "bonus dice", "X rerolls per day", or "huge stacks of usable at-will bonuses" (or the counter-points of stacking or non-stacking penalties, etc) hinges, in part, on whether or not one wants those kinds of things in their games in the first place.

Worse, this obfuscates (or, perhaps, simply reframes) other issues, instead of solving them. Hmmm... logic leap detected... let me try and spell that out a bit more... um... "in steps". See, there's this question of "does the player know what is important better than the character does?" And the answer is both "yes" and "no". The player knows what is important to the player, and to the "campaign", better than the character does; the character probably knows what is important to the character better than the player does (but no guarantees). So (assuming the huge-to-infinite stacking bonus pool) the player can simply min-max their way through failing all the "unimportant" rolls / vices / whatever, building up their points to use on the "important" rolls. Or, the system could be built assuming such behavior, and then fall over when someone spends all their resources on the "unimportant" rolls of powering through walking up the stairs, for "RP Reasons". Wait, we're back to being punished for roleplaying our character again. How come we didn't make any progress? Because we didn't actually solve the problem, we simply reframed it.

Now, wait, we're not done with that example yet. If the character gets their willpower back for climbing the stairs, then either choice is perfectly valid, and perfectly equal. But that doesn't sound like what we want, either. But what do we want? It feels like we've put the cart before the horse... or maybe I've just missed out on what the horse is, here. Or perhaps it's a horse of a different color, and so does not compute to my simple methods to try to define it.

I think if I were trying to make a realistic model of myself, I would get a bonus, but it would be a different bonus. I would probably get a few of my willpower back (some immediately, some as I rested at the top of the stairs), a bonus to all rolls for a duration for following my beliefs, plus several different resources that would spend differently than willpower. I might get, say, a rage point (good for bonuses to rolls to destroy things, or bonuses but with potential complications related to things being damaged in the process, because who puts all those ****ing stairs between me and my goals?), and a sorrow point (good for making poetry, or bonuses with the potential of penalties to initiative and all subsequent rolls, because of all the scenery I didn't observe), and a temporary reduction of my maximum willpower (because I failed to follow my conflicting directive to enjoy the scenery), and... yeah, it'd be complicated. And if I were ambushed at the top, I'd immediately earn several more rage points, because where the **** is everyone else, and why the **** didn't I wait for them?

But, still, if you build the world where you give people nearly-equivalent bonuses for making sub-optimal decisions in the name of roleplaying, you do several things. For one, you make it easier to roleplay the character you want to, because you made their "bad" decision matter less. But, in making the character's choices matter less, you, well, make the character's choices matter less. It's hard not to have both sides of that coin. I want it to matter who I'm playing, I want it to change how I "win" at my goals / the campaign (and, maybe even if I "win" at things). It's harder to see how character matters, if you design the game such that their choices matter less. Although my replacing ubiquitous willpower with "flavored" variants (like flavored Quintessence in WoD Mage) is both my take on "more realistic" and "making character matter more".

And I guess I don't like Author Stance during the game. I have no issue with it during character creation (although, sometimes, my characters seem to have a mind of their own, and build themselves in much more of a whatever-that-stance-is-that-I-consider-to-be-another-way-of-saying-"roleplaying" than I intended), or between sessions, but don't... hmmm... don't care for it personally during a game. Certainly using it is clearly opposed to using other stances, and, thus, by definition (unless you have taken the feat to be in two stances at once) limits the time you spend in the "roleplaying" stance, which is, while perhaps not the ceiling I was talking about (not sure, really), certainly does put you below my 100% goal, and is thus a ceiling.

The stance (oops, already used that word) view "but claim that some of the options we've listed have a ceiling because you might not have quite so many resources by playing your character" is clearly missing the point I'm trying to make. So, clearly, I failed to make it. Let me try again. The "ceiling" is on "expected behavior", not on "resources". Train people to roll dice, and you put a ceiling on how much practice in swinging a padded weapon they're going to take away from the session. Make sense now?

I'm not sure where this fits in, but I tend to roleplay all of my NPCs; in that regard, one could argue that every NPC is actually a DMPC. One must make an argument they would reasonably agree with. "Give me your boat!" rarely is, although "Give me your boat, because there are Ring Wraiths chasing me, and I'll be dead if you don't" is surprisingly convincing to most goodly beings.

And the point of my "extreme" example of eating human flesh is that, what is "extreme" to one person may well just be a *shrug* to another. Morally, I couldn't care less about consuming human flesh. It's a non-issue to me. But many (most?) people get rather worked up about it. It's these differences that make personality, and it's these differences that one cannot easily model in a simple game.

But none of this is what I actually came here to say. What I actually wanted to say was something I've been introspecting on for a bit. One of the original contentions, the reason for RP rules, was to try to move away from the game punishing you for roleplaying your character. I feel that such rules usually wind up, well, punishing you for roleplaying your character. I just couldn't understand how it was that neither of us could see the other's side as being equally valid. Yeah, I said things like "style preference", but it still felt dumb to say "I prefer to be punished for playing my character than to be punished for playing my character". Sure, "making decisions on behalf of my character is the one thing I get to do around here"... but why are we arguing about it?

So, as best I can tell, when there are no rules, there is a conflict between "play my character" and "succeed (in the short term, at least)". Whereas, when there are rules, it is a conflict between "play my character" and "get cookie". So I think it's a matter of what we're putting roleplaying into conflict with, compared to what we care about. I think, for me, because I don't care about whether my character succeeds at this particular goal, I happily just roleplay my character, but I get grouchy when I don't get a cookie because I roleplayed my character****. Whereas, I suppose, it is likely that either a) others might not care as much about missing the cookie as they do about succeeding; or b) others don't see how one can miss their cookie by playing their character. At least, that's my guess. Am I close, or have I missed the mark? I'm not Robin Hood, after all. :smallwink:

* perhaps "replaces people learning any real combat skills" would be a better phrasing of this sentence?
** not entirely true, as technically any human interaction can be put to use improving roleplaying skills, and any observation of what others believe (such as what they believe is a valid oversimplification of human personality) can be put to use improving roleplaying skills... but the skills that let you munchkin a "roleplaying minigame", and the skills you use to determine how you feel about the various bonuses and/or penalties associated with said minigame, are different from the skills I, at least, use when roleplaying. I suppose YMMV.
*** To be fair, that paragraph is almost a lie, in that there are insufficient data points to prove that I get a bonus to initiative, and that it wasn't the case that I just always rolled a "20" on initiative when confronted with... that which I call "the only fear that I admit to". But, yes, seemingly, while others' minds were evaluating every aspect of the situation, my mind only cared about 1 thing, and that focus allowed me to react much faster than everyone else. Unlike usual, where I (seem to) have the "Unreactive" flaw.
**** OK, actually, I'll get even grouchier when I don't get a cookie "in the name of roleplaying" for roleplaying my character.

Lorsa

2016-12-12, 05:01 PM

This will be a bit shorter than what is deserved, but hopefully you will forgive. Might write more comments tomorrow, if time is on my side (it rarely is these days).

I had a lot of multi-quotes ready to go, but too many were on the same theme, and I don't know how to address them without getting lost in the weeds at this point.

Multi-quotes are sometimes good, other times it just makes things look disconnected. Sort of like the post I am writing now.

The main thrust I'm getting, to which I wish to respond, is this: "Your goals are not your character's. Your goals are (or should be) to play your character and enjoy his successes and failures, and you do (or should) derive exactly as much enjoyment from him eating a delicious taco or sleeping in a comfortable bed or getting that comely bar maid to spend a night of debauchery with him as you do from his becoming Minister of War or using that Armor of Flight or being eligible to ride that virgins-only unicorn."

Now, I expect a certain amount of protest: "No, no, there is no 'should'! Your goals are your goals! Have fun however you like!"

Except that, inherent to every objection to my position has been the assumption that all players should derive the same satisfaction from having Armus eat a taco as the player does from having Armus beat his opponent at winning over the people with that speech. And yes, there is that assumption of "should." Except, of course, when "oh, obviously, Armus resists when it's important, or he's not a protagonist." Completely and utterly ignoring that the whole point of the temptation of the taco is that it's only "important" if you have a cold, rational analysis of probability and benefit to apply, and the equation has 0 benefit from "eating a taco" aside from "playing in character."

Meanwhile, "making a choice that will get him his Ministry" gets both "playing in character" and "more power in the game with which to do more cool stuff."

Uh, I think I am a little confused what position exactly you have an issue with. Maybe the quotes would have been good. :smallsmile:

I think my position is, if it is possible to put shortly, that having to weight short-term goals vs. long-term goals, and desires over dreams, to eventually reach a decision of how the character acts in the specific situation, is one of main parts of "fun" for me.

The game systems I prefer are ones that are mostly neutral on the position on which I choose. They may give me bonuses or penalties on various actions depending on what I choose, but they don't tell me which one to pick.

If I had a character with personality trait "taco addict", and the game offers me 1 token of character advancement for "engaging in" my addiction, then it is no longer a choice. Eating the taco gives me character advancement, whereas succeeding in the speech gives me (the player) a sense of accomplishment, but no token. In such a situation, the game basically runs your character, as NOT going for the character advancement token would be stupid (and in the long run, definitely contrary to my fun). So, instead of me having to make a decision to weigh desire vs. long-term goals, the game now decides for me.

As has been stated many times; if YOU like the game to reward you for specific types of actions, then obviously choose a game that does so. For me however, adding "roleplaying mechanics" usually feels like the game is removing something from me rather than adding. And this something is very important for my enjoyment.

The dismissal of "little victories" and "little losses" as you play is...odd, to me. I get the "oh, but you shouldn't CARE if your PC is winning or losing; you should enjoy his story no matter how it goes!" argument. It speaks to a particular kind of RP and enjoyment of stories.

Well, yeah, obviously you should care if your PC is winning or loosing. I certainly do. I think my main point is that you, the player, can choose what the PC cares about, thus decide what sort of stuff counts as "win". If going first class rather than economy in an airplane is your characters' goal, then obviously it's a "win" if you do it, even if it means you may have fewer equipment later on. You get to decide which "win" is most important to your character, most games don't care.

It does, however, dismiss the power fantasy that is absolutely a part of what I want when I play a game. I do identify with my PCs enough that their "little wins" and "little losses" add up. If I experience more "little losses" throughout, I get frustrated. I don't have fun. From a rational, objective standpoint, if I want to have fun, I need to play a character who can accumulate more wins than losses in the aggregate.

I do vehemently agree here. I think, over all, for most players to be happy, the "wins" have to outweight the "losses" by at least 3-1. Usually as a GM I find it safer to aim for 5-1 (I can't decide when they will happen, but I can tweak the challenge ratings (abstracted for all sorts of problems) in a way that makes the ratio likely).

I played a character once that had so many losses that I had built up such a large deficit in the ratio that I needed A LOT of wins to make up for it. When they never happened, I just figured my character got too depressed to care about anything (that's usually what happens with people when life really sucks), including her own life. Funnily enough, I don't think the GM actually understood why I was so unhappy with the game.

Since I also want to actually play a character, and not some perfect cardboard cutout of an optimization engine (else, of course, I'd just play Pun-Pun, or as close as I could trick the GM into letting me get), I have conflicting goals, here. But I know from experience that allowing myself to sacrifice the little victories and the ability to gain them for "bad decisions that are in character" leads to more and more "little losses" which compound upon themselves as I become progressively less able to do anything useful, and thus progressively less able to win even the tiniest of victories.

This isn't, again, about "bleeding edge of optimization." Don't get me wrong, I can play there. But it doesn't have to be that extreme for this problem to arise.

I always thought people made bad decisions, including in character, because they want to accomplish something. I mean, if the action isn't a "win", why do it?

I do understand that if you view it as "act in character and enter into a spiral of continuing losses", then there is probably very few players that would act in character. I certainly wouldn't. This is not how I run my games though. Acting in character very rarely leads to a spiral of continuing loss. In rare occasion, it might lead to character death, which is sort of a permanent "loss", but funnily enough, most players are rarely that upset when their decisions lead them to death, as long as they agree that it was a logical consequence.

I mean, when I ran a semi-long D&D campaign, I told my players that they didn't really need to worry about looting every single piece of equipment they encountered. I promised them they would still be able to acquire magic weapons and whatnot. That made them very happy, as they didn't want to play characters that were looting everything. They could act in character and still win. D&D is largely neutral to how a GM chooses to reward players with magic items.

So in a way, I guess it is is partly a trust issue. You should be able to trust your GM that acting in character should never lead to a spiral of diminishing returns and constant loss. A decision may lead to a SINGLE loss, but I think that's okay with you too. As long as you get more wins down the road, having that one loss due to some "poor" in-character decision will just be something you laugh at later.

Have you never had that moment when afterwards you say "well, I know it was a really stupid decision to make, but damn if it didn't feel RIGHT for the character"? I have, and they still give me pleasure when I think back on them (even if the consequence was not quite as fun right there and then).

Obviously, most people in this thread think I'm silly (at best) for wanting mechanics that actually support RP decisions. They don't view mechanics as rewarding or punishing anything. Taking this thread alone, I would be forced to believe that they honestly don't care whether their character succeeds or fails at any particular thing, as long as they made the right IC choice. That is, of course, fine, but it also renders mechanics irrelevant to whether you're having fun.

I got no problems with whatever mechanics you might want; be they to support RP decisions or determine the length of your .

I do care if my character succeeds or fails. So does my character (usually).

I think the only thing I said is that all the mechanics that supposedly "support RP decisions" tend to make me feel like they're doing the opposite. If they work for you, that doesn't make you silly, it just makes us different. Alternatively, it makes ME silly, did you think about that?

What flabberghasts me is that it seems that nobody is actually capable of even [I]seeing the one-sided pressure that mechanics that support only particular tasks and choices creates.

First I wanted to say that there are things I am ignorant of. Not willfully, just ignorant.

But then I thought that maybe this is exactly what I feel most "RP mechanics" are doing. To me, they add pressure that support only particular tasks and choices. Thus, they add one-sided pressure, when before there was none.

Like I said, I prefer when my games are neutral as far as supporting tasks and choices. That leaves it up to me the player, or, on a larger scale, to us the group to decide what we support or not.

The way I run D&D for example, IS as a fairly neutral game. You could play at my table as someone who refused to loot anything on principle and not get into some form of "loss spiral of doom". The old D&D gave you XP for gold, but the newer editions doesn't. We could easily reach some agreement for what would generate XP for your character, that makes us both get the game we want.

Max_Killjoy not withstanding (as, apparently, he is actually a paragon of strong will who never lets himself be tempted by short-term pleasures over long-term goals; I admire that and wish I had his willpower), nobody has actually addressed my comparison of how I actually live my life as a real person (i.e. "a character whose player literally experiences everything he does") vs. how I'd live my life if I were a character controlled by a version of me who didn't experience my physical pleasures and pains personally.

Please, examine that thought experiment. I know, for a fact, I am not the only weak, fallible human being in existence who, on the one hand, wants something long-term achievable (in my case: be more physically fit and attractive), but on the other so hates every step he has to take to achieve it that progress is slow to non-existent as he continually succumbs to short-term temptations (hunger, delicious food over healthy food, not enduring the misery of exercise...).

And yet, were I playing "Segev, the character," and I could enjoy sharing in his achievement of losing weight and putting on a little bit of muscle, especially by the bonuses to physical activities he'd enjoy with higher ST and CN, but I had no way of gaining any shared enjoyment (nor any need to endure shared suffering) during the effort it took to get there... Segev'd eat nothing but an optimal diet, heedless of flavor, and would exercise an optimal amount of time each day for an optimal amount of effort, heedless of discomfort. Heroically pushing through it because the one suffering it has no say in the matter; his player doesn't have to endure more than a passing nod to "oh, it's awful."

Well, I did read through your thought-experiment. I think if I met a player that played "Segev, the perfect human", I would eye him suspiciously, ask him if he really took into account XYZ stuff, and if they continued this behavior, probably not play with him anymore. I HAVE encountered players that work like that, but they are rare.

However, on a more philosophical level, a character is really the sum total of all its decisions. Whatever stuff you write down on your character sheet doesn't matter **** really, the only thing people will actually SEE is what you bring to and do in the game. So, if someone where to play "Segev, the character" as a perfect paragon of human willpower, they wouldn't actually be playing YOU, they'd be playing someone else entirely.

Characters are only really defined during the play. Whatever you do in the game, that is your character. Just like in real life really. People can only see what you do, the choices you make etc.

So, yeah, in your thought experiment, you are describing two different characters, not the same one. One of them seems like a plausible, fairly like-able guy, whereas the other a one-dimensional willpower machine.

I'd never play for long with someone who insisted on playing the latter.

Segev

2016-12-12, 06:21 PM

The game systems I prefer are ones that are mostly neutral on the position on which I choose. They may give me bonuses or penalties on various actions depending on what I choose, but they don't tell me which one to pick.I... guess I just can't communicate why "Armus gets to be Minister of War" is a goal in which I, as his player, can share the fun and experience, but "Armus gets to eat the best taco ever" (to just really emphasize it to an extreme) is an experience I can never share with him. I can imagine it. I can say, "Yay, Armus got to eat the best taco ever!" But I can't actually USE that experience to do anything in the game.

Whereas being Minister of War opens up all sorts of new options. New things I can do in the game.

As a hopefully brief analogy, let's say you're playing Sim City. It has no "win" (though it has a loss condition). The game is fundamentally an acquisition game: get more stuff to do more stuff and have more options. Let's say that Sim City has a "Mayoral Feast" option. At any point in time, you can choose to spend various amounts of money to throw a feast, ranging from "A modest round of drinks at the rotary club" to "The Best Feast Ever." None of these options actually do anything in game; they just give you a brief dialog box that says how much you enjoyed it (and the more you spent, the more you enjoyed it, according to the dialog box).

Or you could spend that money on actual city improvements, which open up new options and more things you can do in the game and make you less likely to lose and more likely to have more resources to expend on more gameplay options.

Or, worse, buying a mayoral feast above a certain level may start riots in your city, wrecking areas, as people protest your corruption. But it tells you you really enjoyed it!

To me, Armus eating a taco is that dialog box. Okay, yeah, he enjoyed it. No, I mean, he REALLY enjoyed it. Best thing he's ever done. He wouldn't regret being executed on the spot, having enjoyed that taco. But I, his player, would feel rather cheated if Armus did, in fact, die as a result of eating that taco. I'll feel cheated if he fails to get his Ministry just because of that taco.

Because if Armus dies, I don't get to play him anymore. And frankly, while "Armus really likes tacos" is a trait I definitely want to play up, I want to play my darned character. Less stupidly, if it costs him the Ministry, I've closed off options to my own gameplay. I've hindered what I can do as Armus, things I, the player, would have enjoyed playing out, all for what amounts to the GM saying, "Yep, you enjoyed that."

If I had a character with personality trait "taco addict", and the game offers me 1 token of character advancement for "engaging in" my addiction, then it is no longer a choice. Eating the taco gives me character advancement, whereas succeeding in the speech gives me (the player) a sense of accomplishment, but no token. In such a situation, the game basically runs your character, as NOT going for the character advancement token would be stupid (and in the long run, definitely contrary to my fun). So, instead of me having to make a decision to weigh desire vs. long-term goals, the game now decides for me.Except that the game was deciding for you before you got the "token of character advancement." It was telling you that eating the taco is bad, because it will create penalties on upcoming important rolls. And it was also telling you that no good could come of it, because there is no reward for doing so.

As has been stated many times; if YOU like the game to reward you for specific types of actions, then obviously choose a game that does so. For me however, adding "roleplaying mechanics" usually feels like the game is removing something from me rather than adding. And this something is very important for my enjoyment.The game ALREADY rewards you and punishes you. It's just one-sided. It isn't neutral. If it was neutral, eating the taco would not impact the speech at all.

Well, yeah, obviously you should care if your PC is winning or loosing. I certainly do. I think my main point is that you, the player, can choose what the PC cares about, thus decide what sort of stuff counts as "win". If going first class rather than economy in an airplane is your characters' goal, then obviously it's a "win" if you do it, even if it means you may have fewer equipment later on. You get to decide which "win" is most important to your character, most games don't care.Man, then I should just decide that nothing I have to roll for is important. That makes this easy: I "win" every time! Because actually accomplishing things via the mechanics is no longer important, I can't lose. I always win!

Except...that's not really playing the game. That's not fun. And if the only things I can ever accomplish that I am to care about are things that don't invoke the mechanics, why I am not free-forming? Why use the system at all?

Heck, the way you're talking about it, the game already encourages you to eat that taco ridiculously strongly! You auto-"win" if you do! But you might lose if you try for that other thing, instead. So clearly, Armus should not value his speech's success in order to maximize Armus's Player's enjoyment of the game.

Now, obviously, that's not how you play. I can't get in your head, but apparently you somehow manage to weigh a totally imaginary pleasure of un-measured rating (not "so great it's immeasurable," but literally "unknowable") against the goals he's set for himself and the likely impact of this choice on those goals.

I literally can't do that. I mean, is he REALLY hungry enough to risk it? Is that taco REALLY that good? How can I know how good it smells? I know how good I'll feel about being able to play the Minister of War in this game; I can't judge how Armus feels about the stupid taco. I don't even like tacos! And no matter how much you tell me "he's really hungry," I'm not suffering it, so it's easy for me to say, "Sure, but not so hungry he'd risk his Ministry over it." "Even a small risk?" "Why take any?"

I always thought people made bad decisions, including in character, because they want to accomplish something. I mean, if the action isn't a "win", why do it?This actually is my point.

For me, the player, it isn't a "win" to have Armus eat that cursed taco. I can have him show off his taco-eating character trait when it isn't going to cost me, the player, anything, and make Armus "a strong-willed guy" (another minor "win") through no effort nor exertion nor sacrifice on my part, and go on to avoid a loss at that speech roll.

For me, there is literally no upside to letting him eat that taco, absent internal or external guilt-tripping about being "a bad RPer." Which, incidentally, is common from GMs in my experience. "Are you SURE you'd really do that?" With a heavily implied "you're being a Munchkin" judgment. And the thing is, it's a fair question, but at the same time the game will punish me for making a choice which is a loss (lack of willpower) by making a loss (at the speech) more likely. All for me getting nothing except the frustration of having been guilt tripped into willingly losing.

So in a way, I guess it is is partly a trust issue. You should be able to trust your GM that acting in character should never lead to a spiral of diminishing returns and constant loss. A decision may lead to a SINGLE loss, but I think that's okay with you too. As long as you get more wins down the road, having that one loss due to some "poor" in-character decision will just be something you laugh at later.Thing is, I don't want the GM to "hand" me a "win" to make up for a loss. That's not my win. That's a participation trophy. I loathe participation trophies; even as a kid, I felt like they were mocking me by rubbing in the fact that I lost. The only trophies that matter, to me, are ones I actually have to earn by doing more than showing up.

Frankly, I get way too few of those IRL, which is one reason I like RPing, because my characters are capable of being competent in ways that I am not. Social prowess is a biggie, but sadly, the poor quality of social mechanics in games generally means I fail anyway because I'm not suave enough to make my social efforts "believable" enough, and the invocation of mechanics always seems to backfire spectacularly. Because they're now "an attack" and so people are mad that I...tried to be friendly.

Have you never had that moment when afterwards you say "well, I know it was a really stupid decision to make, but damn if it didn't feel RIGHT for the character"? I have, and they still give me pleasure when I think back on them (even if the consequence was not quite as fun right there and then).Occasionally. But it has to be pretty defining, and generally speaking? There was a positive in-game consequence, or at least a chance for one.

Perhaps the biggest example was when I got an L5R character killed. Kakita Makoto told, bald-faced, that the bad guy they'd just executed was doing evil magic, and that's why he was still alive. He claimed we assaulted him for no reason. He was higher status. Makoto maybe could've let the other PCs talk their way out, but Makoto won't lie nor countenance lies, and thus challenged the higher-status NPC to a duel. The higher-status NPC called his 3-ranks-higher-than Makoto bodyguard (who was in full armor) to do the duel, against Makoto who was tired and wounded from fighting this evil jerk's dark powers...and was unarmored.

There was a very slim chance I could have won. I was VERY good at duels, and if I'd pushed the iaijutsu rolls far enough and rolled well enough, my massive bonuses could have one-shotted even this guy.

The dice were merely average, sadly, and that guy instead one-shotted Makoto after Makoto failed to do more than dent his armor.

This, however, was an honestly epic end. And I got to share the thrill of it all the way through. AND, if I'd succeeded, the reputation gains would be something I could play out and enjoy, personally, along with Makoto, too.

This wasn't, despite the risks, disconnected, meaningless reward (to the player). It had connection of all relevant elements to the player as well as the character.

On the other hand, if it had been (say) a bribery with admission to a luxury restaurant that only Imperial Samurai can usually get into, there's no benefit there for me.

...actually, I take that back. L5R is fairly good at using its reputation mechanics as bribes for that kind of thing.

But again: there's a connection between the temptation to the character and the temptation to the player.

I do care if my character succeeds or fails. So does my character (usually).

I think the only thing I said is that all the mechanics that supposedly "support RP decisions" tend to make me feel like they're doing the opposite. If they work for you, that doesn't make you silly, it just makes us different. Alternatively, it makes ME silly, did you think about that?I... just feel like I continue to fail to get across that mechanics already support (or discourage) certain decisions, by virtue of having positives (or negatives) associated with them, and having no cost to making (or not making) them.

Like I said, I prefer when my games are neutral as far as supporting tasks and choices. That leaves it up to me the player, or, on a larger scale, to us the group to decide what we support or not.

The way I run D&D for example, IS as a fairly neutral game. You could play at my table as someone who refused to loot anything on principle and not get into some form of "loss spiral of doom". The old D&D gave you XP for gold, but the newer editions doesn't. We could easily reach some agreement for what would generate XP for your character, that makes us both get the game we want.Sure. That is one solution: hand out re-balancing aids for those who make IC choices that cause them to fall behind appreciably. It doesn't exactly encourage people to get in their character's head in the moment, though. It mitigates the punishment for those who managed to do so anyway, but I always dislike having to say, "Okay, I trust that, if I let him be an idiot here and cost myself what I want, I'll get a consolation prize down the line." Even if I do trust that, it's...galling.

Well, I did read through your thought-experiment. I think if I met a player that played "Segev, the perfect human", I would eye him suspiciously, ask him if he really took into account XYZ stuff, and if they continued this behavior, probably not play with him anymore. I HAVE encountered players that work like that, but they are rare.Took into account what XYZ stuff? That Segev-the-character is miserable while exercising and that he is enduring hunger pangs and lousy-tasting food that he doesn't enjoy? That he's unhappy for weeks while he tries to get accustomed to the diet changes and waits for his body to actually start showing results? "Sure," he says. "But I don't care. It's good for him. And shows iron will to succeed." And, if they're particularly honest, "I'm not happy he's miserable, but I don't have to endure it, and I'll enjoy the results as much as he will. More, since I don't have misery counterbalancing them."

Is that "the wrong way to play?"

However, on a more philosophical level, a character is really the sum total of all its decisions. Whatever stuff you write down on your character sheet doesn't matter **** really, the only thing people will actually SEE is what you bring to and do in the game. So, if someone where to play "Segev, the character" as a perfect paragon of human willpower, they wouldn't actually be playing YOU, they'd be playing someone else entirely.So? They're playing a "me" that is a better, idealized version. Are you saying I can't have character growth?

Honestly, I wouldn't want to play "me" as I am in a game. I suck. I'm not a loser, per se, but I'm hardly a winner, either, and dagfirnit, I want to play a winner.

Characters are only really defined during the play. Whatever you do in the game, that is your character. Just like in real life really. People can only see what you do, the choices you make etc.Sure. And I'd like the game to connect me to my character such that it is not saying, "The only reason not to do these things, for which you will be rewarded, and not these other things, for which you will be punished, is that your character would enjoy those other things and not those first things."

If reality were to give Lorsa $100 for every lb. Segev-the-real-person loses, up to a maximum of 80 lbs., and Lorsa were given mind-control powers over Segev, I imagine Lorsa would have Segev dieting and exercising just fine, regardless of what I-the-real-person wanted at any given moment. (Well, assuming Lorsa could convince herself it was for Segev's own good, since he really WANTS to lose those 80 lbs.)

That's the game rewarding Lorsa, Segev's player, for one set of possible choices Segev could make, but not doing so for another set that might be more "in character" because, frankly, Segev-the-real-person likes foods that are high-calorie and dislikes exercise.

So, yeah, in your thought experiment, you are describing two different characters, not the same one. One of them seems like a plausible, fairly like-able guy, whereas the other a one-dimensional willpower machine.

I'd never play for long with someone who insisted on playing the latter.Why not? What's unlikable about me with the willpower to actually diet and exercise properly? Why do you get to judge that it's unrealistic, if Segev's player says "nah, that's totally in character; he's a willpower machine."

If I'm honest, Segev Stormlord, the necromancer whose name I use as my online monicker, is somebody I play as a willpower machine. (He's also not likable, because he's a cold, calculating person whose semblance of "morality" is a form of iron-willed long term planning which causes him to value allies and a reputation for trustworthiness and effectiveness.) Sadly, I lack such willpower. :smallsigh:

Floret

2016-12-12, 06:24 PM

So let me start with a parallel.
But the experience is completely different, for good and ill. There is no way whatsoever that these bloody dice are a "combat aid" - they're a bane to padded weapons enthusiasts! They're replacing "real" combat with some sort of combat simulation minigame - one which discourages* people from actually learning any "real" combat skills. Instead, they're learning a completely different skillset - combat mini-game mechanics - and, worse, likely learning a different skillset for a different set of combat mechanics for each game.

This parallels what I continue to feel is my fairly reasonable view of "roleplaying" mechanics - while a completely valid concept, they are clearly quite antithetical to my play style. Having a roleplaying minigame is not the same as roleplaying, will not build roleplaying skills**, and does not translate well from system to system, unlike "just roleplaying".

Different people like different things. Sure. Sometimes the same person wants different things out of different playstlyes. Why is saying "I want there to be options to scratch my itch" in any way requiring people saying "that is not an itch worth scratching!" (Even if "for me" is added, it feels rather pointless. The debate is, for some reason, still over "should these exist", even though we all agree that there are different playstyles and different people can like different things. So... for some people they should, for others not. Larp should have padded weapons (Or, well, foam weapons modelled to look like real ones), TRPGs should have personality and social rules :smalltongue: At least in the games I play in. Both are not necessary for everyone, and my playstyle might, in fact, be utterly unenjoyable for many people. Which is fine. Quite frankly, for all my arguing, I don't quite see the point in arguing IF they should exist. How they can exist seems much more productive, and people saying "I would not like that" is, while valid, rather tangential to any point imho.)
And, really, "discourages"? HOW? "Not forcing to learn" is not synonymous with "discouraging". Just because I don't need to do something, doesn't mean I'm not gonna pick it up anyway if it interests me.

A question has come up about whether someone with arachnophobia should suffer an initiative penalty when fighting spiders to provide appropriate "teeth" to their flaw. Hah! As anyone who has ever seen me encounter my fear(s) would attest, I get a huge bonus to initiative, and run away before anyone else gets to act! So, once again, a system which provides a penalty to initiative because of a stated phobia clearly fails to model me, so badly that it models me worse than having no rules at all***.

And the point of my "extreme" example of eating human flesh is that, what is "extreme" to one person may well just be a *shrug* to another. Morally, I couldn't care less about consuming human flesh. It's a non-issue to me. But many (most?) people get rather worked up about it. It's these differences that make personality, and it's these differences that one cannot easily model in a simple game.

My own phobia gets me slow, somewhat paralysed, stiff, and generally careful. Now, it is not one of arachnids, or anything moving, really (Well... it might move. *shudder*). But it instills me with a desire to get away, even though it hampers my ability to actually DO so.
The point might be that different people react differently to the same thing.
To add to the point I so shamelessly pulled up here: My response would be, that if the system is simple, this kind of stuff is too complex that it should bother with it. I mean, concerning combat skills/weapon proficiencies a simple system might differenciate between "Close combat" and "Ranged combat" (FATE does). A more advanced systems splits these apart bit for bit (Or an even simpler might roll these into one). At a certain point of complexity, how you react to phobias is gonna matter. But at that point you generally have reached a complexity that allows for the detail that might model them. As I am generally more fond of simpler systems, a blanket, say, +2 if everyone can agree on that specific trait being applicable in some logical way is perfectly in line with my desires. And... at that point I don't need to simulate a person. I don't need to differentiate out all these little details. I am not even close. But I give the player the option of bringing the personality into the mechanics, in a way that would otherwise be barred.
If, in FATE, you would argue "my phobia gives me +2 on initiative because I will run the **** away as quickly as possible" - sure, go for it! And if another player says "yaknow, my phobia paralyses me so I can't act, can I get a FATEpoint for that" that would be perfectly possible as well. In the same game. Because you stay at a level of free-form that does not require to simulate these little details.
More concisely: If you want a simple game: Just don't model those differences, they are not gonna matter.

Worse, this obfuscates (or, perhaps, simply reframes) other issues, instead of solving them. Hmmm... logic leap detected... let me try and spell that out a bit more... um... "in steps". See, there's this question of "does the player know what is important better than the character does?" And the answer is both "yes" and "no". The player knows what is important to the player, and to the "campaign", better than the character does; the character probably knows what is important to the character better than the player does (but no guarantees).

I feel like this is treating the character to be a little too much of a person. The character does not "know" themselves, and cannot, better then you know them. They aren't real. They are a construct thought up by the player. Sure, the construct might work with your subconscious, but ultimately you are not emulating anything. You are imagining and thinking up, consciously or otherwise. You could say "go with your subconcious", and, sure, it is the way I prefer to play my characters most of the time. But this is not some strange power outside of you, this is your subconscious, fully informed of all the facts you, the player have as well. The dichotomy between player and character is not one of equal standing.

Sure. And "oh, awesome, if I do this in-character thing, I get to experience my PC's utter disastrous failure!" is a way some people might play.

But I don't think "and I get some morale points out of it to represent how much he enjoyed that bad decision" is going to ruin that experience for them. Heck, if it's REALLY that big of a disaster, it might not be enough to tempt the player to make the "bad decision" anyway, just for some morale points. Or it might, if he wants to play it that way anyway.

Meh. To be nitpicky: It would for me, since it would include rules into an environment I wanna play free-form in. So introducing any sort of currency would be badwrong :smalltongue:
And, I dunno, but I can imagine there being people that actually WANT to be punished, as players, for these in-character decisions and would feel the "sacrifice" not being quite so strong if alliviated. Sounds like that from some people in the thread. I wouldn't be one of them, but it is a possible position.
Which brings me back to "play with people who share your playstyle, it makes it easier for everyone". (Not directed at you. But in general.)

Uh, I think I am a little confused what position exactly you have an issue with. Maybe the quotes would have been good. :smallsmile:
I think my position is, if it is possible to put shortly, that having to weight short-term goals vs. long-term goals, and desires over dreams, to eventually reach a decision of how the character acts in the specific situation, is one of main parts of "fun" for me.
The game systems I prefer are ones that are mostly neutral on the position on which I choose. They may give me bonuses or penalties on various actions depending on what I choose, but they don't tell me which one to pick.

If I had a character with personality trait "taco addict", and the game offers me 1 token of character advancement for "engaging in" my addiction, then it is no longer a choice. Eating the taco gives me character advancement, whereas succeeding in the speech gives me (the player) a sense of accomplishment, but no token. In such a situation, the game basically runs your character, as NOT going for the character advancement token would be stupid (and in the long run, definitely contrary to my fun). So, instead of me having to make a decision to weigh desire vs. long-term goals, the game now decides for me.

But you are still making the mistake here of arguing solely against mechanics awarding XP/"token of character advancement" as the sum total of RP rules, which the ones currently being discussed are blatantly not.
And also, the whole point Segev is gettin at is that the circumstances are NOT neutral in their "current" state, but slanted towards uncaring murderhobos. You might not see the "disadvantage", and given your statements on how you run games you include ways for getting the disadvantages out, but... that is sort of a point in and of itself, isn't it? You actively take action to prevent the same thing Segev is trying to prevent. Your action is just "remove the advantage of choice A" instead of "add an advantage to choice B" so the choice is between two different in result, but potentially equal in scope, decisions. I think your way is the easier one, mind you, but Segevs rules were never mine.

I always thought people made bad decisions, including in character, because they want to accomplish something. I mean, if the action isn't a "win", why do it?

I do understand that if you view it as "act in character and enter into a spiral of continuing losses", then there is probably very few players that would act in character. I certainly wouldn't. This is not how I run my games though. Acting in character very rarely leads to a spiral of continuing loss. In rare occasion, it might lead to character death, which is sort of a permanent "loss", but funnily enough, most players are rarely that upset when their decisions lead them to death, as long as they agree that it was a logical consequence.

I dunno, "win" for me in the right circumstances might be loosing. And crying for a few minutes in a corner. Because a "win" might be gettin scenes that trigger emotions. Maybe that is still covered by what you name "accomplishing something", though.
And for me it is less entering into a spiral of continuing losses, that would be boring. Maybe an example of something extreme: For me, half the fun of Post-apo Larp is playing a character that is incredibly ****ed up, and will in all likelyhood never get better. Might very well get worse! But will never get better. I have no long-term goals with them. The only long-term goal of the character is to finally get the courage to off themselves. Which I, as a player, don't actually want. (Though it would potentially create a marvellous scene) Playing through every day with impulse reactions to everything, breaking down in the most inopportune moments because of psychological issues, and the scenes that follow from that - that is all I play the character for.
(...I thought I was making a point with this. Maybe I am just illustrating the difference between character and player goals in an extreme example. Win Conditions for RPGs are weird. And, no, in a TRPG I would never play this. Too much of what is fun would disappear in timeskips. And, as Segev doesn't get tired of pointing out: I would not actually get to experience things that directly. I don't experience the pretty guys muscles (or the pretty girls touches). Nor the gun to my head. The grass I am lying on, the food I am eating or the knife in my hand reassuring me I will be able to murder everyone if I want to. For TRPGs, I tend towards more aligned goals. And towards more "hard" goals.)

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-12, 06:43 PM

I'm getting really tired of the passive-aggressive crap and the personal cheap-shots in this "discussion".

Segev

2016-12-12, 06:46 PM

I'm getting really tired of the passive-aggressive crap and the personal cheap-shots in this "discussion".

Oddly, I've ceased the passive-aggressive bit and flat-out stated that it seems like there's a hidden "guilt trip" over being a "bad RPer" in a lot of these discussions.

I am not sure what personal cheap shots you're talking about. If you feel I've made any, then you're misreading me. Where I've referenced you, specifically, by name, I've been doing my best to take you at your word and respect what you've said, since you've held yourself up as a counter-example to things I've asserted. If I haven't mentioned you by name, I'm probably not talking about you.

Cluedrew

2016-12-12, 07:17 PM

I wish I had a time to craft replies to everything and put out related ideas, but I don't. Has anyone else noticed the sized of the scroll bar? Or lack there of? ... This is going to end up on the next page now isn't it?

Because you/your DM arbitrarily decided that they will.
[...]
*Problem Exists Between Chair And Book.No. Nope, I do not care he will never see this or if it was an accident. You do not get to insult my GM, who is a friend of mine and what you say is completely wrong.

He does not run D&D, having described his last experience with the game "having fun despite the system" so what he would do in a D&D is a moot point.
He plays very organic settings with enemies that are people. In one of my first sessions with him I was attacked by a pair of assassins who were sent to kill my character. By the end of that scene they had helped fix my jeep and sent me on my way.

I request an apology.

This is fundamentally the same as the "perfect tactical pawn" thing: it's a "I want to have roleplaying, but the game doesn't give me specific mechanical benefits for it, so I'm forced not to" argument.This one the other hand, I'll thank you for saying. I might be coming across that way but really the argument is: "Wouldn't it be great if the system helped me do the things I enjoy, instead of merely allowing it?"

Most of my early role-playing game experience was in free forum role-play. Those provide no mechanical benefits, or mechanics of any kind for anything. Also they have more freedom that any other type of role playing "game" out there, along with the lowest learning curve. Assuming you speak, read and write the same language as the other players. Depending on how you communicate, they can also have the highest play speed.

Why aren't they more popular? Because playing without and mechanical support or guides has issues. For instance we have had some rather large power (here: combat ability) discrepancies between characters simply because how the fights were described varied (and everyone has there own style). You add a combat system and the problem goes... slightly further away depending on the balance of the system.

Now bringing your next sentence in: "The DM decides, without mechanical encouragement in any direction, whether enemies stand and fight to the death, try to surrender when the fight turns against them, accept bribes to change sides or just to go away, or try to flee."

First off I don't think this is quite right. As I see it there is no mechanical enforcement either way as the GM has control. However there is mechanical encouragement in the form of the HP system. Because if you drop an enemies HP to 0 (or 16 if that's what the rules say) they die. That provides a mechanically supported path of resolving the conflict. However there is no mechanical support for having the enemies accept bribes. Bribe threshold has not been in any D&D stat block I have seen.

So going with the default path will result in the characters fighting to the death. Yes you can break from it, but that requires going above and beyond what the system provides. A lot of people do it, it is not a hard default to override, but you still have to do it.

There's a lot going on in this thread, some of which I've never really thought about before, so it's hard for me to try to parse it all... let alone try to tie it back to the original topic.

A question has come up about whether someone with arachnophobia should suffer an initiative penalty when fighting spiders to provide appropriate "teeth" to their flaw. Hah! As anyone who has ever seen me encounter my fear(s) would attest, I get a huge bonus to initiative, and run away before anyone else gets to act! So, once again, a system which provides a penalty to initiative because of a stated phobia clearly fails to model me, so badly that it models me worse than having no rules at all***.In my defence, that was going to be option 4. I just cut it because it didn't demonstrate a new level of mechanical control of the character.

Really it comes down to granularity. And since you would be insane (or at the least very board) to try and encode every human personality trait it also comes down to flexibility. For instance instead of arachnophobia you could have a trait "Strong Reaction". Pick a trigger, in this case spiders, an a reflex, in this case running away, add a bit of flavour text and you have arachnophobia. Pick "the face of my father's murder" and "attacks in blind rage" any you have the base of a murderous avenger.

Also, on the whole, I am enjoying this thread right now. Some issues but I think we are doing pretty good over all in terms of both content and tone.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-12, 07:18 PM

Oddly, I've ceased the passive-aggressive bit and flat-out stated that it seems like there's a hidden "guilt trip" over being a "bad RPer" in a lot of these discussions.

I am not sure what personal cheap shots you're talking about. If you feel I've made any, then you're misreading me. Where I've referenced you, specifically, by name, I've been doing my best to take you at your word and respect what you've said, since you've held yourself up as a counter-example to things I've asserted. If I haven't mentioned you by name, I'm probably not talking about you.

I've never said you were a bad RPer.

As for the other thing...

Max_Killjoy not withstanding (as, apparently, he is actually a paragon of strong will who never lets himself be tempted by short-term pleasures over long-term goals; I admire that and wish I had his willpower)

How is someone supposed to take that other than sarcastically?

Talakeal

2016-12-12, 07:23 PM

@ Segev: Good point about the options that close off vs. open up more opportunities. That is a very good point indeed!

Also, I think part of our disconnect about punishments boils down to GNS (sorry).

As a simulationist I don't think of "in character" events as punishments, merely as consequences. If I choose to, for example, sacrifice my right arm in the jaws of Fenris, I am not being punished if I can no longer use a two handed weapon, that is merely the natural consequence of my outcome.

On the other hand, if I am docked XP for refusing to put my hand in the wolfs jaws that comes off as a punishment, because it is the game trying to make my character weaker for their actions, not any sort of natural in universe outcome of the decision.

Losing paladin powers in D&D is kind of on the borderline because it is an in character punishment for ridiculous meta-game reasons.

On the other hand a gamist or a dramatist would see nothing wrong in using punishment to discourage behavior that doesn't fit with the intended genre or gives the character an unfair advantage respectively.

Lorsa

2016-12-13, 07:21 AM

The taco-example was specifically about the goal being something other then tacos (Making a grand speech with a goal later introduced as becoming minister of war, iirc), and the desire to eat tacos putting the speech (so the goal) at risk, cause getting gassy. The catch being, the character is really, really hungry.
Now, do you take the risk and eat, thereby giving yourself a penalty on the speech? Or do you power through the hunger?
So, in broader terms: What do you do when "roleplaying" the emotions, personality and base desires of a character conflict with the goals you set for the game?
(Sure, you can answer "Playing the emotions, personality and base desires IS my goal", and then the answer would be obvious. But for the points where it ISN'T, where your goal is (at least as well) something else, the game is punishing you for playing to them with a penalty. At least in the example. That is what Segev wants RP mechanics for, to offset this "cost". At least that is what I understood.)
Basically the point is, to get the impetus that some people (You don't seem to, but who knows) have looking at a situation like this and saying "Yaknow... This kinda screws me over?", making them inclined to make decisions based on what is mechanically (far) more optimal rather then "their character". And to counter this impetus, give the "RP" decision some mechanical value to offset the percieved cost.
And, yaknow, I can understand that. If a system offers blatant favour for some mechanical decisions over others, I will feel an inclination to take a more optimal one over one that is blatantly disadvantageous.
Story time: If I create a character, and see that the way I made my backstory screws me out of like 3 points (In a system where you get 6 naturally), I feel cheated. Now I did not go back and redo the backstory. Partially because I had been playing the character for years before the edition change made backstory relevant in that way. But I am, to this day, three years past that point, still pissed and would not create the character the same way with the same story under the new system. And miss out on a character that is incredibly fun to play.

I tried to think of what to say, but eventually all I come up with is that the taco example is a bit flawed, and very poor to make any point at all.

The thing is, the the taco example is bad because the game mechanics assumed are horrible. It would be better if we could come up with one that has basis in actual mechanics.

I mean, the issue is that the taco example assumes two things:

1) There is a game mechanic that gives penalty for "gases after eating".
2) There is no game mechanic that gives a penalty for "being hungry".

That's simply poor game design. I think any game that had the type of complexity to model bowel movements would also include hunger and sugar lows. So if certain food gave gases, hunger would also invoke penalties.

Maybe they'd also be different penalties. Being hungry might lead to having to make some form of willpower roll during the speech, or else gain a penalty for being unfocused and generally grumpy. Eating the tacos might lead to a "body control" roll in order to hold in the farts or some form of performance roll to inconspicuously produce other noise to hide the farts.

That would make the decision interesting, and would actually model reality better. Now you have to choose which penalty to go for, which roll to gamble with.

So, could we instead use some example that has basis in game mechanics which actually exist and aren't stupid?

No. This is a blatant misunderstanding of two things:
1) There are, as I count, three different systems being proposed. "tradeoff for currently mechanically suboptimal decisions"; "BIG/Get more XP for playing your character" and "Get bonusses to rolls based on personality".
2) This is not "the game playing your character for you". Noone actually asked for a system where the player doesn't make the actual decisions anymore. Or leave it up to the dice - apart from the example that started the thread, but that deals with a very specific thing trying to model something else entirely. We don't wanna write AI. We want to put rulefocus, in whatever way, on the character's personalitys.

Well, it is possible I may have misunderstood the specifics of the game mechanics requested. Maybe I could request, again, a more detailed description of what is actually desired?

When I think of "RP mechanics", it is often the "get more XP for playing your character", but also "tradeoff for currently mechanically suboptimal decisions" (I think). I don't have much experience with games that give bonuses to rolls based on personality, although I know they exist.

Do you not write down anything about your character, I ask myself? Do you not have any sheet of paper with notes on your character's personality?

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most of my characters' personalities exist only in my head (or actually my heart if metaphors are okay). It is usually quite difficult to write a detailed account of a personality, just looked at all the failed attempts at dating sites.

But none of this is what I actually came here to say. What I actually wanted to say was something I've been introspecting on for a bit. One of the original contentions, the reason for RP rules, was to try to move away from the game punishing you for roleplaying your character. I feel that such rules usually wind up, well, punishing you for roleplaying your character. I just couldn't understand how it was that neither of us could see the other's side as being equally valid. Yeah, I said things like "style preference", but it still felt dumb to say "I prefer to be punished for playing my character than to be punished for playing my character". Sure, "making decisions on behalf of my character is the one thing I get to do around here"... but why are we arguing about it?

So, as best I can tell, when there are no rules, there is a conflict between "play my character" and "succeed (in the short term, at least)". Whereas, when there are rules, it is a conflict between "play my character" and "get cookie". So I think it's a matter of what we're putting roleplaying into conflict with, compared to what we care about. I think, for me, because I don't care about whether my character succeeds at this particular goal, I happily just roleplay my character, but I get grouchy when I don't get a cookie because I roleplayed my character****. Whereas, I suppose, it is likely that either a) others might not care as much about missing the cookie as they do about succeeding; or b) others don't see how one can miss their cookie by playing their character. At least, that's my guess. Am I close, or have I missed the mark? I'm not Robin Hood, after all. :smallwink:

I think your post was very insightful in general. Mainly I just wanted to agree with the last part here. I think I also get more grouchy on missing out on cookies compared to failing some goal. I also don't like when roleplaying turns into a competition of "who can roleplay best and get the most cookies". Some people are better at roleplaying, some are worse, and if we demoralize the second type then they'll never get better (because they're likely to stop playing).

I... guess I just can't communicate why "Armus gets to be Minister of War" is a goal in which I, as his player, can share the fun and experience, but "Armus gets to eat the best taco ever" (to just really emphasize it to an extreme) is an experience I can never share with him. I can imagine it. I can say, "Yay, Armus got to eat the best taco ever!" But I can't actually USE that experience to do anything in the game.

Whereas being Minister of War opens up all sorts of new options. New things I can do in the game.

Well, I do understand how "Armus gets to be a Minister of War" is a really important goal both for the character and the player. This is why this example is ultimately not a very good one. Partly because of the game mechanic issues that I explained above, but also because the decision isn't really interesting.

A better scenario would be to have a set up in which Armus can make a great speech to either be the Minister of War OR the Minister of Treasury. Both of them opens up possibilities for you, the player, and you could (probably, I make an assumption here), make an in-character choice depending on Armus' personality. Which Ministry position do you go for?

THAT is an interesting choice, and a much better scenario.

Another thing, if we want to stay with the food stuff, is it Armus gets a choice of either eating a Taco OR drink a couple of Beers. Both would satisfy his immediate hunger cravings, but one would give gas and the other slurred speech. Both gives penalties, but now you can make an in-character decision and say that Armus favors Tacos over Beer (or the other way around).

This "Taco vs. Ministry of War" example is inherently flawed, unless we assume really complex game mechanics which model hunger and other nitty-gritty stuff.

As a hopefully brief analogy, let's say you're playing Sim City. It has no "win" (though it has a loss condition). The game is fundamentally an acquisition game: get more stuff to do more stuff and have more options. Let's say that Sim City has a "Mayoral Feast" option. At any point in time, you can choose to spend various amounts of money to throw a feast, ranging from "A modest round of drinks at the rotary club" to "The Best Feast Ever." None of these options actually do anything in game; they just give you a brief dialog box that says how much you enjoyed it (and the more you spent, the more you enjoyed it, according to the dialog box).

Or you could spend that money on actual city improvements, which open up new options and more things you can do in the game and make you less likely to lose and more likely to have more resources to expend on more gameplay options.

Or, worse, buying a mayoral feast above a certain level may start riots in your city, wrecking areas, as people protest your corruption. But it tells you you really enjoyed it!

You know, some actually would buy the mayor feast. They'd sit there and say "muhahaha, I am rich I can spend all this money on a feast for myself, take THAT you peasants!". People are different.

I probably wouldn't do it when playing Sim City, but I might in a RPG.

Except that the game was deciding for you before you got the "token of character advancement." It was telling you that eating the taco is bad, because it will create penalties on upcoming important rolls. And it was also telling you that no good could come of it, because there is no reward for doing so.

The game ALREADY rewards you and punishes you. It's just one-sided. It isn't neutral. If it was neutral, eating the taco would not impact the speech at all.

Again, this is why the mechanics are bad, and can be solved without any "you get a token for acting in-character" (any type of token now) mechanics. If the game simulates BOTH gases AND hunger, then suddenly the choice is interesting again, and the game becomes neutral. You don't need to solve bad mechanics by adding RP mechanics, you can do it in other ways.

So, can we please find a better example to argue our points?

Man, then I should just decide that nothing I have to roll for is important. That makes this easy: I "win" every time! Because actually accomplishing things via the mechanics is no longer important, I can't lose. I always win!

Except...that's not really playing the game. That's not fun. And if the only things I can ever accomplish that I am to care about are things that don't invoke the mechanics, why I am not free-forming? Why use the system at all?

Heck, the way you're talking about it, the game already encourages you to eat that taco ridiculously strongly! You auto-"win" if you do! But you might lose if you try for that other thing, instead. So clearly, Armus should not value his speech's success in order to maximize Armus's Player's enjoyment of the game.

Now, obviously, that's not how you play. I can't get in your head, but apparently you somehow manage to weigh a totally imaginary pleasure of un-measured rating (not "so great it's immeasurable," but literally "unknowable") against the goals he's set for himself and the likely impact of this choice on those goals.

I literally can't do that. I mean, is he REALLY hungry enough to risk it? Is that taco REALLY that good? How can I know how good it smells? I know how good I'll feel about being able to play the Minister of War in this game; I can't judge how Armus feels about the stupid taco. I don't even like tacos! And no matter how much you tell me "he's really hungry," I'm not suffering it, so it's easy for me to say, "Sure, but not so hungry he'd risk his Ministry over it." "Even a small risk?" "Why take any?"

I'm going to ignore the "I could just say nothing is important" line of thought because, as you probably have figured out, I also care about success or failure, and I certainly want you to do too.

On the last part, you say you literally can't weigh Armus' Taco eating pleasure. But what about using yourself as an example? Imagine you have skipped lunch and not been drinking any Coke since 8 am. Now it's 4 pm, and you're about to go to an hour and a half long job interview. Drinking a Coke is an easy fix for your sugar cravings, but it will most likely make you really needing to pee halfway through the interview.

What would YOU, Segev do?

Armus' choice is pretty much identical to that. YOU have felt hunger right? YOU know what it's like to really really want that soda. It's the same for Armus!

This actually is my point.

For me, the player, it isn't a "win" to have Armus eat that cursed taco. I can have him show off his taco-eating character trait when it isn't going to cost me, the player, anything, and make Armus "a strong-willed guy" (another minor "win") through no effort nor exertion nor sacrifice on my part, and go on to avoid a loss at that speech roll.

For me, there is literally no upside to letting him eat that taco, absent internal or external guilt-tripping about being "a bad RPer." Which, incidentally, is common from GMs in my experience. "Are you SURE you'd really do that?" With a heavily implied "you're being a Munchkin" judgment. And the thing is, it's a fair question, but at the same time the game will punish me for making a choice which is a loss (lack of willpower) by making a loss (at the speech) more likely. All for me getting nothing except the frustration of having been guilt tripped into willingly losing.

I guess then it's a matter of how much enjoyment you, as a player, gets out of acting in-character. If it's zero, then obviously you need some incitement to do it, but if that's actually the greatest "win" for the player, then it's easier to do even if it leads to negative consequences for the character.

Basically, how much satisfaction DO you get out of roleplaying your character?

Thing is, I don't want the GM to "hand" me a "win" to make up for a loss. That's not my win. That's a participation trophy. I loathe participation trophies; even as a kid, I felt like they were mocking me by rubbing in the fact that I lost. The only trophies that matter, to me, are ones I actually have to earn by doing more than showing up.

Frankly, I get way too few of those IRL, which is one reason I like RPing, because my characters are capable of being competent in ways that I am not. Social prowess is a biggie, but sadly, the poor quality of social mechanics in games generally means I fail anyway because I'm not suave enough to make my social efforts "believable" enough, and the invocation of mechanics always seems to backfire spectacularly. Because they're now "an attack" and so people are mad that I...tried to be friendly.

Eh. I never said I hand people a win. But as a GM you are in charge of deciding the challenge rating. I mean, seriously, you can skew it whichever way you want. Best is to find a balance where the players have to work really hard to accomplish stuff but usually come out on top. Nobody would play in a game where they always fail, and nobody would play in a game where everything was simply handed to them. People like to earn stuff, so as a GM you need to design scenarios that way.

Occasionally. But it has to be pretty defining, and generally speaking? There was a positive in-game consequence, or at least a chance for one.

Perhaps the biggest example was when I got an L5R character killed. Kakita Makoto told, bald-faced, that the bad guy they'd just executed was doing evil magic, and that's why he was still alive. He claimed we assaulted him for no reason. He was higher status. Makoto maybe could've let the other PCs talk their way out, but Makoto won't lie nor countenance lies, and thus challenged the higher-status NPC to a duel. The higher-status NPC called his 3-ranks-higher-than Makoto bodyguard (who was in full armor) to do the duel, against Makoto who was tired and wounded from fighting this evil jerk's dark powers...and was unarmored.

There was a very slim chance I could have won. I was VERY good at duels, and if I'd pushed the iaijutsu rolls far enough and rolled well enough, my massive bonuses could have one-shotted even this guy.

The dice were merely average, sadly, and that guy instead one-shotted Makoto after Makoto failed to do more than dent his armor.

This, however, was an honestly epic end. And I got to share the thrill of it all the way through. AND, if I'd succeeded, the reputation gains would be something I could play out and enjoy, personally, along with Makoto, too.

This wasn't, despite the risks, disconnected, meaningless reward (to the player). It had connection of all relevant elements to the player as well as the character.

On the other hand, if it had been (say) a bribery with admission to a luxury restaurant that only Imperial Samurai can usually get into, there's no benefit there for me.

...actually, I take that back. L5R is fairly good at using its reputation mechanics as bribes for that kind of thing.

But again: there's a connection between the temptation to the character and the temptation to the player.

I think that was a really good example, and I think that proves (or should prove, at least to yourself) that you are a pretty good roleplayer.

I've never argued that there should be a disconnect between player and character. The best scenarios, and the best decisions are exactly of the kind your example described. Those are the kind of "RP choices" scenarios should create. But more often than not, that's on the GM and not the system.

I... just feel like I continue to fail to get across that mechanics already support (or discourage) certain decisions, by virtue of having positives (or negatives) associated with them, and having no cost to making (or not making) them.

I get it, I think. The only thing is that, so far, I've only seen that the mechanics themselves are bad, and can be fixed in other ways than adding "RP rewards".

Obviously, the most interesting choices are the ones where it's not black and white. You get to choose a shade of grey that fits your character best.

Sure. That is one solution: hand out re-balancing aids for those who make IC choices that cause them to fall behind appreciably. It doesn't exactly encourage people to get in their character's head in the moment, though. It mitigates the punishment for those who managed to do so anyway, but I always dislike having to say, "Okay, I trust that, if I let him be an idiot here and cost myself what I want, I'll get a consolation prize down the line." Even if I do trust that, it's...galling.

Generally, I've found that people will either get into their character's head because they like playing that way, or not because they don't. I don't want the game to punish anyone for their inability, or non-desire to do so.

I am not sure which side you fall on. Do you like to get into your character's head and make decisions based on how they perceive a situation? Also, it's usually not about "being an idiot" and more about "being a human being".

Took into account what XYZ stuff? That Segev-the-character is miserable while exercising and that he is enduring hunger pangs and lousy-tasting food that he doesn't enjoy? That he's unhappy for weeks while he tries to get accustomed to the diet changes and waits for his body to actually start showing results? "Sure," he says. "But I don't care. It's good for him. And shows iron will to succeed." And, if they're particularly honest, "I'm not happy he's miserable, but I don't have to endure it, and I'll enjoy the results as much as he will. More, since I don't have misery counterbalancing them."

Yes, the XYZ stuff is exactly Segev's misery and hunger pains.

Is that "the wrong way to play?"

Wrong? No. But it's not the way I want to play. Nor are the games I run a good fit for people that play this way.

So? They're playing a "me" that is a better, idealized version. Are you saying I can't have character growth?

Sure, everyone can have character growth. It rarely moves in such large extremes though. My point still remains though, if they don't take into account your dislike for this "alternate food diet", your sugar cravings and general dislike for exercise, they're not actually playing you. They're playing someone else. This someone else might still be an okay character to play, but it's not Segev.

Honestly, I wouldn't want to play "me" as I am in a game. I suck. I'm not a loser, per se, but I'm hardly a winner, either, and dagfirnit, I want to play a winner.

I don't think anyone want to play themselves. That's part of the allure of roleplaying, to be be someone who is more than ourselves. To experience grand adventure and not this dull existence we usually have.

We probably shouldn't get into another tangent though; but I get a feeling you are being unnecessarily harsh on yourself. You seem to be like people are in general.

If exercising doesn't bring you any joy, but drinking soda does, why the hell would you waste your life feeling miserable?

Not sure if that makes you feel any better or not. I just really wanted to emphasize that eating "crappy food" and not exercising doesn't make you a bad person in any way. Anyway, this is not supposed to be about you, and I apologize.

Sure. And I'd like the game to connect me to my character such that it is not saying, "The only reason not to do these things, for which you will be rewarded, and not these other things, for which you will be punished, is that your character would enjoy those other things and not those first things."

Well, yeah. Ideally any choice should be between two different types of reward or two different types of punishment. Otherwise it's not really an interesting choice. Most decisions also have to connect the player and the character; when you can challenge both to make a hard decision, THAT is when it's really fun.

If reality were to give Lorsa $100 for every lb. Segev-the-real-person loses, up to a maximum of 80 lbs., and Lorsa were given mind-control powers over Segev, I imagine Lorsa would have Segev dieting and exercising just fine, regardless of what I-the-real-person wanted at any given moment. (Well, assuming Lorsa could convince herself it was for Segev's own good, since he really WANTS to lose those 80 lbs.)

That's the game rewarding Lorsa, Segev's player, for one set of possible choices Segev could make, but not doing so for another set that might be more "in character" because, frankly, Segev-the-real-person likes foods that are high-calorie and dislikes exercise.

If I had mind-control powers over you, and you told me to disregard all your feelings of misery in order to achieve a goal you wanted, but couldn't really yourself, I would help you despite any monetary reward.

If I couldn't convince myself it's what you wanted, I really wouldn't want to cause you any pain. Your feelings are more important to me than $80 000 (even if it is a fairly large sum of money).

In a way, that would make it an interesting choice for me, Lorsa. Inflict pain upon another to gain money, or be true to your ethical principles. I really hope I'd choose the latter.

Anyway, it's true that I don't take an imaginary person's feelings of misery into account as much as a real person's (thankfully). In any case, I can take an imaginary person's feelings into account to some extent.

Why not? What's unlikable about me with the willpower to actually diet and exercise properly? Why do you get to judge that it's unrealistic, if Segev's player says "nah, that's totally in character; he's a willpower machine."

Well, uhm, when you described him, it seemed like a fairly unrealistic portrayal. Very few people actually have the willpower to wade through all those feelings of misery day in day out for weeks on end. The ones that seem to do usually do not feel the temptations to the same level in the first place.

For example, I can have a large bowl of candy in front of me, eat two pieces and then say "okay, that's it, I'm done". Other people wouldn't stop until the bowl was empty and thus really hate when a bowl of candy is put in front of them. This isn't because I have awesome levels of willpower, it's because I don't feel the desire as strongly.

So anyway, one could just say "I play a character with no Earthly temptations!". For some campaigns, and some themes, it may be appropriate. It certainly wouldn't be Segev. Therefore, it's always important to communicate what kind of characters you want in your group. Do you want willpower machines or more mundane characters?

As far as being unlikeable or not, I've find that those that are completely goal-focused willpower machines usually don't care about other people as much, unless they're somehow important to their goals. Therefore, I don't like to hang out with them as much. Doesn't have to be true for everyone with lots of willpower though.

If I'm honest, Segev Stormlord, the necromancer whose name I use as my online monicker, is somebody I play as a willpower machine. (He's also not likable, because he's a cold, calculating person whose semblance of "morality" is a form of iron-willed long term planning which causes him to value allies and a reputation for trustworthiness and effectiveness.) Sadly, I lack such willpower. :smallsigh:

I've played such a character as well. It can be fun at times. Nothing wrong with power fantasy. I think I'd prefer to hang out with real-life Segev though.

But you are still making the mistake here of arguing solely against mechanics awarding XP/"token of character advancement" as the sum total of RP rules, which the ones currently being discussed are blatantly not.
And also, the whole point Segev is gettin at is that the circumstances are NOT neutral in their "current" state, but slanted towards uncaring murderhobos. You might not see the "disadvantage", and given your statements on how you run games you include ways for getting the disadvantages out, but... that is sort of a point in and of itself, isn't it? You actively take action to prevent the same thing Segev is trying to prevent. Your action is just "remove the advantage of choice A" instead of "add an advantage to choice B" so the choice is between two different in result, but potentially equal in scope, decisions. I think your way is the easier one, mind you, but Segevs rules were never mine.

I guess I did make that mistake, and I am sorry. It is simply the kind of "RP rules" of which I have most experience.

I would argue though, that the world we live in is actually slanted towards uncaring murderhobos though. I mean, the best way to succeed in life is obviously to care for nothing but your personal gain (see number of psychopaths as CEOs). Society then tries to mitigate this with social pressure when common empathy is not enough. The same kind of social pressure often exist in RPG campaign worlds as well, when PCs empathy isn't enough.

So I guess I don't see the problem as clear as I feel the same problem exist in the real world, and can thus be solved in similar fashion.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-13, 07:48 AM

The taco example IS stupid. Let me try to do better.

I was playing a game of Apocalypse World. I was the Driver (a lady who had a sweet rocket car with machine guns on it). I was hanging around town when out of a building came running the Skinner (another PC, an entertainer/performer with boat loads of the game's equivalent of charisma). She was eager to get out of town asap because of some nefarious deeds she had just finished committing and, oh look, here's a person with a sweet car. So of course she comes up, acts all seductive, bats her eyelashes, asks for a ride and so on.

And oh boy, the game has mechanics for just this very thing.

Seduce or Manipulate
When you try to seduce or manipulate someone, tell them what you want and roll+hot. For NPCs: on a hit, they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. On a 10+, whether you keep your promise is up to you, later. On a 7–9, they need some concrete assurance right now. For PCs: on a 10+, both. On a 7–9, choose 1:
• if they do it, they mark experience
• if they refuse, it’s acting under fire

She rolled a 9 and offered me xp to play along. I didn't have to play along. This would probably be some trouble for me down the line. But sure, I get an xp if I do. Why not? This is some minor incentive for me not to smugly fold my arms and go "Nope my character isn't interested in your wiles, foolish woman." and possibly lower my sunglasses with a knowing smirk on my face.

Floret

2016-12-13, 10:15 AM

I tried to think of what to say, but eventually all I come up with is that the taco example is a bit flawed, and very poor to make any point at all.
The thing is, the the taco example is bad because the game mechanics assumed are horrible. It would be better if we could come up with one that has basis in actual mechanics.

Sure, the example is horrible, but it was one everyone could agree on :smallwink:. And, really, I think the example itself, while it could be better, was adequate. The discussion WASN'T, or shouldn't have been about the example, but about the sort of pressure that they tried to illustrate. Sure, they did the illustration in a way of "what the **** kind of gamedesign is that?" But that argument kinda misses the point. The discussion is far too theoretical for the example to matter entirely.

Well, it is possible I may have misunderstood the specifics of the game mechanics requested. Maybe I could request, again, a more detailed description of what is actually desired?
When I think of "RP mechanics", it is often the "get more XP for playing your character", but also "tradeoff for currently mechanically suboptimal decisions" (I think). I don't have much experience with games that give bonuses to rolls based on personality, although I know they exist.
---
I guess I did make that mistake, and I am sorry. It is simply the kind of "RP rules" of which I have most experience.
I would argue though, that the world we live in is actually slanted towards uncaring murderhobos though. I mean, the best way to succeed in life is obviously to care for nothing but your personal gain (see number of psychopaths as CEOs). Society then tries to mitigate this with social pressure when common empathy is not enough. The same kind of social pressure often exist in RPG campaign worlds as well, when PCs empathy isn't enough.
So I guess I don't see the problem as clear as I feel the same problem exist in the real world, and can thus be solved in similar fashion.

Pulled together because they adress the same point (The list of supporters are not finite, just the ones I was sure about):
The three mechanics suggested, as read by Floret, a human who is generally rather good at reading comprehension, but who might still be misunderstanding people:
1. "XP for playing character". (Apokalypse World, Koo Rethorb and others.) I mean, this is fairly straightforward. It appears in most every gamebook I have in a list of "how to reward XP", with one bonus point for "Role-playing well" or something along those lines. One can make these more detailed (BIG) or less, but I think the general concept is clear.
Proponents say that it rewards what you are doing in the first place for RPers, and incentivises playing in character for those not yet doing it, and laud its uninvasiveness.
Criticism of it generally targets that it "forces" a certain kind of behaviour if one does not want to stay behind, thereby incentivising caricatures, rather than actual characters.
2. "Tradeoff for In-character decisions negatively effecting mechanics otherwise" (Segev). You get some form of tradeoff, (which can be XP, see 1.) which in the proposed examples is a meta-currency you can use to later be better at other things because you "took the hit".
Proponents say that it helps to offset (percieved) mechanical "costs" for playing in character, and thereby incentivise going against "mechanically optimal" decisions, without feeling screwed over by the system for roleplaying.
Oponents say that it takes the value out of the decision, when both choices are now equal and no "real" sacrifice is being made. As well as that they'd be too complicated to implement properly.
3. "Personality traits influencing dicerolls" (FATE, sort of, Floret) Your characters personality traits, or a predefined list of the ones you consider important, are able to be called upon in a similar way as other situational modifiers might be. FATE allows you to get bonusses or a reroll if you can argue the defined traits fit the situation (And you don't HAVE to include personality in your aspects. Works fine without it.). One might also construct different mechanics (Exploding dice, additional dice), depending on the base system used (Additional, Roll under, Pool system, etc.; NOT actual "Game system" in the vein of DnD, FATE etc.). Or potentially give you negative modifiers, or positive ones to your opponents, if the situation arises of them being used against you. (Now FATE does this by going back to model 2. and rewarding a metacurrency as well, but noone said those systems are mutually exclusive.)
Proponents say (Well, I say) it would allow my personality to mechanically matter, but not in a way that "forces" me to play to the traits, because I would otherwise be left behind. I want this, because I like it when WHO my character is is important for the game, as opposed to just WHAT they are (Class, Race, Culture etc. (though all might influence WHO they are))
Oponents say... Actually I don't know what opponents say since I haven't seen anyone actually adress my model. "Not my cup of tea", as with all of them, probably. And potentially encouraging an overfocus on the defined traits to the detriment of the ones not fitting on the sheet anymore. But to that I would say... so what? It not being on the sheet didn't keep you from adressing it before, why does it do now all of a sudden?
I mean, sure, I am biased here.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Most of my characters' personalities exist only in my head (or actually my heart if metaphors are okay). It is usually quite difficult to write a detailed account of a personality, just looked at all the failed attempts at dating sites.

Hm. Interesting. I always note down keywords. I still don't agree that it has to be in any way detailed, to be honest. As long as the key points are down?

On the last part, you say you literally can't weigh Armus' Taco eating pleasure. But what about using yourself as an example? Imagine you have skipped lunch and not been drinking any Coke since 8 am. Now it's 4 pm, and you're about to go to an hour and a half long job interview. Drinking a Coke is an easy fix for your sugar cravings, but it will most likely make you really needing to pee halfway through the interview.
What would YOU, Segev do?

Armus' choice is pretty much identical to that. YOU have felt hunger right? YOU know what it's like to really really want that soda. It's the same for Armus!

I guess then it's a matter of how much enjoyment you, as a player, gets out of acting in-character. If it's zero, then obviously you need some incitement to do it, but if that's actually the greatest "win" for the player, then it's easier to do even if it leads to negative consequences for the character.
Basically, how much satisfaction DO you get out of roleplaying your character?
---
I've never argued that there should be a disconnect between player and character. The best scenarios, and the best decisions are exactly of the kind your example described. Those are the kind of "RP choices" scenarios should create. But more often than not, that's on the GM and not the system.

While the fact that I, as a player, have experienced equivalent pains and desires does help to empathise with the character, it does in no way adress the point that no, I am not, in fact, feeling the hunger pangs. I am not tasting the taco. I am not feeling the soft summer breeze tickling my character awake. I am not feeling (Or seeing, hearing and smelling) the cute guy (or girl) caressing me to try and get my guard down. I can imagine feeling it, sure. But, again, spoken from experience (With both TRPGs and Larps): The contrast is quite stunning, between ACTUALLY living through everything your character does, and merely imagining it through empathy. And I say that as a person who is generally very empathetical.)
And THAT is the point Segev is trying to make (I think). No matter how much empathy you feel with your character, the two are not identical. And when one is not physically living through them, and that barrier exists, it does put incentive away from acting on base desires (and nagging hunger pangs/thirst), away from doing the thing you might do if in the same spot. Now, I have and will make decisions based on the base desires of my characters even though I have not felt them. But I can't help but feel like I would have done more of it if the same scene had played out IRL or on a Larp.

And, yes, how much satisfaction one gets out of Roleplaying plays a huge part. But as soon as there is a tradeoff, the fact that the player is a step removed from the character will do its work, and influence the ultimate decision. Not necessarily towards not roleplaying, but maybe just doing the RP-thing a bit less readily then if in the spot yourself.
And I think that is the problem with your argument: There IS and always will be a disconnect between player and character. The size of the disconnect matters, of course, and for some people, having a choice blatantly more optimal, but further away from the character, will increase that disconnect.

The taco example IS stupid. Let me try to do better.

I was playing a game of Apocalypse World. I was the Driver (a lady who had a sweet rocket car with machine guns on it). I was hanging around town when out of a building came running the Skinner (another PC, an entertainer/performer with boat loads of the game's equivalent of charisma). She was eager to get out of town asap because of some nefarious deeds she had just finished committing and, oh look, here's a person with a sweet car. So of course she comes up, acts all seductive, bats her eyelashes, asks for a ride and so on.

I don't think this is a very good example, I'm afraid, for three reasons:
1. It again assumes "get XP for acting "in character"" as the mechanic. Which would be fine, but I can't really see it being translated onto the other models.
2. It penalises one choice and rewards another. It is a great example of how mechanics might get you to go along with stuff suboptimal for your character, but your personality, the actual character, is completely irrelevant for the example. It is rewarding one option, be it in character or not.
3. It mixes up social mechanics and RP rules, which are while maybe somewhat related still seperate entities.
I guess, my main point: Your example isn't actually about RP rules at all, and therefor cannot be used to illustrate how and why they might work.

Now, to be constructive, let me try my hand at it:
Say I am in a desolate building, with a group of friends, and some other groups of uncertain allies, holed up solely with my friends. It is the dead of night, and I would be fast asleep, and in fact would love to actually sleep - but there are noises outside. Someone is attacking the other groups, but they don't know we are here.
Both going out and helping, as well as showing up the next day well-rested to some dead or wounded, and deadly tired allies will have, of course, social ramifications. Do you get up? You REALLY could use the sleep.

(Model numbers pulled from the list earlier in my post)
Now, lets put the character in the mix. Say your character is generally a morally upright sort, and likes helping people. Maybe they would get a bonus to a roll of overcoming sleepiness modifiers for the action (Model 3). Or would get XP for getting up (Model 1), or some tradeoff for missing sleep, maybe some bonus to social rolls with the allies (Model 2).
But what if your character is an amoral asshat, caring only about their own pleasures. Maybe they would get a bonus to a roll of managing to sleep through the noise (Model 3), Get XP for staying in bed (Model 2), or a tradeoff for the pissed off potential allies, a moral bonus for being well-rested (Model 2).

(And, fun trivia if you hadn't already guessed it: Yeah, this is based on something that happened to me (without any rules involved, on a Larp). I was playing my postapo character, the amoral asshat. I did not get up. Grabbed my knife closer to me, and turned to continue sleeping. I don't know if I had played it differently during a TRPG session. But with my character being as is, I would have found it very appropriate to get some bonus on a test if I can sleep through the gunfire and screams.)

Segev

2016-12-13, 12:56 PM

How is someone supposed to take that other than sarcastically?While I can see why you'd infer sarcasm, it really wasn't meant as such. It is a little hyperbolic, because my purpose there was mainly to avert you saying "I just TOLD you I don't give in to that kind of thing IRL," so I went to the extreme of assuming that you can and would resist any short-term temptations in favor of long-term goals.

Though...weren't you just, in another thread, horribly offended that somebody inferred insult from a terse comment of yours? I know I replied to it with advice about watching your tone, so I take my own lumps here for my tone, but we should both work on being a little more consistent in our standards and expectations from others, I think.

As a simulationist I don't think of "in character" events as punishments, merely as consequences. If I choose to, for example, sacrifice my right arm in the jaws of Fenris, I am not being punished if I can no longer use a two handed weapon, that is merely the natural consequence of my outcome.Ah, but if that sacrifice literally got nothing other than "hey, did you know that sacrificing your arm in the jaws of Fenris actually is one of the most amazingly pleasurable experiences you can have?" would that really, honestly be worth it to you, as a player? You can't experience that pleasure. You just know that your character will lose an arm and that this will inconvenience you down the line.

Even if literally every NPC that's ever done this swears up and down, with no sign of deception, that it was 100% worth it, and that the inconveniences are nothing compared to the opportunity cost of never having experienced that pleasure, would it really be worth it to you, since there is no mechanical effect and you will only share in your character's inconveniences?

Now, I probably come out about even on gamist vs. simulationist, and that's one reason I get irritated when the simulation and the game are out of sync. I also like a good narrative, but I prefer the narrative to arise organically from the simulation, and the game that's running the simulation to not require me to willingly lose the game to have an accurate simulation.

On the other hand, if I am docked XP for refusing to put my hand in the wolfs jaws that comes off as a punishment, because it is the game trying to make my character weaker for their actions, not any sort of natural in universe outcome of the decision.You'll note that I have not once proposed XP rewards nor penalties.

Also, this particular choice probably had some reward for the sacrifice, or...why would you do it? I mean that seriously: this isn't a "short term enjoyment vs. long term penalty" consideration, here. This is a "short term agony and long term disability" thing, here, unless there's some reward for it.

Sacrifice the arm to save an NPC? That actually has some bearing and merit, and probably gameplay consequences down the line as the saved NPC can be important later.

Sacrifice the arm for your own religious reasons (maybe you believe that it's an honor), and you potentially have the social benefits associated with having made the sacrifice (if there are fellow religious believers who give such). Or maybe you even get magical perks.

Failing all else, my morale points rules might enable you to, for the expenditure of sufficient morale to force yourself to make the sacrifice, empower you to regain morale every time you face the inconvenience or other reminders of it, as it bolsters your morale to know that you have the honor of having made that sacrifice.

I mean, the issue is that the taco example assumes two things:

1) There is a game mechanic that gives penalty for "gases after eating".
2) There is no game mechanic that gives a penalty for "being hungry".

That's simply poor game design. I think any game that had the type of complexity to model bowel movements would also include hunger and sugar lows. So if certain food gave gases, hunger would also invoke penalties.It is poor game design, but there are mechanics like that in RPGs, largely surrounding social interaction mechanics, but also involved in things like choices involving comfort, pleasure, and ease/difficulty.

If there are no rules for being filthy causing difficulties, and no rules for unpleasant odors being problematic to the players, the choice between sneaking into a city through the sewers and trying to sneak by the heavily-armed and highly-alert guards at the gate becomes a no-brainer: go through the sewers, where there is little to no risk. The foul, foul odor and the fact that you'll need a heck of a bath later, and probably have to throw out the rags you'll wear into it...not a problem for the player.

Now, you might argue that the sewer should pose its own dangers equal in concern to the guards. But if so, then really, the horrid odor and such should create pressure to go to the guards so great that the sewer is simply not an option. But again, it doesn't. You have to create things unrelated to the real reason that, say, the elven fop bard should be resistant to the idea of going through the sewer.

If you don't, then the elven fop bard's player is punished by having real risks and potential resource consumption for no benefit other than...RPing that the smell is just more than he can handle.

Maybe they'd also be different penalties. Being hungry might lead to having to make some form of willpower roll during the speech, or else gain a penalty for being unfocused and generally grumpy. Eating the tacos might lead to a "body control" roll in order to hold in the farts or some form of performance roll to inconspicuously produce other noise to hide the farts.

That would make the decision interesting, and would actually model reality better. Now you have to choose which penalty to go for, which roll to gamble with. Indeed. And if such mechanics were in place, this would alleviate my complaints.

It is perhaps a bad example because we can come up with purely physical extra rules to balance it.

So, could we instead use some example that has basis in game mechanics which actually exist and aren't stupid?This is one reason "seduction" is kind-of a go-to example for this, in my opinion. If you think about it rationally, being a "player" IRL carries a lot of risks for no rewards that would typically be reflected to the guy playing the character. But it happens because sex is apparently really, really enjoyable. (I have to trust that it would be; I've never been married, so I only have experience with hormones strongly hinting that it probably would be.)

Even without overt promise of sex, it's been shown that an attractive girl who is flirting and sending the right signals - even when the target knows it won't go anywhere - can get better service out of (straight) men than can another man or a woman who isn't flirting. They can even do things like, say, talk their way out of tickets, or wrangle discounts. Or get a guy at the bar to pay for her drinks. Again, even if it's perfectly clear she's not going to "put out" in return. Or if all she'll do is give him a kiss. On the cheek. Flirty waitresses apparently also get bigger tips.

(Gender invert that however you like; I'm using a classical example, but I'm sure that gender and preference skews can make any combinations work at various times.)

Whether it's risking the employee getting a reprimand, reducing the cop's quota of tickets, emptying the bar patron's wallet of extra money, all of these things are naught but negatives. Perhaps the game their player is playing doesn't care about resource management on that level, so the whole scene is pure narrative. But in games where those resources matter, or in situations where the thing the flirt is getting for her flirtations actually does have a risk of negative impact on the PC target, the game pressure is to refuse. "I don't care how hot she is; I'm not going to be 5 minutes late to my shift just to enjoy her low-cut top's company a little longer."

Even if the player only suspects that this is a problem because the GM probably wouldn't be having her ask him to be 5 min. late if there wasn't something that could go wrong with that, and is thus metagaming, the game pressure is such that taking that risk isn't worth the interaction. It isn't worth the rush of hormones only the PC experiences from her sexy little performance. It isn't even worth the potential that the PC might get laid later that evening if he woos the girl by spending those extra 5 min. with her to get her number. Because, again, the player doesn't get to experience that. He only suffers the consequences of whatever he's risking happening by being 5 min. late.

Heck, sex itself carries risks. Take your stereotypical carousing adventurer who looks for ale and whores at every tavern between adventures. He sleeps with a different girl (or set of girls) every chance he gets. This carries not only the risks of STDs (which there ARE tables for in a lot of game books!), but also the chance of creating offspring. Offspring for which he may or may not become responsible, or which may or may not have other consequences later.

From the character's perspective, sex is fun and pleasurable and a goal in and of itself. The player, though, aside from the immature "hur hur" that is often associated with it when teens are playing, doesn't get much out of it. And, in fact, most "hur hur" motivated players will swiftly stop this behavior the first time it actually has in-game consequences. That -2 "irritation" penalty from an infestation of crabs is going to annoy him far more than the amusement value of snickering over his character getting laid brings him pleasure.

Well, it is possible I may have misunderstood the specifics of the game mechanics requested. Maybe I could request, again, a more detailed description of what is actually desired?

When I think of "RP mechanics", it is often the "get more XP for playing your character", but also "tradeoff for currently mechanically suboptimal decisions" (I think). I don't have much experience with games that give bonuses to rolls based on personality, although I know they exist.Bonuses to rolls based on personality are one way to go. While it is far, FAR from perfect (and, in fact, has some near-fatal flaws of its own), Exalted 2E did have something like this in its virtue system. If you wanted, you could expend some willpower and "channel a virtue" into an action that was suited to it. If you're trying to save somebody from torture, you could, for instance, channel Compassion. This gave you more dice, based on your rating in the Virtue, for your roll.

The Infernal Exalted also had a magical ability, called the [Yozi] Excellency, which allowed them to channel the personality traits of the Yozi to which their Excellency is aligned in order to add dice. Usually a lot of dice. Each Yozi had a description of what let you use it, with bolded keywords that were meant to be taken in context but used as a guide as to whether you could use that Excellency on a particular action. Malfeas, for example, let you use his Excellency to add dice to any action that is over the top, commanding, or overkill-level violent.

What I proposed earlier in this thread is a "morale point" system where you can spend morale on tasks to get a bonus, representing your good mood and self-assurance/confidence helping you perform to your best. But that unpleasant tasks and occurrences could cost morale points. As could turning down things you (think you) want (in character). With morale going negative creating penalties to everything you do, as you get depressed, morose, and frustrated and thus can't bring your A-game, or even your C-game.

You would regain morale from rest, from successes and triumphs, and from doing activities you enjoy.

So in the seduction example where the girl is trying to make you 5 minutes late, she essentially uses her social skill roll (whatever it is) to calculate a number of morale points that you would gain by staying with her, and a number you'd have to expend if your time with her is cut short (e.g. by you choosing to leave rather than be 5 min. late).

The carouser may gain morale points from his partying and sexual exploits. (The flaw here is that you could still optimize this by trying to pick "activities I like" as being things which are harmless and carry no risks, so design would have to focus on creating risk/reward balance here.)

But that's the idea behind what I'm proposing: for times where the sole benefit to the character is, essentially, not having to exert willpower/endure misery, or pleasures and enjoyments the player cannot share, we introduce a mechanic which represents the character's mental state, and links it to things the player CAN share: bonuses and penalties in gameplay activities. Done right, it even does make narrative sense: he's so distracted by thinking about that hot girl and what might have been that he does less well on shift (whether due to penalties, or just due to having fewer morale points to spend to improve his rolls). Or, if he took the bait, despite whatever bad came from being 5 minutes late, he got a morale boost and can better react to it as he's feeling good about having gotten that hot girl's number and gotten to enjoy her décolletage.

I suppose you could also just use "5 more minutes in bed in the morning." Sleep in, gain more morale points. But lose time to your day.

Really, anything where the trade-off is one of those human frailties vs. real consequences.

Well, I do understand how "Armus gets to be a Minister of War" is a really important goal both for the character and the player. This is why this example is ultimately not a very good one. Partly because of the game mechanic issues that I explained above, but also because the decision isn't really interesting.Perhaps a better example, tying in to seduction, would be in his choice of potential campaign manager.

On the one hand, he has a skilled but boring guy who is a safe bet. On the other, he has a not-quite-as-skilled, but talented due to how she manipulates people, sexy bombshell. Who, because she's a known manipulatrix, is a bit of a risk. They might be evenly matched, in theory, based on risk/reward there. Or slightly advantaged towards Mr. Boring, even, since he's as good despite not being a manipulator.

But the real world would suggest that there's a good chance Ms. Bombshell would be selected anyway, because she interviews better. Even without her actively seducing Armus, the fact that she's easier on the eyes, and that she uses social manipulation (and, yes, seduction, even without promise of sex) to convince Armus that he'd enjoy working with her more, means he's going to find himself finding reasons to rationalize hiring her over Mr. Boring.

Now, this is meant to be an interesting choice, but a cold analysis would suggest that risk/reward has Mr. Boring giving 99% as much reward, but with 60% greater reliability, and 50% of the risk of the campaign manager's agenda undermining Armus's. On paper, in a cold, rational analysis, Mr. Boring is the superior choice, if only a little bit.

Add in RP mechanics (using my morale system for an example), though, means that Mr. Boring is neutral or even slightly draining on morale. Especially if Ms. Bombshell set things up to have Armus be a little disappointed every time he compares dealing with Mr. Boring vs. dealing with Ms. Bombshell. Hiring Ms. Bombshell, on the other hand, will give an infusion of morale, and letting her hang around to cajole Armus into the things that campaign managers cajole their people into doing will actually give more infusions of morale, because she'll make it something he wants to do. Or make him feel good about doing it, if only because her regard is its own reward.

Now, hiring Mr. Boring still gets the overall better chance at better results...of campaign management. (I'm not going to make up the mechanics for this; assume he has skills and reliability and contacts which will play well in the various ways to run the campaign.) Hiring Ms. Bombshell means a risk of fewer "smooth running" advantages that Mr. Boring could have brought, though if she uses her manipulation particularly well AND she doesn't have an agenda which clashes with Armus's, she might do even better. But that's a slim chance; more likely she'll be a little less effective on that front than Mr. Boring. But she's still a constant supply of morale points, and she's ALMOST as good as Mr. Boring.

So now the interesting choice is between a smooth-running, highly efficient machine, or a mostly-smooth-running, still efficient (but not as efficient) machine and a stream of morale points. All reflecting that Ms. Bombshell is a more pleasant/exciting experience to have on staff.

A better scenario would be to have a set up in which Armus can make a great speech to either be the Minister of War OR the Minister of Treasury. Both of them opens up possibilities for you, the player, and you could (probably, I make an assumption here), make an in-character choice depending on Armus' personality. Which Ministry position do you go for?

THAT is an interesting choice, and a much better scenario.It's an interesting choice, but doesn't carry the problem that I'm trying to discuss a solution for.

You know, some actually would buy the mayor feast. They'd sit there and say "muhahaha, I am rich I can spend all this money on a feast for myself, take THAT you peasants!". People are different.

I probably wouldn't do it when playing Sim City, but I might in a RPG.Some might, but it tends to be a "victory lap" sort of thing. Or a "screw it; I'm doing something goofy" maneuver. Kind-of like unleashing all the disasters on your city (which is an option in Sim City). But you're effectively ceasing to play the game, at that point, and instead are just enjoying some mayhem for the sake of it.

The equivalent would be the player of Armus deciding that, for the heck of it, during his speech he's going to just start hurling fireballs into the crowd while laughing maniacally. (Probably fun...if you have a saved game to return to before you did that.)

I'm going to ignore the "I could just say nothing is important" line of thought because, as you probably have figured out, I also care about success or failure, and I certainly want you to do too.Technically, it's "Only things I don't have to use mechanics that can fail me are important." So I decide "enjoying tacos" is important, and don't care about any speeches.

On the last part, you say you literally can't weigh Armus' Taco eating pleasure. But what about using yourself as an example? Imagine you have skipped lunch and not been drinking any Coke since 8 am. Now it's 4 pm, and you're about to go to an hour and a half long job interview. Drinking a Coke is an easy fix for your sugar cravings, but it will most likely make you really needing to pee halfway through the interview.

What would YOU, Segev do?You really have no idea how hard it is to honestly evaluate decisions when you're only imagining the discomforts, I take it. This isn't meant as an insult.

It is a lot easier to convince myself right now, that I will get up in the morning tomorrow and exercise without rolling over and going back to sleep, than it is to actually do it in the moment. I had planned to, this morning, in fact, and told myself I would last night before going to bed. I...well, I got an extra hour of sleep, instead. ^^;

I'll do better tomorrow. (I hope.)

There have actually been psychology experiments done (sorry, I have no citations and am too lazy to hunt for them) where people were asked if they would take a piece of cake or a $20 bill after not having eaten in 8 hours, knowing they couldn't eat for another 5 hours if they took the $20 bill (or some variant on this kind of choice). Many more said "sure, I can withstand hunger that long for $20" than actually went through with it. In fact, after another hour of waiting past taking the $20 instead of the cake, they were offered a chance to give up their $20 to be let out of the experiment early. (Again, I'm probably misremembering details, but rough idea) A fair number took the offer, valuing eating more than that $20 in the moment of hunger.

The point being, no, I can't really trust myself to evaluate it. Especially since I'm well-fed and looking at a prize (the Ministry of War) which skews my value judgments. "Surely," I say to myself, "I could resist the temptation of the taco when I know there's a chance that it could cost me the Ministry. It's not like Armus is really starving; he doesn't even suffer penalties yet. And he's more used to deprivation than I am, so if I think I might, with sufficient motivation, do it, surely he can!"

Worse, the taco is a bad example because I, IRL, hate tacos. I truly would go hungry, no matter how bad my low blood sugar headache, because the taco isn't something I could keep down. The flavor just makes me retch.

If we go back to the "seduction" thing, too, if I'm playing a character with a different orientation than mine (e.g. if I'm playing a straight girl, and thus she'd be attracted to guys), it's a lot harder for me to evaluate how effective that male NPC's seduction is. Heck, I've never really been the target of seduction, so I don't even know how well I, personally, could or would resist it. I know, personally, I have moral objections to going past a certain point with a person who isn't my wife, so I suspect I'd say "no" there anyway, but...would I, in the heat of the moment? I have no idea; I've never been in such a situation and cannot judge from experience. (Considering I have been in situations where I've made what I think is the foolish choice - e.g. not getting up and exercising rather than sleeping in - that I thought I could do with enough determination, I know I'm still not a great judge even WITH experience. Without it...? How can I know?)

Armus' choice is pretty much identical to that. YOU have felt hunger right? YOU know what it's like to really really want that soda. It's the same for Armus!Is it? I'm sure - right now, drinking a can of soda at the gaming table (in this example) - that I could hold off on a soda for another hour or so. Surely, right?

Well, maybe. Or maybe the headache is just so bad that, no, I decide it's worth the risk. But without experiencing THAT headache at THAT moment, how can I know?

The point of the mechanics I suggest is to quantify the suffering/potential pleasure. To let me, the player, know how serious it is to Armus at THAT point in time.

I guess then it's a matter of how much enjoyment you, as a player, gets out of acting in-character. If it's zero, then obviously you need some incitement to do it, but if that's actually the greatest "win" for the player, then it's easier to do even if it leads to negative consequences for the character.

Basically, how much satisfaction DO you get out of roleplaying your character?A fair bit, but weighing that vs. the enjoyment I get out of actually being effective and "winning" in the game is something I've learned amounts to this: I would rather make an OOC decision than suffer ongoing diminishment from what I could have had, mechanically. The disappointment in playing out of character is fleeting. Moreover, I'm actually pretty good at rationalization, and so I probably can talk myself around to it being "in character." Especially if it's something the character would be torn over. I just choose the "torn" decision that favors me, mechanically. Which actually makes those "torn" decisions not really torn at all, since he always chooses the optimal option.

I think that was a really good example, and I think that proves (or should prove, at least to yourself) that you are a pretty good roleplayer.

I've never argued that there should be a disconnect between player and character. The best scenarios, and the best decisions are exactly of the kind your example described. Those are the kind of "RP choices" scenarios should create. But more often than not, that's on the GM and not the system.It's an example where it really was a core element of the character at question, and where there was enormous reward for that enormous risk. Yes, I knew he'd probably die, but he wouldn't have been the character I wanted to play, and the consequences for taking the survivable "out" were still rather dire. So the risk/reward was worth it. If Kakita Makoto'd won... it would've been AMAZING. And I probably would have retired the character not too long after this if I'd have not had him make the challenge, as he wouldn't have been fun to play anymore.

The whole purpose of the kind of mechanics I seek is to connect the choices which cannot have positive benefit to the player beyond "feeling like a good RPer" to the player in ways that let him make these value judgments. That let him know just how the weight is to the PC. It's meant to enable somebody who values RP, but also values winning/success, to have a real metric to judge if Armus is really hungry enough that the taco is tempting, and just how much. To judge whether, in that moment, sleeping in for the extra morale points is tempting compared to spending morale on the exercise that will, long-term, improve your ST and CN. And maybe your CH, if physical appearance factors in.

Because no matter how well-intentioned your evaluation, no matter how hard you try to put yourself back to when you were hungry and craving a soda to compare to Armus's taco craving, you're not in the moment that he is.

This is designed to help put you there.

I get it, I think. The only thing is that, so far, I've only seen that the mechanics themselves are bad, and can be fixed in other ways than adding "RP rewards".

Obviously, the most interesting choices are the ones where it's not black and white. You get to choose a shade of grey that fits your character best.
Sure, and I'm all for that. I just know there are situations where the temptations ARE purely emotional, or are at least, if not "purely emotional," they technically rate more on that scale than any physical debility/bonus. Sex, luxury vs. Spartan utilitarianism, idealized nutrition cubes vs. actually tasty (and possibly less good-for-you) foods, a fancy sports car vs. a perfectly functional but boring (and inexpensive) sedan...

Some of those might tie in to social mechanics as reflections of influence. But a lot of that really comes down to "the character likes it."

Generally, I've found that people will either get into their character's head because they like playing that way, or not because they don't. I don't want the game to punish anyone for their inability, or non-desire to do so.

I am not sure which side you fall on. Do you like to get into your character's head and make decisions based on how they perceive a situation? Also, it's usually not about "being an idiot" and more about "being a human being".
I get in my character's head, but there are things I cannot share with them, and things I can, even from "inside" their head. I want to use mechanics to increase the things I share with them, at least somewhat.

Yes, the XYZ stuff is exactly Segev's misery and hunger pains.
"Sure, I thought of it. He endures, because the goal is more important."

Wrong? No. But it's not the way I want to play. Nor are the games I run a good fit for people that play this way.
Why not? Would Segev NOT lose the weight, gain the muscle, etc.? Is there some way you'd reward, me, the player, for Segev enjoying his sodas and his over-indulgence in calories and not suffering through exercise?

Honest question, here: what would your games and how you run them do to correct for the pressures of mechanics to engage in optimal behavior at the expense of suffering that Segev endures, but Segev's player does not?

Sure, everyone can have character growth. It rarely moves in such large extremes though. My point still remains though, if they don't take into account your dislike for this "alternate food diet", your sugar cravings and general dislike for exercise, they're not actually playing you. They're playing someone else. This someone else might still be an okay character to play, but it's not Segev.

So, if I really did make the determination today, and I managed to actually stick with it no matter how miserable it was, I wouldn't be me anymore? :smallwink:

No, I get what you're saying, and a more serious reply is this: Playing "Segev," as opposed to that idealized character, is actively discouraged by the game system. I would like the game system to encourage playing "Segev" as much as the real world encourages me to be "Segev." So that me-as-the-player-of-Segev would actually consider it a reasonable, non-punitive-to-me-the-player choice to keep making the less-optimal (for the long-term goal) choices. So that I, as player, experience some of Segev's misery, myself. Perhaps in terms of lower morale (to use my system). Perhaps from addiction-style mechanics, where the hunger pangs and the exercise misery are treated as penalty-granting things throughout the day until I earn enough points to change my habits.

If exercising doesn't bring you any joy, but drinking soda does, why the hell would you waste your life feeling miserable?Largely because I'd like to be physically more attractive than I am. And because it probably would improve my health. It's my hope that, if I ever manage to change my lifestyle in this fashion, I will get used to it and it won't be so miserable. I hope.

Well, yeah. Ideally any choice should be between two different types of reward or two different types of punishment. Otherwise it's not really an interesting choice. Most decisions also have to connect the player and the character; when you can challenge both to make a hard decision, THAT is when it's really fun.And that's my goal.

Anyway, it's true that I don't take an imaginary person's feelings of misery into account as much as a real person's (thankfully). In any case, I can take an imaginary person's feelings into account to some extent.Sure. And your own PC's feelings will likely be more strongly accounted than an NPC, even if it's an NPC you are GM-controlling, just because the PC is your sole window into the world.

But when the game creates pressure to make a choice that would require diminishing the misery's importance... it's easier to take it LESS into account than, maybe, you "should."

Easier to say "Segev doesn't sleep in this morning, because he determined he wouldn't last night" when you're not actually lying in bed and having to think about getting up and exercising, yourself, but you WILL have to mark the time when you get that stat improvement as moving further into the future if you don't.

I've played such a character as well. It can be fun at times. Nothing wrong with power fantasy. I think I'd prefer to hang out with real-life Segev though.
Aw, thanks.

Yeah, Segev the necromancer isn't meant to be fun to hang out with. He is, hopefully, fun for players to have characters in a party with, but that is, again, a different matter. (He is deliberately useful and helpful, even if he's cold and callous and, if being witty, snarky about it.) And, he's one of my exercises in "evil PCs who are not bad for the party." Betraying the party is stupid, in his opinion, and he won't tolerate it.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-13, 10:46 PM

@ Segev: Good point about the options that close off vs. open up more opportunities. That is a very good point indeed!

To me, all of these systems, published and proposed, seem to be more likely to narrow and constrain the choice space, to "encourage" a very specific idea of roleplaying, to channel certain paths, and maybe serve a sort of trope/genre/drama-primary approach -- rather than ways to open things up.

My reaction to all of them isn't "this frees me"... it's "butt the hell out".

Also, I think part of our disconnect about punishments boils down to GNS (sorry).

As a simulationist I don't think of "in character" events as punishments, merely as consequences. If I choose to, for example, sacrifice my right arm in the jaws of Fenris, I am not being punished if I can no longer use a two handed weapon, that is merely the natural consequence of my outcome.

On the other hand, if I am docked XP for refusing to put my hand in the wolfs jaws that comes off as a punishment, because it is the game trying to make my character weaker for their actions, not any sort of natural in universe outcome of the decision.

Losing paladin powers in D&D is kind of on the borderline because it is an in character punishment for ridiculous meta-game reasons.

On the other hand a gamist or a dramatist would see nothing wrong in using punishment to discourage behavior that doesn't fit with the intended genre or gives the character an unfair advantage respectively.

To me, it's all just cause and effect.

If you punch a brick wall, it's going to hurt your hand. You're not being "punished" for hitting the brick wall, it's just the natural consequence of the action. Cause, and effect.

When we were playing the long, long Vampire campaign, there came a time when our characters were told by multiple Justicars, "the Camarilla will turn a blind eye to Diablerie, if you make this major problem go away". My character thought the mission was maybe an attempt to get us out of the city for a week, and was also opposed to committing Diablerie both morally and on the risk that their word would be honored.

So she didn't go, she didn't commit Diablerie, and she didn't get that big power-up, unlike all the other PCs. There was no consolation prize, and no "staying in character" cookie of any kind. For the rest of the campaign, she was lacking that advantage, she was behind on that particular "curve". This was not punishment, it was not unfair, and it was not skewed.

(For those who don't know, Diablerie is the act of drinking a more elder and powerful vampire past the point of examination and death, and consuming their "vampiric spark" for lack of a better term, to become more powerful.)

Floret

2016-12-14, 07:50 AM

To me, all of these systems, published and proposed, seem to be more likely to narrow and constrain the choice space, to "encourage" a very specific idea of roleplaying, to channel certain paths, and maybe serve a sort of trope/genre/drama-primary approach -- rather than ways to open things up.
My reaction to all of them isn't "this frees me"... it's "butt the hell out".

Just out of curiosity, (Because to the first part my answer would be "Okay, playing without them is better to you, sure") what would you feel is limiting about (numbers taken from my earlier post) Model 2, if done with something non-permanent, or (especially) Model 3?

To me, it's all just cause and effect.
If you punch a brick wall, it's going to hurt your hand. You're not being "punished" for hitting the brick wall, it's just the natural consequence of the action. Cause, and effect.

When we were playing the long, long Vampire campaign, there came a time when our characters were told by multiple Justicars, "the Camarilla will turn a blind eye to Diablerie, if you make this major problem go away". My character thought the mission was maybe an attempt to get us out of the city for a week, and was also opposed to committing Diablerie both morally and on the risk that their word would be honored.
So she didn't go, she didn't commit Diablerie, and she didn't get that big power-up, unlike all the other PCs. There was no consolation prize, and no "staying in character" cookie of any kind. For the rest of the campaign, she was lacking that advantage, she was behind on that particular "curve". This was not punishment, it was not unfair, and it was not skewed.

So, as Talakeal pointed out, a simulationist perspective. (I know you don't like the term, but as I said in a different thread, that does not make it less applicable. And as having a shared register of terms is very helpful for communication, I am going to use the existing terms most people understand and use. Sorry. :smallfrown:)
I find your "punching the wall" example to be somewhat poorly chosen, since I don't think even proponents of RP rules would disagree with you there. Punching the wall is not something that generally has positive sideeffects, that humans might feel tempted to do.
Though... I would go so far as to say, that if my character is hitting the wall intentionally, they're gonna have some reason for doing that, just as humans have IRL (Letting off pent-up frustration, mostly). So if the game models this in any way, I want a mechanical benefit to punching the wall to accurately simulate this.

(The following paragraph depends heavily on splitting off "Role-playing games" in "Role playing" and "game" aspects)
Now, your other example, is somewhat perfect. Because it illustrates what I think Segev has been trying to say very well: There is game incentive for certain choices. There WAS a game incentive to commit the Diablerie. There is no denying that. The other players got more powerful, rewarded in the context of the "Game" part of the experience.
Now, it was, for you, not enough to overcome your desire to make the in-character decision not to do it. And maybe not even enough to consider it, I can't tell. But there was an incentive there, just not enough for you. Maybe for one of the other players, since they seem to all have taken up the offer, but maybe they were just playing characters that would jump at the opportunity.
You did not view it as punishment, because you seem to actually care solely about the Role-playing aspect (To which, if that is truly so, the question "why use the rules, the game part, at all" does at least SEEM valid, if you get nothing out of them). But from a Game-perspective, it was. One choice was, gamistically, objectively better.
And, even though you do not: Can you understand that some people let that skew their perception of "who their character is" and shift that construct just a little, to be able to justify taking this bonus? I know as a fact for me the decision wouldn't have been as clear and easy. (I do value the "game" aspect, for TRPGs). And can you understand that for these people, giving them rules with Tradeoffs of a different kind for it, to help them stay in character, and not shift character or toss it out, might be a positive thing? (These tradeoffs still have to make sense in-world, sure, but a LOT of things can make sense in-world, if you care to think about justified reactions and the like. On Larps, you rather often have to think up a reason why something that MIGHT work, doesn't, because Reality, safety concerns or other things constrain you. And I have not once experienced that the end result of the justification was not satisfying.)
Because these people care about both game as well as role-playing, and one is somewhat infringing on the other in that example. And there is a tradeoff to be made between the two, and it is in the situation you describe, incredibly one-sided. Basically "**** the mechanics/game, I'm going with roleplaying". Which is fine in and of itself, but not a sentiment everyone can share.
A hypothetical someone who only cares about the game side, however... I mean that choice is obvious.
It really is only a problem if you care about both (in a roughly equal amount). Otherwise you will always make the choice pertinent to the side you care about, if game-side and RP-side are in contention. The rules as per Model 2 try to take that contention away. They are, as Lorsa says, certainly not the only way to handle taking that contention, and I don't feel like I need them, but they certainly are a way, and probably the best way, considering "just wing it" could potentially lead to giving up on the rules bit by bit, until there are none left - a valid playstyle, but not one a person who cares about the gaming side as well will necessarily want. I know for all my free-form Larping and wanting rules to stay out of it as far as possible, that I don't have any interest in Free-form TRPGs.
But then again, the question would be: If one only cares about one side, why play something that includes both?

Segev

2016-12-14, 12:45 PM

To me, all of these systems, published and proposed, seem to be more likely to narrow and constrain the choice space, to "encourage" a very specific idea of roleplaying, to channel certain paths, and maybe serve a sort of trope/genre/drama-primary approach -- rather than ways to open things up.

My reaction to all of them isn't "this frees me"... it's "butt the hell out". I still don't see how this makes sense. If the mechanics already don't constrain you by offering reward for one behavior but not another, why does offering a reward for either behavior (where the reward is different for each) constrain you?

"You can either go left and get $5, or go right and get nothing." vs. "You can either go left and get $5, or go right and get an ice cream treat." Why does the second one constrain you

To me, it's all just cause and effect.

If you punch a brick wall, it's going to hurt your hand. You're not being "punished" for hitting the brick wall, it's just the natural consequence of the action. Cause, and effect.

As Floret notes, this is hardly in dispute. "You can punch a wall and get hurt, or you can not punch the wall and not get hurt" is hardly the kind of "RP choice" that is being discussed here. If you believe it to be, then no wonder you think it's all about "drama" for no real purpose.

When we were playing the long, long Vampire campaign, there came a time when our characters were told by multiple Justicars, "the Camarilla will turn a blind eye to Diablerie, if you make this major problem go away". My character thought the mission was maybe an attempt to get us out of the city for a week, and was also opposed to committing Diablerie both morally and on the risk that their word would be honored.

So she didn't go, she didn't commit Diablerie, and she didn't get that big power-up, unlike all the other PCs. There was no consolation prize, and no "staying in character" cookie of any kind. For the rest of the campaign, she was lacking that advantage, she was behind on that particular "curve". This was not punishment, it was not unfair, and it was not skewed.

Eh...

There are a number of levels, here, where this actually had some serious pressures on both sides. Most of them in risk/reward.

You had no way of knowing if the person telling you this 'overlooking' of Diablerie in this case is telling you the truth. Go with it, and later find yourself on the hook for it. This is a risk of punishment vs. reward of power consideration.
Even if he's telling the truth as far as "the Camarilla" is concerned, you had no way of knowing if "the Camarilla" would keep its word. Again, factors into risk vs. reward.
Even if the Camarilla is keeping its word, if rumors get out that you committed Diablerie, this can damage your unofficial standing in Vampire society, given its highly taboo nature. Your reputation will take a hit, or take a darker tone. Here, it's less risk vs. reward and more 'do you want that kind of reputation?' i.e., consideration of what kinds of rewards you want (and whether they count as rewards or punishments to your character.
And Diablerie shows up in your aura for a VERY long time - longer than most campaigns last. So even with the blessing of the Camarilla pre-emptively forgiving you for this act, those who don't know you had special dispensation will be able to see you did it, and draw conclusions based on this incomplete information.
Furthermore, there are those who would argue that the Camarilla is not the arbiter of morality, and that committing Diablerie is still wrong, even with official permission.

Each of those factors in to how your character's experiences will play out. Even just looking at risk (that they're lying) vs. reward (power), your character is not necessarily "just losing" by refusing to take the gamble. Even now, after they've gotten to use that power, it wouldn't take but an ambitious social maneuverer to start political trouble for them over what they've done. And your character would avoid that trouble, at least for herself on a personal level, because she can truthfully claim she's never committed Diablerie, and anybody who can test her aura can prove it.

And believe me, a high-generation (i.e. weaker) vampire can still be more powerful in game terms than a low-generation vampire...especially if that low generation is diablerie-induced...due to better political connections. Particularly in the Camarilla.

There is another factor here, too, assuming your ST enforced it: Humanity rating. Diablerie should be a hit to your Humanity. Now, obviously, if your Humanity rating isn't important to you (or you have a different Path entirely), this is less of a concern. But given your PC's moral objection, I imagine it is. Your ST should have had either a failure to hit your rating, or a small BOOST to your rating, offered as a reward for making this highly moral decision.

And, finally, if my proposed system were adapted to V:tM, and you had a "Morale" track, your moral compunctions would probably be encoded in some way (perhaps Exalted-style Intimacies), and thus overcoming that moral objection your character in particular has would have cost her some Morale, while holding to her guns may grant some back. This weighs against the promise of very real in-game power boosting, which may still not be enough, depending on the person, but it hardly constrains your decisions more than the system as it exists already did. It may even mitigate the punishment, a little, or make it more costly to take the reward, given your character's personality as you designed it.

Talakeal

2016-12-14, 01:31 PM

Ah, but if that sacrifice literally got nothing other than "hey, did you know that sacrificing your arm in the jaws of Fenris actually is one of the most amazingly pleasurable experiences you can have?" would that really, honestly be worth it to you, as a player? You can't experience that pleasure. You just know that your character will lose an arm and that this will inconvenience you down the line.

Even if literally every NPC that's ever done this swears up and down, with no sign of deception, that it was 100% worth it, and that the inconveniences are nothing compared to the opportunity cost of never having experienced that pleasure, would it really be worth it to you, since there is no mechanical effect and you will only share in your character's inconveniences?

Now, I probably come out about even on gamist vs. simulationist, and that's one reason I get irritated when the simulation and the game are out of sync. I also like a good narrative, but I prefer the narrative to arise organically from the simulation, and the game that's running the simulation to not require me to willingly lose the game to have an accurate simulation..

The point of the Fenris analogy was to illustrate the difference between a "punishment" and a "consequence."

Saying that having your arm bitten off it the most amazingly pleasurable experience you can ever have is just weird, why would mutilation by monster be pleasant?

Now, if we were to change the example to say, risking blindness and death by going to bed with a nymph in AD&D, then yeah, most of my characters probably would.

To which, if that is truly so, the question "why use the rules, the game part, at all" does at least SEEM valid, if you get nothing out of them).

So are you saying that someone should either play games perfectly optimally an try to win at all costs, or play Calvinball; there is no middle ground?

Does that actually seem like a logical conclusion to you? Because to me it seems to be almost a complete non sequitur.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-14, 01:59 PM

I still don't see how this makes sense. If the mechanics already don't constrain you by offering reward for one behavior but not another, why does offering a reward for either behavior (where the reward is different for each) constrain you?

"You can either go left and get $5, or go right and get nothing." vs. "You can either go left and get $5, or go right and get an ice cream treat." Why does the second one constrain you

So taken in the contexts of your other posts, what you're saying here is that a system that doesn't reward any particular choice is punishing all choices but the most "mechanically advantageous" choice... but a system that rewards a subset of all possible choices isn't punishing or constraining any particular choice?

There are often more than two choices, so any system that establishes rewards for fewer than the actual number of choices, can be -- if lack of reward is to be counted as punishment, as you say -- considered an attempted constraint on the choice space.

As Floret notes, this is hardly in dispute. "You can punch a wall and get hurt, or you can not punch the wall and not get hurt" is hardly the kind of "RP choice" that is being discussed here. If you believe it to be, then no wonder you think it's all about "drama" for no real purpose.

It's at least as germane as the "taco farts" hypothetical, and something that might actually happen with character with a "foul temper", rather than a situation best left for contrived comedies of error.

Eh...

There are a number of levels, here, where this actually had some serious pressures on both sides. Most of them in risk/reward.

You had no way of knowing if the person telling you this 'overlooking' of Diablerie in this case is telling you the truth. Go with it, and later find yourself on the hook for it. This is a risk of punishment vs. reward of power consideration.
Even if he's telling the truth as far as "the Camarilla" is concerned, you had no way of knowing if "the Camarilla" would keep its word. Again, factors into risk vs. reward.
Even if the Camarilla is keeping its word, if rumors get out that you committed Diablerie, this can damage your unofficial standing in Vampire society, given its highly taboo nature. Your reputation will take a hit, or take a darker tone. Here, it's less risk vs. reward and more 'do you want that kind of reputation?' i.e., consideration of what kinds of rewards you want (and whether they count as rewards or punishments to your character.
And Diablerie shows up in your aura for a VERY long time - longer than most campaigns last. So even with the blessing of the Camarilla pre-emptively forgiving you for this act, those who don't know you had special dispensation will be able to see you did it, and draw conclusions based on this incomplete information.
Furthermore, there are those who would argue that the Camarilla is not the arbiter of morality, and that committing Diablerie is still wrong, even with official permission.

Each of those factors in to how your character's experiences will play out. Even just looking at risk (that they're lying) vs. reward (power), your character is not necessarily "just losing" by refusing to take the gamble. Even now, after they've gotten to use that power, it wouldn't take but an ambitious social maneuverer to start political trouble for them over what they've done. And your character would avoid that trouble, at least for herself on a personal level, because she can truthfully claim she's never committed Diablerie, and anybody who can test her aura can prove it.

And believe me, a high-generation (i.e. weaker) vampire can still be more powerful in game terms than a low-generation vampire...especially if that low generation is diablerie-induced...due to better political connections. Particularly in the Camarilla.

There is another factor here, too, assuming your ST enforced it: Humanity rating. Diablerie should be a hit to your Humanity. Now, obviously, if your Humanity rating isn't important to you (or you have a different Path entirely), this is less of a concern. But given your PC's moral objection, I imagine it is. Your ST should have had either a failure to hit your rating, or a small BOOST to your rating, offered as a reward for making this highly moral decision.

And, finally, if my proposed system were adapted to V:tM, and you had a "Morale" track, your moral compunctions would probably be encoded in some way (perhaps Exalted-style Intimacies), and thus overcoming that moral objection your character in particular has would have cost her some Morale, while holding to her guns may grant some back. This weighs against the promise of very real in-game power boosting, which may still not be enough, depending on the person, but it hardly constrains your decisions more than the system as it exists already did. It may even mitigate the punishment, a little, or make it more costly to take the reward, given your character's personality as you designed it.

The player (that is, I) knew that the GM wasn't going to yank the rug out from under the the PCs later on this regard. (And no, it's not important how I knew, so let us please avoid that tangent. It wasn't "director stance" or "narrative gaming", and leave it at that.) There are ways to avoid or mask the marked aura. There was ZERO risk/reward consideration on my part, as the player.

However, the character doesn't know anything about GMs, and "I can hide it" wasn't a primary part of her thought process on something like this.

This is the same character who soon after those events effectively wrote herself out of half of what was going on in the campaign because her sense of "honor" was such that she couldn't truthfully swear to silence and secrecy in order to join a cabal of elders and their proteges (IE, the rest of the PCs) without eventually betraying someone's trust.

And again, I don't consider any of this a "punishment".

Real life rarely mitigates or compensates for the consequences of our decisions. Platitudes aplenty exist that attempt to lie to us or sugarcoat the matter ("Every challenge is an opportunity!", "For every door that closes, another opens!"), and fiction too often tells those lies through narrative contrivances.

I see no reason why an RPG should sink to the level of platitudes and narrative contrivances.

Floret

2016-12-14, 02:25 PM

The point of the Fenris analogy was to illustrate the difference between a "punishment" and a "consequence."
Saying that having your arm bitten off it the most amazingly pleasurable experience you can ever have is just weird, why would mutilation by monster be pleasant?
Now, if we were to change the example to say, risking blindness and death by going to bed with a nymph in AD&D, then yeah, most of my characters probably would.

So are you saying that someone should either play games perfectly optimally an try to win at all costs, or play Calvinball; there is no middle ground?
Does that actually seem like a logical conclusion to you? Because to me it seems to be almost a complete non sequitur.

That difference is rather missing the point of what is being talked about, though. Risking blindness for getting it on with a nymph is much better: What is being talked about, is tradeoffs to simulate why humans might make risky and long-term suboptimal decisions, for short-term temptations that the player does not actually experience in the way the character would.
And if your characters would... congratulations, you seem to care way more about the role-playing aspect than the game aspect. Speaking of which...

No, I am not. Or, rather, your question is failing to take into account the point I made later in the same post.
I propose that with all the talk about "Role playing" currently going on, one might be able to split the appeal of "Role-playing games" into two parts: "Role playing" and "Game". (I mean that is of course a hefty oversimplification, but bear with me.)
Now, if you care only about one of these aspects, I find it rather strange that you would put upon yourself the other. I mean, you need to have a reason. If one truly does not care about roleplaying, they will play as mechanically optimally as possible. On the other hand, if one does not care about the mechanical side of things, why have rules at all, since all rules are gonna restrict you in what you actually want?
The point you are missing, here, is that I very strongly believe (and stand on) a middle ground: Care about both. Wanting neither Role-playing nor game, but a role-playing game, so to speak. I am pretty sure that all of us here stand on that middle ground, but taking both in different amounts (Though I am not entirely sure about Max). (Also, just because you stand at one point on this scale in one case does not mean that cannot shift or differ from the circumstances, emotional state, game to game, whatever. I stand on (Almost) pure Role-playing for Larp contexts, yet much closer to 50:50 on TRPGs). If you care about both, you have to have solutions for when they come into conflict (Model 2 tries to adress this). You could also try to mix the two, and intertwine them - not as separate parts of the same experience, but as one, interconnected part (Model 3). Or you could try and incentivise people towards a playstyle that is closer to one side, when they stand "too far" towards the other (Model 1). (This is not to say that this is all the models do, or even their central intent. Just that they do that in some way.)
If you DON'T, however, care about one of the two, I do honestly ask: Why bother with the other? And THAT is the context for my question. There might be answers. Heck, I know why I want certain rules in my Larps, and it has nothing to do with wanting to gamify it (Rather, with safety and other Out-game concerns).

So taken in the contexts of your other posts, what you're saying here is that a system that doesn't reward any particular choice is punishing all choices but the most "mechanically advantageous" choice... but a system that rewards a subset of all possible choices isn't punishing or constraining any particular choice?
There are often more than two choices, so any system that establishes rewards for fewer than the actual number of choices, can be -- if lack of reward is to be counted as punishment, as you say -- considered an attempted constraint on the choice space.

No, that is not what is being said. What is being said is that the system DOES reward one particular choice, even if you might fail to see it. See my earlier post for a more detailed explanation.
And noone is talking about making every issue binary. That is clearly missing the point being made. A well-designed such system will naturally suggest the benefits and drawbacks associated with each possible choice. Seriously, who said anything about making this multiple-choice, let alone two-choice?

It's at least as germane as the "taco farts" hypothetical, and something that might actually happen with character with a "foul temper", rather than a situation best left for contrived comedies of error.

You seem to have missed the point of the critique of the example. The "Taco farts" one was, while maybe not incredibly well-chosen, at least an example that tried to illustrate "long term reward vs. short term temptation", with the tacos offering actual benefit to the character (No longer being hungry). Punching a wall vs. not doing it is not in any way illustrating a similar situation. It is willfully accepting a negative for no actual reason. The example would have to give way more context for that.

Cluedrew

2016-12-14, 02:27 PM

The point of the Fenris analogy was to illustrate the difference between a "punishment" and a "consequence."Do mean in and out of character? Is that the important line here?

I have an idea, what if we completely take the mechanical control out of the equation for a moment. Use a system like this:

Each character has a pool of moral points.
When a character does something that makes them happy, increase their moral points.
When a character does something that makes them sad, decrease there moral points.

It is an odd system, all it really does is apply a number to how happy your character is at any given time. So you take a day off, the character becomes happier (unless that doesn't make them happy, but lets just say it does) in accordance to how much happier it would actually make them. A regular day of work may keep things stable and working hard takes away some points (again, something the character doesn't enjoy as much).

But the player (or players or GM or whatever) decides how much to adjust it by. Hence allowing for an arbitrary amounts of control by the player to express their character. How well does that work for you? (Here, "you" is anyone who wants to reply.)

PS: Yes I realize the system doesn't do anything, it is a thought experiment I hope will lead somewhere.

PPS: If you read the first paragraph of my last post: Called it!

Talakeal

2016-12-14, 02:52 PM

That difference is rather missing the point of what is being talked about, though. Risking blindness for getting it on with a nymph is much better: What is being talked about, is tradeoffs to simulate why humans might make risky and long-term suboptimal decisions, for short-term temptations that the player does not actually experience in the way the character would.
And if your characters would... congratulations, you seem to care way more about the role-playing aspect than the game aspect. Speaking of which...

No, I am not. Or, rather, your question is failing to take into account the point I made later in the same post.
I propose that with all the talk about "Role playing" currently going on, one might be able to split the appeal of "Role-playing games" into two parts: "Role playing" and "Game". (I mean that is of course a hefty oversimplification, but bear with me.)
Now, if you care only about one of these aspects, I find it rather strange that you would put upon yourself the other. I mean, you need to have a reason. If one truly does not care about roleplaying, they will play as optimally as possible. On the other hand, if one does not care about the mechanical side of things, why have rules at all, since all rules are gonna restrict you in what you actually want?
The point you are missing, here, is that I very strongly believe (and stand on) a middle ground: Care about both. Wanting neither Role-playing nor game, but a role-playing game, so to speak. I am pretty sure that all of us here stand on that middle ground, but taking both in different amounts (Though I am not entirely sure about Max). (Also, just because you stand at one point on this scale in one case does not mean that cannot shift or differ from the circumstances, emotional state, game to game, whatever. I stand on (Almost) pure Role-playing for Larp contexts, yet much closer to 50:50 on TRPGs). If you care about both, you have to have solutions for when they come into conflict (Model 2 tries to adress this). You could also try to mix the two, and intertwine them - not as separate parts of the same experience, but as one, interconnected part (Model 3). Or you could try and incentivise people towards a playstyle that is closer to one side, when they stand "too far" towards the other (Model 1). (This is not to say that this is all the models do, or even their central intent. Just that they do that in some way.)
If you DON'T, however, care about one of the two, I do honestly ask: Why bother with the other? And THAT is the context for my question. There might be answers. Heck, I know why I want certain rules in my Larps, and it has nothing to do with wanting to gamify it (Rather, with safety and other Out-game concerns).

No, that is not what is being said. What is being said is that the system DOES reward one particular choice, even if you might fail to see it. See my earlier post for a more detailed explanation.
And noone is talking about making every issue binary. That is clearly missing the point being made. A well-designed such system will naturally suggest the benefits and drawbacks associated with each possible choice. Seriously, who said anything about making this multiple-choice, let alone two-choice?

You seem to have missed the point of the critique of the example. The "Taco farts" one was, while maybe not incredibly well-chosen, at least an example that tried to illustrate "long term reward vs. short term temptation", with the tacos offering actual benefit to the character (No longer being hungry). Punching a wall vs. not doing it is not in any way illustrating a similar situation. It is willfully accepting a negative for no actual reason. The example would have to give way more context for that.

I think I have already addressed this at least twice in this thread.

The rules are there to provide a consistent narrative framework. The dice are there to provide a neutral arbiter.

Caring about the rules does not mean that I need to "win at all costs" or "play the most powerful character of all". IMO if I didn't care about the rules I would be cheating, not making suboptimal decisions based on RP.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of people who play video games in unusual ways? Like say, beating a game without combat, or using only a knife, or whatever? Do they not "care about the game" because they choose to do it in a sub-optimal way that makes it more fun for them for whatever reason? How about people who play on the hardest difficulty for additional challenge?

Segev

2016-12-14, 03:23 PM

So taken in the contexts of your other posts, what you're saying here is that a system that doesn't reward any particular choice is punishing all choices but the most "mechanically advantageous" choice... but a system that rewards a subset of all possible choices isn't punishing or constraining any particular choice?

There are often more than two choices, so any system that establishes rewards for fewer than the actual number of choices, can be -- if lack of reward is to be counted as punishment, as you say -- considered an attempted constraint on the choice space.
As Floret noted, this isn't "rewarding a subset" any more than you, as a person, feel that you are rewarded only for a subset of all possible choices.

"Drive the speed limit, and get there a little later, but don't risk a ticket," vs. "Speed to get there faster, risk getting a ticket," vs. "Driver recklessly, risking a ticket or an accident," vs. "Drive without regard for the roads, getting there slower if at all because your car doesn't work well on untamed fields" vs. "Drive into the cement barrier because you technically can, but you'll just crash and not get anywhere," are all options. They all have different consequences. I think there are a few that might, possibly, be considered within the realm of what a normal person might debate, while others are clearly just bad ideas that nobody is going to want to do. (None of these are really factoring in the morale questions, and probably wouldn't unless you had some "impatience" trait or some "fear of taking risks" trait involved.)

The idea is that for any choice where the character actually has a reason to feel like they want to make the mechanically sub-optimal choice, the character's desire to do something that is sub-optimal should be represented by a mechanic that rewards the player for taking it in proportion to how badly the character wants to/is tempted to do it. Or punishes him for refusing it, as appropriate.

Sure, there are a nigh-infinite number of choices. No, not all will be equal. The idea is to make the representation of their attractiveness to the character mirrored in the mechanics' representation of their attractiveness to the player.

Ideally designed, no, this mechanic won't "equally reward" every possible choice. If the character has no reason to want to make it, the system won't reward it. That would be defeating the purpose of the system.

It's at least as germane as the "taco farts" hypothetical, and something that might actually happen with character with a "foul temper", rather than a situation best left for contrived comedies of error.
And, if "foul temper; punches things to make himself feel better" were really that important to the character, so much so that you think it REALLY SHOULD BE in character for him to punch a wall, you'd design his proclivities such that punching that wall gained him some morale points.

The player (that is, I) knew that the GM wasn't going to yank the rug out from under the the PCs later on this regard. (And no, it's not important how I knew, so let us please avoid that tangent. It wasn't "director stance" or "narrative gaming", and leave it at that.) There are ways to avoid or mask the marked aura. There was ZERO risk/reward consideration on my part, as the player.

However, the character doesn't know anything about GMs, and "I can hide it" wasn't a primary part of her thought process on something like this.

This is the same character who soon after those events effectively wrote herself out of half of what was going on in the campaign because her sense of "honor" was such that she couldn't truthfully swear to silence and secrecy in order to join a cabal of elders and their proteges (IE, the rest of the PCs) without eventually betraying someone's trust.

And again, I don't consider any of this a "punishment". Fine and dandy. So your meta-knowledge, if you'd allowed it to sway you (and I, in your position, would've been hard-pressed not to, and also felt annoyed that I was losing out on this cool power-up because of who I was playing), would have made it a no-brainer as to what the mechanically optimal choice was.

Ideally, a system that intends for those considerations that you acknowledge your character might have made and couldn't have known what you did about their results would have made there be some reward for holding back or punishment for taking the risk, if your character is normally the sort to be that cautious (according to whatever traits she has). There certainly should have been rewards in the "feels good about herself" department (morale points, as my example subsystem would have it) for sticking to her morals against this temptation.

Again: you might not feel this was a punishment. I certainly would have, and would have been annoyed that I had to choose between playing a character with cool powers or playing the good person I wanted her to be.

Real life rarely mitigates or compensates for the consequences of our decisions. Platitudes aplenty exist that attempt to lie to us or sugarcoat the matter ("Every challenge is an opportunity!", "For every door that closes, another opens!"), and fiction too often tells those lies through narrative contrivances.

I see no reason why an RPG should sink to the level of platitudes and narrative contrivances.Nonsense. We do have the emotional rewards for whatever we do. They may be fleeting, or they may be long-lasting, and that helps us in retrospect (and also ahead of time, when not in the heat of the moment) to determine what we consider good and bad choices.

It is these very "how you feel about yourself and your situation" sorts of considerations that I am looking to employ.

I could, as a player, have twisted my justification around, knowing the GM isn't going to pull a fast one on us and punish us for the Diablerie power-up, to make it "acceptable this one time" to my character. OR justified it in a number of ways that it "had to be done" or some-such.

I'm not saying you should have. I'm saying I could have. And the fact that the game has literally no incentive for me to have her stick to her guns, not even an in-game moral judgment, that the game itself is telling me this is the right thing to do on every level, means that I am being punished if I say, "She doesn't think it's acceptable, and won't do it."

I'll note, too, that, like my Kakita Makoto example, this is something that goes to the core of who the character is. A lot of what I'm talking about...doesn't. It goes to "heat of the moment" pressures that should be hard to overcome.

I know you're going to scoff at this, because I'm referring to (horror of horrors) dramatic moments in fiction, but how often have you seen the guy who's hell-bent on, say, revenge, have to decide whether he's going to give in to his rage and murder somebody, or let them live - often when letting them live will lead to a better result and he knows it. He knows it, but only if he stops to think about it rationally for a moment. And that smug jerk is sneering at him about how weak and powerless it makes him.

Fits of rage - like punching that wall, which you acknowledge some people might do - make a bad idea seem like it'll feel good. Emotionally.

But unless the player is also hell-bent on that revenge, he's not going to have the same emotional tunnel vision.

In a slightly less contrived example, it is not uncommon for a social manipulator to set things up so that they can provoke a hot-head into violence in a public place where it's unacceptable. The hot-head knows it's not acceptable. He knows there are probably nasty consequences if he does it. But the manipulator is pushing his buttons. Pushing them and pushing them until he explodes. Even if he doesn't actually hit anybody, his obvious temper and flaring responses to the jibes (which are skillfully hidden from all who don't know what's going on) still are foolish. The "smart" thing to do would be to stay cool and not let it bother him. And as player, it would be easy to say, "Nah, my character knows what he's trying to do and ignores the bait."

But that same player, with his own, different hot-buttons, could be similarly needled into action by other players, if those other players were mean enough to do it. And despite knowing better, he'd fall for it. Because it's now that player's emotions, which he's actually experiencing, which are being manipulated, rather than emotions he's not experiencing that are being manipulated.

My goal is to make things like that touch the player better. Sure, Max, you would derive your satisfaction from the scene, your character making a fool of himself and losing whatever he loses to the consequences of his temper. I, on the other hand, would not. I would be annoyed at that loss on my character's part. I would strive not to let it happen. My goal here is to tie things back to the player, so that when I play that scene out, it costs continuing morale point expenditures not to rise to the bait. And the bait promises nice morale boosts. Eventually, if I do play him that controlled, I'll be so morale-drained that he's suffering penalties in other areas. So even if I am bound determined that he would, in character, keep (relatively) cool, his social rolls are suffering (probably because he's fuming) and he's generally not on his a-game (from watching out for the next barb and trying not to break things in his ire).

It's still my choice I am no more constrained than I was before (respond to the barbs or don't). But now I have reason why I might choose to respond to it other than "I don't want to think of myself as RPing poorly." Moreover, that socialite character is getting results from his high rolls, even if I choose not to do as he wants me to.

Floret

2016-12-14, 03:27 PM

I think I have already addressed this at least twice in this thread.
The rules are there to provide a consistent narrative framework. The dice are there to provide a neutral arbiter.

Caring about the rules does not mean that I need to "win at all costs" or "play the most powerful character of all". IMO if I didn't care about the rules I would be cheating, not making suboptimal decisions based on RP.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of people who play video games in unusual ways? Like say, beating a game without combat, or using only a knife, or whatever? Do they not "care about the game" because they choose to do it in a sub-optimal way that makes it more fun for them for whatever reason? How about people who play on the hardest difficulty for additional challenge?

And that is an answer. To provide a neutral arbiter. Never read it quite so clearly pointed out, thank you! I'd personally think that group consensus or a GM do that in more free-form games, but I can see why that might feel different. So for you the perfect rules would provide a perfect simulation and get out of the way in every other aspect?

With your second bit, you seem to have missed the point a bit again. "winning at all costs" is what a person would do that ONLY cares about the game, and not at all about the Roleplaying. You, quite evidently, care at least about the role playing (if you care about the game I cannot say). With "Not caring about the game" I was trying to describe willfully accepting mechanical drawbacks due to roleplaying (Thus, valuing the "RP" part over the "game" part, not willfully ignoring them in a cheating way. Not ignoring the rules, but just not caring about the effects they have.
I would say that, as with RPGs, these people care about something else as well, rather than just the game. The challenge, RPing a pacifist, or whatever. At that point the model does show it is somewhat overly simplistic, as yes there are situations where suboptimal strategies are somewhat more fun to use (I just like pistol/shield engineer better than pistol/pistol, dammit). Maybe there needs to be a differenciation between "play to win" and "play because the mechanics are fun". I think I might have found the reason Segev and I disagree on what kind of RP rules to include - I am concerned about increasing the latter, he is concerned with RP infringing on the former, and how to mitigate it.
Making subotpimal decisions, I feel, always comes down to one thing: Do I care? Or does something else outweigh the fact that it is suboptimal? Be it more fun to use, be it the ability to tell you "I managed to beat this", be it role-playing as its own reward.

Lorsa

2016-12-14, 04:26 PM

I hope to get to Segev's long post eventually, but I will try to quickly respond to Floret first.

Sure, the example is horrible, but it was one everyone could agree on :smallwink:. And, really, I think the example itself, while it could be better, was adequate. The discussion WASN'T, or shouldn't have been about the example, but about the sort of pressure that they tried to illustrate. Sure, they did the illustration in a way of "what the **** kind of gamedesign is that?" But that argument kinda misses the point. The discussion is far too theoretical for the example to matter entirely.

While I generally have no problems with hypothetical thoughts, examples ARE important. If you use an example, it has to portray the hypothetical, or else it fails.

Therefore, in this case, the example was meant to say "game mechanics sometimes pressures players into making decisions that are not necessarily in-character, we need roleplaying mechanics to fix it". However, unless you think my argument was poorly constructed, I think I showed quite clearly that there is a much better, even simpler fix to the problem; to make the "normal" mechanics better.

Unless there is another example that can't be fixed by better "normal" mechanics, then I see little reason to introduce the "roleplaying" mechanics into the mix.

If the argument is "if there are one-sided benefits to choosing one action over another, many players will generally go for that", then yes, obviously that is true. The question is how to fix it, preferably without simply adding new one-sided benefits.

Pulled together because they adress the same point (The list of supporters are not finite, just the ones I was sure about):
The three mechanics suggested, as read by Floret, a human who is generally rather good at reading comprehension, but who might still be misunderstanding people:
1. "XP for playing character". (Apokalypse World, Koo Rethorb and others.) I mean, this is fairly straightforward. It appears in most every gamebook I have in a list of "how to reward XP", with one bonus point for "Role-playing well" or something along those lines. One can make these more detailed (BIG) or less, but I think the general concept is clear.
Proponents say that it rewards what you are doing in the first place for RPers, and incentivises playing in character for those not yet doing it, and laud its uninvasiveness.
Criticism of it generally targets that it "forces" a certain kind of behaviour if one does not want to stay behind, thereby incentivising caricatures, rather than actual characters.
2. "Tradeoff for In-character decisions negatively effecting mechanics otherwise" (Segev). You get some form of tradeoff, (which can be XP, see 1.) which in the proposed examples is a meta-currency you can use to later be better at other things because you "took the hit".
Proponents say that it helps to offset (percieved) mechanical "costs" for playing in character, and thereby incentivise going against "mechanically optimal" decisions, without feeling screwed over by the system for roleplaying.
Oponents say that it takes the value out of the decision, when both choices are now equal and no "real" sacrifice is being made. As well as that they'd be too complicated to implement properly.
3. "Personality traits influencing dicerolls" (FATE, sort of, Floret) Your characters personality traits, or a predefined list of the ones you consider important, are able to be called upon in a similar way as other situational modifiers might be. FATE allows you to get bonusses or a reroll if you can argue the defined traits fit the situation (And you don't HAVE to include personality in your aspects. Works fine without it.). One might also construct different mechanics (Exploding dice, additional dice), depending on the base system used (Additional, Roll under, Pool system, etc.; NOT actual "Game system" in the vein of DnD, FATE etc.). Or potentially give you negative modifiers, or positive ones to your opponents, if the situation arises of them being used against you. (Now FATE does this by going back to model 2. and rewarding a metacurrency as well, but noone said those systems are mutually exclusive.)
Proponents say (Well, I say) it would allow my personality to mechanically matter, but not in a way that "forces" me to play to the traits, because I would otherwise be left behind. I want this, because I like it when WHO my character is is important for the game, as opposed to just WHAT they are (Class, Race, Culture etc. (though all might influence WHO they are))
Oponents say... Actually I don't know what opponents say since I haven't seen anyone actually adress my model. "Not my cup of tea", as with all of them, probably. And potentially encouraging an overfocus on the defined traits to the detriment of the ones not fitting on the sheet anymore. But to that I would say... so what? It not being on the sheet didn't keep you from adressing it before, why does it do now all of a sudden?
I mean, sure, I am biased here.

1. My criticism to this is two-fold. One issue is that it can be difficult to award these "RP XP" in an objective way. Unless the game specifies VERY clearly what is good and bad RP, it's basically a game of being friends with the GM. Or the majority of the group, if it comes down to a vote. I really don't like that roleplaying is a thing that is being measured, or even becomes a competition (which is what can easily happen). The GM is the arbiter of many things, but when (s)he has to judge individual roleplaying performances, things often go wrong.

The other issue is that it will award XP in an uneven fashion. I usually like when everyone in the group gets the same XP. It limits envy and minimizes group dynamic problems. The new version of nWoD (God Machine Chronicles) awards XP to characters for completing character goals. Every time you complete a goal, you get a mark. Five marks gives an XP. I didn't like this personalized system, so I told my group that every time a character completed a goal, the entire GROUP got a mark, and at 20 marks (there were 4 players), all characters got 1 XP. They were all very happy with this, and I think that if more RP-based XP rewards worked this way, I would have less issue with them.

I really don't understand why they are written as personal all the time. It seems like whoever came up with the idea feels like they're so AWESOME at roleplaying that they should be awarded more than others. Or something. I don't know.

2. I would be in the "it's very complicated to implement properly" camp. Also, it has some verisimilitude problems for me, as I explained earlier.

These kind of systems usually becomes something people start to game though (instead of, you know, actually playing the character which was the intent). Either the reward token is small enough not to matter (and then no one will go for it), or it is REALLY good and then people will go for it all the time. One thing that can happen is that people abuse the system and make decisions that grants them a token when it doesn't REALLY matter all that much, and then avoids it when it does. Go for the easy tokens so to speak.

The largest issue for me though is similar to my problem with 1. These mechanics are almost always written as "player A makes an in-character decision that brings about a complication and gets rewarded with a token". So, player A's character got a mechanical benefit. But what happens with the other players? Almost every single time a PC causes a complication, it affects the entire group. EVERYONE takes the hit. But for some reason it's only the acting character that gets rewarded. This is doubly problematic when the reward is XP. It then basically becomes "player A makes their character mechanical better and player BCD has to deal with the consequences". I mean, roleplaying is a group issue, almost ALL goals are group goals, almost all problems that affect one affect the others.

I don't quite enjoy when other players cause problems just for a token either. They should do it because that's their character, and then, if my character has an issue with the behavior, I will bring it up in-character. With these mechanics it easily becomes "Hey, you can't be upset with me, I got a token! The game wants me to get tokens, I NEED tokens!".

A potential fix would be again, to give everyone in the group tokens for every time a character does this "token generating in-character thingy". Otherwise the mechanics might alleviate the issue for the one player, but leave the other furious.

3. One problem I can see with this model is that it can be hard to judge when personality traits are allowed to be used and when not. I do know that the GM typically has to decide when normal bonuses and penalties are applied, but when they deal with "objective" stuff in the in-game world, it is much easier to have solid ground for the decision, and easier to point to when explaining to players.

Personality traits are different, they're kind of internal to the character. So the player might feel very strongly about this being a case of their traits coming into play, but the GM feels different. These kind of discussions are much harder to reach an agreement in, and also harder (speaking from a GM's point of view) to adjudicate in a neutral way.

Also, it kind of turns the game into "who can write the 'best' character traits". As in, the ones that are most likely to come up often. I want people to write characters that they actually feel like playing, not trying to meta-game and fit their personality into some mind-reading game of what type of situations I, as a GM, might provide.

A spin-off to this is; what if I have a character trait called "competitive"? Can I call on that for basically every roll I make as I'm now performing an action where I am trying to achieve (e.g. "win") at something, and since I am really competitive I will always do my best? Seems plausible but also kind of silly.

Hm. Interesting. I always note down keywords. I still don't agree that it has to be in any way detailed, to be honest. As long as the key points are down?

People have different processes I guess. In the end, I've always felt like whatever I write on the paper is less important as the kind of traits I exhibit while actually playing the character.

While the fact that I, as a player, have experienced equivalent pains and desires does help to empathise with the character, it does in no way adress the point that no, I am not, in fact, feeling the hunger pangs. I am not tasting the taco. I am not feeling the soft summer breeze tickling my character awake. I am not feeling (Or seeing, hearing and smelling) the cute guy (or girl) caressing me to try and get my guard down. I can imagine feeling it, sure. But, again, spoken from experience (With both TRPGs and Larps): The contrast is quite stunning, between ACTUALLY living through everything your character does, and merely imagining it through empathy. And I say that as a person who is generally very empathetical.)
And THAT is the point Segev is trying to make (I think). No matter how much empathy you feel with your character, the two are not identical. And when one is not physically living through them, and that barrier exists, it does put incentive away from acting on base desires (and nagging hunger pangs/thirst), away from doing the thing you might do if in the same spot. Now, I have and will make decisions based on the base desires of my characters even though I have not felt them. But I can't help but feel like I would have done more of it if the same scene had played out IRL or on a Larp.

Well, the body is actually pretty good at simulate responses as though it was in a real situation, simply by thinking about it. If you picture yourself standing ready for a 100m dash waiting for the start signal to go off, your body will start to produce adrenaline. In fact, people can get better at skills (that is, develop muscle memory) from simply imagining them performing the action in their head.

It is true that there will always be some disconnect, but I think it's far weaker than you give it credit for.

Then again, I've always had very good imagination. It's been my constant companion since I was a child, and I often find it easier to connect with emotions when I do it through imaginary characters in a RPG than I do with my OWN emotions (not talking about hunger here, but things like joy, sadness etc). That's probably not a very good sign for my mental health, but anyway...

I guess people have different levels of imagination. Mine is very strong, but unfortunately I often feel like these "RP mechanics" pushes me back a step. Instead of the game asking me to try and imagine and FEEL the emotions myself, it now tells me "you have X emotion to Y action is most likely".

This is probably the "ceiling" that's been up for discussion before. If we have a scale of "how much you are in-tune with your character's feelings" from 1-10, and I function on 8 whereas Segev on 5 (hypothetical values, not real ones). The game without RP mechanics then says "try as hard as you can to reach high on the scale", but the one with them says "you only need to reach 6, that's enough", then there is little incentive to move higher. Thus an experienced "ceiling".

That said, I kind of like Segev's morality mechanic. It has some basis in how people's psyche normally work, and doesn't really create a ceiling in the same way as other mechanics do. I think it will be difficult to implement properly and can easily become overly complicated, but it's worth to investigate.

And, yes, how much satisfaction one gets out of Roleplaying plays a huge part. But as soon as there is a tradeoff, the fact that the player is a step removed from the character will do its work, and influence the ultimate decision. Not necessarily towards not roleplaying, but maybe just doing the RP-thing a bit less readily then if in the spot yourself.
And I think that is the problem with your argument: There IS and always will be a disconnect between player and character. The size of the disconnect matters, of course, and for some people, having a choice blatantly more optimal, but further away from the character, will increase that disconnect.

Yes, there will always be a disconnect. However, I want to try and minimize it as much as possible. The times when I almost feel as though I'm actually there in the world are the times when I'm the happiest. Some RP mechanics, as mentioned above, actually works to increase the disconnect (for me). It doesn't help me feel my pains, it just tells me they give X or Y mechanical effect.

Now, to be constructive, let me try my hand at it:
Say I am in a desolate building, with a group of friends, and some other groups of uncertain allies, holed up solely with my friends. It is the dead of night, and I would be fast asleep, and in fact would love to actually sleep - but there are noises outside. Someone is attacking the other groups, but they don't know we are here.
Both going out and helping, as well as showing up the next day well-rested to some dead or wounded, and deadly tired allies will have, of course, social ramifications. Do you get up? You REALLY could use the sleep.

(Model numbers pulled from the list earlier in my post)
Now, lets put the character in the mix. Say your character is generally a morally upright sort, and likes helping people. Maybe they would get a bonus to a roll of overcoming sleepiness modifiers for the action (Model 3). Or would get XP for getting up (Model 1), or some tradeoff for missing sleep, maybe some bonus to social rolls with the allies (Model 2).
But what if your character is an amoral asshat, caring only about their own pleasures. Maybe they would get a bonus to a roll of managing to sleep through the noise (Model 3), Get XP for staying in bed (Model 2), or a tradeoff for the pissed off potential allies, a moral bonus for being well-rested (Model 2).

(And, fun trivia if you hadn't already guessed it: Yeah, this is based on something that happened to me (without any rules involved, on a Larp). I was playing my postapo character, the amoral asshat. I did not get up. Grabbed my knife closer to me, and turned to continue sleeping. I don't know if I had played it differently during a TRPG session. But with my character being as is, I would have found it very appropriate to get some bonus on a test if I can sleep through the gunfire and screams.)

It's an interesting scenario, and one that would certainly be a fun decision in a game.

I think, for me, I'd simply say that the consequence of sleeping is that you don't suffer the "not rested" penalty, whereas if you go up to help you will have some happy allies (or be dead). I don't really see how RP mechanics need to play a part in this. As you said, people who play "good" characters are probably going to go help anyway, whereas the more self-centered ones will hide and attempt to sleep. I don't really see how any RP mechanics would work to increase the odds of a player acting in-character. All the times like scenarios has come up in my games, people have acted according to their character's nature.

If the consequence was "potentially angry potential allies" (if they find out you could've helped but slept) vs. slight penalty for sleep deprivation, what would you do? It's the same choice YOU would face in the real world. Do you typically need to be rewarded with tokens for obtaining sleep deprivation by helping your friends?

Segev

2016-12-14, 04:58 PM

Much as it pains me to say this, because I'm not a fan of FATE, I would approach "personality traits" like FATE's Aspects in this one way: they're meant to be things that are both positive and negative, depending on when and how they're invoked, and probably by whom.

Potentially, you could have as many of these as you want to assign, or the rules might call for a minimum or maximum number. Borrowing from Exalted, the notion of "building" and "eroding" these traits appeals to me: you can basically try to change your likes and dislikes, or others can try to do similarly. If they go so far as to reflect "I like/hate this person," changing your opinion of a person might be something that could be done with time. Perhaps every time doing something with/for this person has earned you morale, you like them a little more and might get more morale from just being around them.

But let's take a simplistic example, and say I have a character, Ron the Red, who enjoys a good game of chess, but is also a manly sort who likes violent sports (where balls thrown at people is just part of the fun, and broken arms are not abnormal consequences of particularly good matches). Ron can regain morale points by taking some time to play a nice chess game or few, or by hanging out with buddies and watching contact sports.

So, when Ron finds himself on an adventure where a living chess game needs to be played, not to win, but to get across the board, he rubs his hands and says, "This is my kind of challenge!" And the pieces actively fight to the death when they capture each other. This gets him all sorts of morale points, AND he probably can spend morale points on playing even better than usual while still netting a profit!

Unfortunately, he's also susceptible to bribery and torn decisions. When his albino nemesis sets things up so that Ron's best friend needs his help to thwart that nemesis's plan to embarrass said friend, but has done so at a time when the nemesis has arranged for the world's best chess player to be available to play Ron... Ron is potentially torn. Especially if all he knows is that the nemesis set up this opportunity. He doesn't know why. He's mistrustful, but...he gets to play this awesome, legendary player, and learn from him!

Morale points galore for playing it. A huge cost of morale points for refusing. Which means that this actually reflects on the player, whereas otherwise, it wouldn't. Because "take opportunity that's probably a trap, and which won't actually be anyting I, the player, can enjoy with Ron" vs. "Ignore it and wait to see what I can do to thwart the nemesis's plan, which I'll enjoy along with Ron," is a non-choice. For Ron, though, it is a difficult choice. So with the morale mechanics, that difficulty is transferred to the player, as well. Even if he plays "in character," the morale hit will at least temporarily render Ron less potent as an adversary.

Replace the chess master with tickets to the World Cup in the best possible seats, with a chance to meet Ron's favorite player for an autograph afterwards, for similar effect.

"Really enjoys a good game of chess" and "really likes violent sports" become both positives and negatives. They can be used in his favor, or against him. And of course, he's going to try to maximize them benefitting him. Presumably, others will try to maximize them benefitting THEM in their dealings with Ron. This is actually a good model; it's how people interact normally. "Come on, it's something you really like!"

jayem

2016-12-14, 06:55 PM

So she didn't go, she didn't commit Diablerie, and she didn't get that big power-up, unlike all the other PCs. There was no consolation prize, and no "staying in character" cookie of any kind. For the rest of the campaign, she was lacking that advantage, she was behind on that particular "curve". This was not punishment, it was not unfair, and it was not skewed.

(For those who don't know, Diablerie is the act of drinking a more elder and powerful vampire past the point of examination and death, and consuming their "vampiric spark" for lack of a better term, to become more powerful.)
Did she avoid the risk of addiction/soul intrusion/extra vices/loss of humanity?
If so, the cost of the power up is a (potential) loss of control. The decision to avoid it is a perfectly rational both in player and character option to take (the decision to take it, would also be rational).

And on the Tyr and Fenris example. In most cases there would be good reasons for sticking your hand in Fenris's arm. And these would come as a natural consequence of the campaign (for a start, presumably, Fenris get's bound, that element of the campaign is won. The party might be eligible for reward loot from grateful Asir.). In which case a player feeling weighing the balance of, someones got to do it, but I'd rather it was someone else is pretty much right. If second order effects are in place so much the better, but even without the bias is no worse just swung towards inaction from action.

If there aren't good reasons and the players taken punching a brick wall (out of character) for no reasons to extremes that's their problem, and suffering for it isn't surprising.

If there were good but wrong reasons (they misjudged the story, perhaps the others brought the wrong chains) then again suffering for it isn't surprising, but at least it isn't a TPK (yet)

While if it is in character, perhaps a risk taker betting (falsely) he can move faster than the wolf. Then if the rules can deal with that (perhaps moral points), so much the better. But even if they don't, if the metagame risk of consequences of being reckless are enough to stop you roleplaying the recklessness, then the metagame risks would stop you roleplaying the consequences also.

Floret

2016-12-14, 07:28 PM

I hope to get to Segev's long post eventually, but I will try to quickly respond to Floret first.

Yeah, sorry for writing such long posts. But thanks for responding in such detail!

Unless there is another example that can't be fixed by better "normal" mechanics, then I see little reason to introduce the "roleplaying" mechanics into the mix.
If the argument is "if there are one-sided benefits to choosing one action over another, many players will generally go for that", then yes, obviously that is true. The question is how to fix it, preferably without simply adding new one-sided benefits.

I dunno. You don't, but I do. Because (As per my desire for model 3) I actually want them for something else.
But I think this your question is spot-on. The supposed model 2 especially tries exactly that - if maybe in a way you don't want.

1. My criticism to this is two-fold.

And, just for protocol: I would agree with you on every point. I am for option 3, don't really care for option 2, and think option 1 best avioded. Heck, I give XP to players who were absent. I don't like characters with differing "levels", even though I don't play any system that actually has levels, mind you.

2. I would be in the "it's very complicated to implement properly" camp. Also, it has some verisimilitude problems for me, as I explained earlier.

Hm. I find these to be good points. I think one could potentially solve these problems, but then I wouldn't care to put in the effort. Only the versimilitude thing I won't quite buy. Because these can easily be constructed to be simulating of something. FATE doesn't, but a Willpower-system as has been proposed might.

3. One problem I can see with this model is that it can be hard to judge when personality traits are allowed to be used and when not. I do know that the GM typically has to decide when normal bonuses and penalties are applied, but when they deal with "objective" stuff in the in-game world, it is much easier to have solid ground for the decision, and easier to point to when explaining to players.
Personality traits are different, they're kind of internal to the character. So the player might feel very strongly about this being a case of their traits coming into play, but the GM feels different. These kind of discussions are much harder to reach an agreement in, and also harder (speaking from a GM's point of view) to adjudicate in a neutral way.
Also, it kind of turns the game into "who can write the 'best' character traits". As in, the ones that are most likely to come up often. I want people to write characters that they actually feel like playing, not trying to meta-game and fit their personality into some mind-reading game of what type of situations I, as a GM, might provide.
A spin-off to this is; what if I have a character trait called "competitive"? Can I call on that for basically every roll I make as I'm now performing an action where I am trying to achieve (e.g. "win") at something, and since I am really competitive I will always do my best? Seems plausible but also kind of silly.

In my experience of playing FATE, where "is this really applicable" is a question that comes up regularly, I have found it to resolve itself quite easily through group consensus and GM statement. A player that is reaching will generally accept a decision of "no, not applicable", at least in a group that doesn't have some problem talking out things and is generally friends and good sports (Also called a group where playing RPGs is a good idea).
And... I don't think this clear-cut differentiation between character "externals" and "internals" is something that actually exists in the way people argue. Try and convince me, but other people have tried with little effect. As I said, I have personally had very good experience with this thing working rather well.
I am not quite sure I agree it necessarily does. And even then I can see ways to solve this problem. Not least of which, tying it to a metacurrency: For your personality to matter positively, you have to spent it, and you get it for them affecting you negatively, for example. Or you flat-out say "x times per session max". Or... you just give some guidelines for how specific such a character trait should be, and rely on GMs and group consensus if a certain trait actually would work. Sure, you need groups that work for this. But groups that get riled up over this sort of thing I don't think are necessarily best for playing RPGs with in the first place.
And... Dunno. If such a trait is allowed, I would allow you the bonus pretty much everywhere where there is actually competition. So, no, cracking a lock, and even fighting a fight to the death? Nah, rather not. That is not competition. That's just fighting for your life. A duel? If you really want to. Cooking competion? Sure.
But also... In a certain way, these traits tend to balance themselves out, if there is also a drawback to them, the GM can call upon them to negatively affect you, or incentivise you to certain suboptimal decisions (Sure, now this is metacurrency level...). And broadly applicable traits... are broadly applicable, for better or worse :smallwink: Being first up the 10.000 stairs? I mean, sure it would exhaust you, and you would be alone, but... you can't really NOT be THE FIRST, can you?

Also, slight tanget: Really, where does this sudden potential for metagaming come from? And why is it always brought up with these proposed systems, but in the current state, where there are clear mechanically optimal decisions, they just get brushed aside as "yeah, but RP is more important"? Why can the same not apply to these RP rules? It feels somewhat... strange.

Well, the body is actually pretty good at simulate responses as though it was in a real situation, simply by thinking about it. If you picture yourself standing ready for a 100m dash waiting for the start signal to go off, your body will start to produce adrenaline. In fact, people can get better at skills (that is, develop muscle memory) from simply imagining them performing the action in their head.
It is true that there will always be some disconnect, but I think it's far weaker than you give it credit for.
Then again, I've always had very good imagination. It's been my constant companion since I was a child, and I often find it easier to connect with emotions when I do it through imaginary characters in a RPG than I do with my OWN emotions (not talking about hunger here, but things like joy, sadness etc). That's probably not a very good sign for my mental health, but anyway...
I guess people have different levels of imagination. Mine is very strong, but unfortunately I often feel like these "RP mechanics" pushes me back a step. Instead of the game asking me to try and imagine and FEEL the emotions myself, it now tells me "you have X emotion to Y action is most likely".
This is probably the "ceiling" that's been up for discussion before. If we have a scale of "how much you are in-tune with your character's feelings" from 1-10, and I function on 8 whereas Segev on 5 (hypothetical values, not real ones). The game without RP mechanics then says "try as hard as you can to reach high on the scale", but the one with them says "you only need to reach 6, that's enough", then there is little incentive to move higher. Thus an experienced "ceiling".

That said, I kind of like Segev's morality mechanic. It has some basis in how people's psyche normally work, and doesn't really create a ceiling in the same way as other mechanics do. I think it will be difficult to implement properly and can easily become overly complicated, but it's worth to investigate.
Yes, there will always be a disconnect. However, I want to try and minimize it as much as possible. The times when I almost feel as though I'm actually there in the world are the times when I'm the happiest. Some RP mechanics, as mentioned above, actually works to increase the disconnect (for me). It doesn't help me feel my pains, it just tells me they give X or Y mechanical effect.

Is it? I mean, it can simulate responses, sure. I can drop down as if dead if only cut across the stomach by a foam weapon without a second thought, I have been there. But... As I have said: I am not conjuring up this disconnect out of thin air and theory, I am speaking from comparing two very distinct experiences: One of playing a character and feeling the world around me with all five senses, one of playing a character and hearing the GM describe things and imagining the situation.
Have you? Can you draw that direct comparison? Because before Larping, I think I wouldn't have thought the difference for "getting in character" between the two would be quite so great as I do now, and were I to play TRPGs solely for that feeling of "getting into character"/"roleplaying", I would find them to just pale in comparison. But I know Larpers that don't feel that way, and play TRPGs for much the same reason as they do Larp. I couldn't, I'd give up TRPGs in a heartbeat, they are quite lackluster at the thing I get out of Larp (And I know friends who gave up TRPGs because of that). So your mileage might indeed vary.
I wouldn't want to think of myself as having little imagination. I have always been a called a dreamer, and am quite imaginative in general. Maybe I am just worse at really sinking into it in TRPGs - I do have my own mental hangups that make it more difficult. Constantly noticing very many things and being very distractable might not help with forgetting my western european livingroom around me when imagining myself in a bustling medieval eastasian town. (Me rather consistently being GM might be "somewhat" hindering as well, I imagine.)

I can certainly see your problem, the way you phrase it. Having rules to represent things does not get me closer to "really being there", the way for that would be rather opposite. "Get out of the house and on a Larp, and then rid of the rules since you don't really need to simulate anything anymore" would be my answer to how to achieve that, since that is pretty much the closest you can get - though also a potentially very different experience, sure. And in certain ways much more limited in what can be portrayed (Though much less than many people give it credit for).
Doesn't at all adress why I want those rules, but I was trying to summ up all reasons and the discussion is currently focussed on rules trying to represent it better. I think the rules are especially good for something like temptations - by giving the PLAYER a temptation as well - though it will be a different one.
Example: I as a GM will not go and seduce my players (Whether I actually could or not). So I won't offer my player the same reward for giving in to a seduction that their character gets (That would be weird and also incredibly uncomfortable for all other players at the table.), but to actually tempt the player for letting their character give in, I might offer something else - morality tokens, willpower points, some other meta-currency, XP (Bad idea, in my view), the like.
And by such a system get the draws of each option (Refuse and continue/give in and get some(thing)) closer to the players feelings - the player is now also tempted, instead of just imagining it. I think this is how its supposed to work.

It's an interesting scenario, and one that would certainly be a fun decision in a game.
I think, for me, I'd simply say that the consequence of sleeping is that you don't suffer the "not rested" penalty, whereas if you go up to help you will have some happy allies (or be dead). I don't really see how RP mechanics need to play a part in this. As you said, people who play "good" characters are probably going to go help anyway, whereas the more self-centered ones will hide and attempt to sleep. I don't really see how any RP mechanics would work to increase the odds of a player acting in-character. All the times like scenarios has come up in my games, people have acted according to their character's nature.
If the consequence was "potentially angry potential allies" (if they find out you could've helped but slept) vs. slight penalty for sleep deprivation, what would you do? It's the same choice YOU would face in the real world. Do you typically need to be rewarded with tokens for obtaining sleep deprivation by helping your friends?

Oh, I agree, they don't need to. But I think they might be fun to include. I have never spoken for a NECESSITY of RP rules, merely for including them because they might be mechanically enjoyable to interact and play with. Your option would be a perfectly fine way of dealing with things.
Are you asking for myself as a player, or as a character? Unsure. I as a player have never been in such a situation. I'd hope I'd sneak out, try and analyse the situation, and help however I can, if I actually wake up from the noise (I am a rather heavy sleeper, though my postapo character isn't. And, yes, psychology can make my sleeping habits different when I'm in character, even on a Larp. Though the uncomfortable sleeping arrangements surely did their part. I know a guy who stutters. His characters? Don't. So, yes, if he, on a Larp, gets into character his stutter literally stops. Psychology and roleplaying can be a powerful things.). And, no, I wouldn't need tokens. As I said: The example was from a Larp, so there were no tokens there. But a TRPG is something very different, where the world only exists in simulation, and a lot of emotional aspects flow in that the rules often don't take into account, but maybe should or at least could. It is everyones choice how deep they want the simulation to go, how accurate they want it to be, and what aspects they want it to cover.
I'd like a rather rules-medium to light simulation, don't require all too much accuracy but at least a bit, and would very much like personality to be covered in some way. Other people have other preferences.^^

(Also, just to note: They did find out, and berated us. I talked my way out of it with and smoothed things over, but I had to put in effort.)

Much as it pains me to say this, because I'm not a fan of FATE, I would approach "personality traits" like FATE's Aspects in this one way: they're meant to be things that are both positive and negative, depending on when and how they're invoked, and probably by whom.

And here we again agree: Taking FATE aspects as a basis might be a good idea (Now, our opinion on FATE differs, but I'm not really surprised given all your previous statements.).
...I am again making the scrollbar disappear. I am so sorry.

Cluedrew

2016-12-14, 09:32 PM

I didn't like this personalized system, so I told my group that every time a character completed a goal, the entire GROUP got a mark, and at 20 marks (there were 4 players), all characters got 1 XP. They were all very happy with this, and I think that if more RP-based XP rewards worked this way, I would have less issue with them.

I really don't understand why they are written as personal all the time. It seems like whoever came up with the idea feels like they're so AWESOME at roleplaying that they should be awarded more than others. Or something. I don't know.I like your idea. I also have a possible explination for why it is usually assigned character-by-character: That is how most XP works, the character who does the thing is the one who had the experience and hence gets the XP. It both fits convention and makes more sense in world. Despite having some game level problems.

They should do it because that's their character, and then, if my character has an issue with the behavior, I will bring it up in-character. With these mechanics it easily becomes "Hey, you can't be upset with me, I got a token! The game wants me to get tokens, I NEED tokens!".I think this is a more general problem just applied to a new mechanic. If you ever have to defend your character's actions at 9 times out of 10 your doing it wrong. Still I think the defence to this would be "but it leaves my character in a bad place costing them tokens." Also if tokens have some in character side to them (say more moral tokens and less karma tokens) your character can still get very upset.

People have different processes I guess. In the end, I've always felt like whatever I write on the paper is less important as the kind of traits I exhibit while actually playing the character.... You know I agree but it takes me to a different conclusion. Which is work on the matter until I feel I am writing down the most importance kinds of traits on the sheet. Or at least closer, because honestly whether my character has 11 or 12 constitution when she is an acrobat really doesn't matter (16 dexterity might be) but the fact she loves the applause might be critical. But most games don't have a stat for that.

I think, for me, I'd simply say that the consequence of sleeping is that you don't suffer the "not rested" penalty, whereas if you go up to help you will have some happy allies (or be dead). I don't really see how RP mechanics need to play a part in this. As you said, people who play "good" characters are probably going to go help anyway, whereas the more self-centered ones will hide and attempt to sleep. I don't really see how any RP mechanics would work to increase the odds of a player acting in-character. All the times like scenarios has come up in my games, people have acted according to their character's nature.

If the consequence was "potentially angry potential allies" (if they find out you could've helped but slept) vs. slight penalty for sleep deprivation, what would you do? It's the same choice YOU would face in the real world. Do you typically need to be rewarded with tokens for obtaining sleep deprivation by helping your friends?Well here is an interesting question, is "not rested" an role-play mechanic? You seem to not think so yet it could be. In D&D if you don't get enough sleep you generally don't get some major class features and that is terrible and so you get some sleep. But if it has a softer edge then maybe you can start choosing. Maybe the wizard often stays up into the night geeking out over some new obscure theorem he stumbled across. But the monk meditates every evening and gets a full nights rest every night there isn't an emergency (which for an adventurer means once a month). And the bard usually spends hours at the tavern, listening to rumours and earning extra coin with a song, but when she has a performance coming up she gets a good nights sleep the nights leading up to it.

The penalties and bonuses are different in every case, I'm not even sure what they are, but they hit at the type of character that would pick each one.

Oh, I agree, they don't need to. But I think they might be fun to include. I have never spoken for a NECESSITY of RP rules, merely for including them because they might be mechanically enjoyable to interact and play with. Your option would be a perfectly fine way of dealing with things.There are many different types of games and many different rules that suit them. I would never try to cram most of these into a D&D style game (mind you I would never try to make a D&D style game, D&D has it covered) or a particularly rules lite system.

Actually, one of my big moments that made me appreciate role-playing games anew was the first time I played a game built with a different mindset than D&D. I had played different systems but they all had the same sort of approach. It was a strange experience. And I don't think that the D&D mindset is really suited to the internals of a character. It grew out of a war game and it has the same sort of approach. Now as an example there is more of a focus on player skill in D&D and in war games I enjoy that, that's what it is all about. But why in the world should I care about player skill* in a role-playing game? Maybe you have some reasons, but I have yet to care about any of them.

Now that is just a random example but on the whole D&D and games that share its player focused mindset** are, to me, less suited for theses types of mechanics.

*I mean your ability to play a character is important, but I don't care that you can list of every possible trap type, location and how to disarm it, what can your character do?

**More to it than that but that is the relevant bit.

And here we again agree: Taking FATE aspects as a basis might be a good idea (Now, our opinion on FATE differs, but I'm not really surprised given all your previous statements.).

...I am again making the scrollbar disappear. I am so sorry.Think of the children! I'm not sure what they have to do with this but think of them anyways.

Oh and if anyone remembers my last post: Or even read it.

Each character has a pool of moral points.
When a character does something that makes them happy, increase their moral points.
When a character does something that makes them sad, decrease their moral points.
I am still open to answers but I'll give a bit more context. I'm trying to pine down what makes these mechanics intrusive to people, starting from as far from intrusive as I can get.

On Internal vs. External: I lost the quote I had for this. But I was going to ask, what even defines this line? Because I have a line like this in my system I'm working on and strength and intelligence and so on are on the internal side.

Steve Neiman

2016-12-15, 03:55 AM

I would say that the point of mechanics that force the player to act in accordance with their listed personality are good for a group that tend to munchkin, so long as the rules are balanced from a risk versus reward perspective. If you use such a system, the other players might tolerate a bit of RP they would otherwise get angry about for the same reason they generally won't make a scene about you rolling 1 to hit the black dragon. However, if the group doesn't like roleplaying at all they might not have fun doing it even if it is governed by mechanics, so you have to use some good judgement on that front.
On the other hand, a group that like to RP and don't mind doing something counterproductive in the name of acting in-character might find it kind of frustrating, especially if they play their characters' flaws in a very nuanced fashion that the rules aren't precise enough to cover. If they know exactly what situations their character would do something stupid in, it can be annoying if the dice say that they have decided is out-of-character.
There are situations where it might add to the fun, but not many.

ComradeBear

2016-12-15, 09:32 AM

I think Floret made a point that I feel will get lost among the rest of their great reaponses, and won't be addressed properly.

And that is:
No one is arguing that RP rules are necessary. At the most, we're arguing that they're not the worst thing to happen ever and can be fun to have. In fact, we're saying that we find them fun and not nearly so restrictive as other folks report.

Half the time I bring up that I enjoy RP rules, there is a small contingent of people who want to tell me I'm having badwrongfun but they're not really saying I'm having badwrongfun. Just that the rules I'm having fun with are bad and wrong and I couldn't possibly be having fun with them for realsies, unless I suck at RPing compared to those giants of character depiction.

Which is a giant steaming pile of BS, hence why I tend to kick back against such sentiments.

Saying "RP mechanics can be a fun and worthy addition to an RPG" is not the same thing as saying "All RPG must have RP mechanics."

Hell, I don't think there are any necessary mechanics at all. Any mechanic you could name from amy system, I can likely think of or find a system that doesn't use it.
Dice? There are diceless systems that run fine.
Individual character stats? There are RPGs without that, too. (Fall of Magic among them)
Combat? Free Market doesn't have combat rules because it's a competitive capitalism-run-amok transhumanist rpg. Imagine Monopoly as an RPG, kiiiinda.
Initiative? Apocalypse World works fine without it.
Rules? Freeform RP is alive and well, though the lack of rules entirely causes that G to fall off the end.

No, RP rules aren't necessary. No individual rule or system is strictly necessary in all RPGs. You'd have to be stupid to argue that RP rules, of all rules, are the universally necessary ones.

Now, they might not be Necessary for you. Sure. They aren't necessary for me, either. But I like 'em and don't experience a lot of the stated problems. Likely because I already do Freeform RP and so when I play an RPG it's because I'm wanting it to be distinguished by that G on the end. I still want to play my character or build a world, but i wanna do it within a framework and with a bunch of friends. My main draw is the RP. But some rules and mechanics are neat, and I like them. Maybe that's my Game Designer side cropping up, though.

TL;DR
RP rules aren't necessary. But they're fun for some people. That is sufficient reason to justify their existence.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-15, 11:16 AM

I guess people have different levels of imagination. Mine is very strong, but unfortunately I often feel like these "RP mechanics" pushes me back a step. Instead of the game asking me to try and imagine and FEEL the emotions myself, it now tells me "you have X emotion to Y action is most likely".

This is probably the "ceiling" that's been up for discussion before. If we have a scale of "how much you are in-tune with your character's feelings" from 1-10, and I function on 8 whereas Segev on 5 (hypothetical values, not real ones). The game without RP mechanics then says "try as hard as you can to reach high on the scale", but the one with them says "you only need to reach 6, that's enough", then there is little incentive to move higher. Thus an experienced "ceiling".

My thought is that's it's going to encourage players to play the rules, rather than play the character.

Even if one were to hypothetically say that there were "incentive" and "punishment" when the rules don't include RP mechanics (an notion I utterly reject, clearly), then RP mechanics are straight up fighting fire with gasoline.

That said, I kind of like Segev's morality mechanic. It has some basis in how people's psyche normally work, and doesn't really create a ceiling in the same way as other mechanics do. I think it will be difficult to implement properly and can easily become overly complicated, but it's worth to investigate.

So far none of these, including Segev's, produce even a mote of resonance with anything I've ever experienced regarding "how I work".

Lorsa

2016-12-15, 11:53 AM

It is poor game design, but there are mechanics like that in RPGs, largely surrounding social interaction mechanics, but also involved in things like choices involving comfort, pleasure, and ease/difficulty.

If there are no rules for being filthy causing difficulties, and no rules for unpleasant odors being problematic to the players, the choice between sneaking into a city through the sewers and trying to sneak by the heavily-armed and highly-alert guards at the gate becomes a no-brainer: go through the sewers, where there is little to no risk. The foul, foul odor and the fact that you'll need a heck of a bath later, and probably have to throw out the rags you'll wear into it...not a problem for the player.

Now, you might argue that the sewer should pose its own dangers equal in concern to the guards. But if so, then really, the horrid odor and such should create pressure to go to the guards so great that the sewer is simply not an option. But again, it doesn't. You have to create things unrelated to the real reason that, say, the elven fop bard should be resistant to the idea of going through the sewer.

If you don't, then the elven fop bard's player is punished by having real risks and potential resource consumption for no benefit other than...RPing that the smell is just more than he can handle.

No single set of RPG rules can accurately cover all possible scenarios, or all possible parts of human existence. That is simply an order to tall to request.

However, rules were, I think, never truly meant to be RULES. I think that it is unfortunate that the true nature of how RPGs are supposed to work are often forgotten and have largely been reduced to "rule 0".

Rules were never meant to be anything other than help or guideline for the GM. Instead of the GM having to come up with mechanical effects for ALL situations, the game now offers them for some situations that are likely to occur. But, in situations where the rules are silent, the GM has to do their job.

In the situation you mentioned, it is clearly the GM's job to impose some penalties for foul odor. Maybe even ask for a Fort save (or something similar) for characters to avoid throwing up. Also, apart from that, the GM also has to describe the scene in a way that you, the player, can imagine these sewers and walking up to your knees in human excrement. If you do that well enough, most players would actually feel sick themselves (and maybe change their decision).

Yes, I do realize the latter "description" part only works if people actually try to imagine being inside the world. But if they don't, what's really the point of roleplaying? We might as well play some form of D&D-inspired Descent game.

Anyway, my largest reply to this "problem" is that the GM HAS TO invoke penalties that aren't mentioned in the rules, simply because the rules can't cover everything. Why do you blame the for the failure of the GM to do their job?

Indeed. And if such mechanics were in place, this would alleviate my complaints.

Well, they should be there. If they aren't, there are house rules for a reason (which may or may not include your morale system, I think we are currently exploring if you really need it, or if your problem is with generally bad game mechanics or GMs?).

It is perhaps a bad example because we can come up with purely physical extra rules to balance it.

This is one reason "seduction" is kind-of a go-to example for this, in my opinion. If you think about it rationally, being a "player" IRL carries a lot of risks for no rewards that would typically be reflected to the guy playing the character. But it happens because sex is apparently really, really enjoyable. (I have to trust that it would be; I've never been married, so I only have experience with hormones strongly hinting that it probably would be.)

Even without overt promise of sex, it's been shown that an attractive girl who is flirting and sending the right signals - even when the target knows it won't go anywhere - can get better service out of (straight) men than can another man or a woman who isn't flirting. They can even do things like, say, talk their way out of tickets, or wrangle discounts. Or get a guy at the bar to pay for her drinks. Again, even if it's perfectly clear she's not going to "put out" in return. Or if all she'll do is give him a kiss. On the cheek. Flirty waitresses apparently also get bigger tips.

(Gender invert that however you like; I'm using a classical example, but I'm sure that gender and preference skews can make any combinations work at various times.)

Whether it's risking the employee getting a reprimand, reducing the cop's quota of tickets, emptying the bar patron's wallet of extra money, all of these things are naught but negatives. Perhaps the game their player is playing doesn't care about resource management on that level, so the whole scene is pure narrative. But in games where those resources matter, or in situations where the thing the flirt is getting for her flirtations actually does have a risk of negative impact on the PC target, the game pressure is to refuse. "I don't care how hot she is; I'm not going to be 5 minutes late to my shift just to enjoy her low-cut top's company a little longer."

Even if the player only suspects that this is a problem because the GM probably wouldn't be having her ask him to be 5 min. late if there wasn't something that could go wrong with that, and is thus metagaming, the game pressure is such that taking that risk isn't worth the interaction. It isn't worth the rush of hormones only the PC experiences from her sexy little performance. It isn't even worth the potential that the PC might get laid later that evening if he woos the girl by spending those extra 5 min. with her to get her number. Because, again, the player doesn't get to experience that. He only suffers the consequences of whatever he's risking happening by being 5 min. late.

Heck, sex itself carries risks. Take your stereotypical carousing adventurer who looks for ale and whores at every tavern between adventures. He sleeps with a different girl (or set of girls) every chance he gets. This carries not only the risks of STDs (which there ARE tables for in a lot of game books!), but also the chance of creating offspring. Offspring for which he may or may not become responsible, or which may or may not have other consequences later.

From the character's perspective, sex is fun and pleasurable and a goal in and of itself. The player, though, aside from the immature "hur hur" that is often associated with it when teens are playing, doesn't get much out of it. And, in fact, most "hur hur" motivated players will swiftly stop this behavior the first time it actually has in-game consequences. That -2 "irritation" penalty from an infestation of crabs is going to annoy him far more than the amusement value of snickering over his character getting laid brings him pleasure.

I'm going to respond to this in reverse order, but first let me just say that this was indeed better than the taco example.

There's a Swedish game called Eon (I hate it with a passion, but that is beside the point), where indeed you get to roll to avoid contracting STDs when your character has sex with prostitutes. I once played a "manly man" kind of adventurer in that game, and indeed did the standard "ale and whore" carousing (since my character had just gotten his hand on some money from the adventure and I figured celebrating is what people do). However, my character was still fairly "cheap" so went for a less costly option to get laid (I decided he thought that quality really didn't matter). The GM then called for an STD roll, which I failed. My character was a bit grumpy, I thought it was mostly funny, and maybe next time he would've gone for a more expensive prostitute.

Anyway, the "sex carries risk" thing has actually been part of games I've played. Sometimes characters take the risk, sometimes they don't. Just like people in real life. I've never experienced any resistance in my players to go through with these actions because they "feel so removed from the character that they can't see how they might be seduced (pun not intended) by their desires despite the risk".

To go back to the seduction part I first want to say that sex really isn't all that it's been cranked up to be. The hormonal response that drags us into it isn't really proportional to the satisfaction. I mean, yes, it's really nice, but it's also a lot of hard work to get it right. Somehow Hollywood has convinced us that sex is the meaning of life. Anyway, that was a tangent, this isn't really about sex, it's about seduction.

As you properly acknowledge, our body's response to the promise of sex means it can be really hard to resist. Not impossible, but hard. It's also true that flirtatious women can often get a better deal out of life. In fact, it's been shown that mere appearance can be enough, as women fitting with society's beauty standard have higher general salary than the women that don't. The difference isn't quite as striking (pun intended) for me, but tall men tend to be more successful than shorter and there's a general bias towards thin over overweight individuals.

One could pause and think if we really want our RPGs to accurately reflect this, in my opinion, rather depressing reality. Maybe we want to imagine a world where things are more equal? Maybe we don't.

Anyway, this will, a bit, come down to social mechanics (as you said). Someone who is good at flirting will have skills in this, and either the game involves some way to resolve these actions with game mechanics the player has to follow, or they don't. Many games have social mechanics that more or less "force" a certain action from a player, without resorting to any of the proposed "RP mechanics".

But let us, for a moment, think about how RP mechanics might work in a situation like this.

So, character A has a meeting in 5 minutes, but a comely woman approaches with a smile, looking to seduce him. Based on real world examples, it is clear that two things can happen; either character A will stay and chat, or carry on in order to be on time. Both kinds of people exist, not everyone is equally seduce-able. We thus have a couple of options:

1. The game is character independent and will grant a token (could be morale point) to the player if their character lets themselves be seduced for five minutes.

2. The game is character dependent and will only grant a token to the character who has "easily seduced" as a trait.

3. The game is character dependent and will offer a token to character A if they act according to their (pre-defined) type. That is, if they are of the type easily seduced, they'll get a token if they are seduced, but if they are of the other kind, they'll get a token if they continue to come on time to the meeting.

If we examine these options a little bit I think we can see that:

1. This means that only players for whom it is in-character to be seduced will get a token for playing roleplaying. One could make an argument to say that "the other player will be rewarded by his character being in time for the meeting". However, is the token equivalent to being on time? One is a clear mechanical benefit whereas the other is more story-based. How do you value story over token? If the token isn't significant enough, there isn't an incentive for the "seduce-able character" player to act in-character, but if it is significant, it will offer an incentive for the "non seduce-able character" player to act OUT of character. That's not really what we want is it?

It means like this character independent system will only serve to enhance roleplaying in some cases, but actually decrease it in other. That's not really ideal to me. If we should have "RP mechanics" they should serve to encourage everyone to roleplay equally.

2. This one is even more problematic, as it's now only one character type who is incentivized. Mechanics like this can work, but it puts a lot of pressure on the GM to construct scenarios that will target every PCs traits equally, or else give unfair advantage to one player. It is a kind of pressure I, as a GM, would prefer to avoid. It is difficult enough to come up with fun and engaging scenarios without having to consider that every character should have equal opportunity to gain tokens. If the game mechanics themselves contained some form of restraining effect (say, once's you've gotten a token you have to wait for all other players to also get one before you can get the next), then maybe it would work. However, that means it won't actually work to give incentive for in-character behavior every time such an opportunity show up.

So, either a bit toothless, failing the mark of what it wants to do, or easily imbalancing the group. I'm not sure this is something I want either.

3. It is quite obvious that this isn't what you want. As going to the meeting was the preferential choice to begin with, it would thus doubly reward the kind of player whose character is pre-defined as not being very seduce-able. Seems a bit unfair right? That would just further inspire people to create characters that only cares about "the goal" and not these other frivolous stuff.

Another big issue is that this type of mechanic means people really have to define their characters extremely well from the start (in order to cover all possible temptations). That is hard to do, and many people don't really know what kind of character they are playing until a few sessions down the road (like myself). Personally, I want my character's personality to both show itself through the decisions I make and to evolve dynamically through play. Having to write down a lot of personality traits and have a system with how often they can change etc just seems like too much work for too little gain.

Do you have another way of creating a system that would incentivize people to play their character's personality in such a situation? My experience is that it isn't necessary; I've had players allowing their character's to be seduced when it's clearly not in their best interest. Not everyone wants to play a perfect rational goal-seeking machine. In fact, very few do. Some people actually experience wish-fulfillment by playing characters that are the target of seduction, as they themselves usually aren't (in real life).

So I guess, yes, if you find it to be a problem that people are not acting the way they think their character should act, then maybe you need to find some "RP mechanics" to help you. I've never actually experienced that problem. When people want to play characters that are high on willpower and not easily seduced by temporary temptations, I let them. Don't think I've had "I really want to play a hot-head" but instead turns out to be a rational willpower machine. Is this really such a big issue in your games?

Bonuses to rolls based on personality are one way to go. While it is far, FAR from perfect (and, in fact, has some near-fatal flaws of its own), Exalted 2E did have something like this in its virtue system. If you wanted, you could expend some willpower and "channel a virtue" into an action that was suited to it. If you're trying to save somebody from torture, you could, for instance, channel Compassion. This gave you more dice, based on your rating in the Virtue, for your roll.

The Infernal Exalted also had a magical ability, called the [Yozi] Excellency, which allowed them to channel the personality traits of the Yozi to which their Excellency is aligned in order to add dice. Usually a lot of dice. Each Yozi had a description of what let you use it, with bolded keywords that were meant to be taken in context but used as a guide as to whether you could use that Excellency on a particular action. Malfeas, for example, let you use his Excellency to add dice to any action that is over the top, commanding, or overkill-level violent.

What I proposed earlier in this thread is a "morale point" system where you can spend morale on tasks to get a bonus, representing your good mood and self-assurance/confidence helping you perform to your best. But that unpleasant tasks and occurrences could cost morale points. As could turning down things you (think you) want (in character). With morale going negative creating penalties to everything you do, as you get depressed, morose, and frustrated and thus can't bring your A-game, or even your C-game.

You would regain morale from rest, from successes and triumphs, and from doing activities you enjoy.

So in the seduction example where the girl is trying to make you 5 minutes late, she essentially uses her social skill roll (whatever it is) to calculate a number of morale points that you would gain by staying with her, and a number you'd have to expend if your time with her is cut short (e.g. by you choosing to leave rather than be 5 min. late).

The carouser may gain morale points from his partying and sexual exploits. (The flaw here is that you could still optimize this by trying to pick "activities I like" as being things which are harmless and carry no risks, so design would have to focus on creating risk/reward balance here.)

But that's the idea behind what I'm proposing: for times where the sole benefit to the character is, essentially, not having to exert willpower/endure misery, or pleasures and enjoyments the player cannot share, we introduce a mechanic which represents the character's mental state, and links it to things the player CAN share: bonuses and penalties in gameplay activities. Done right, it even does make narrative sense: he's so distracted by thinking about that hot girl and what might have been that he does less well on shift (whether due to penalties, or just due to having fewer morale points to spend to improve his rolls). Or, if he took the bait, despite whatever bad came from being 5 minutes late, he got a morale boost and can better react to it as he's feeling good about having gotten that hot girl's number and gotten to enjoy her décolletage.

I suppose you could also just use "5 more minutes in bed in the morning." Sleep in, gain more morale points. But lose time to your day.

Really, anything where the trade-off is one of those human frailties vs. real consequences.

Question about the morale system.

Do you have to pre-define what sort of activities grant you morale points? Does the GM have to pre-define which type reduce or require morale points (I'm guessing not)? What about the times when the system interferes with your internal feelings about your character (as in, you as player feel that this should generate morale but the system say it doesn't)? Can you simply gain morale by saying "this makes me feel better"? Is it the GM that "offers" morale points in return for doing something disadvantageous?

In a way, morale points does sort of represent the human psyche. I just think it can be difficult to implement well without also being overly complex. Perhaps we can work something out?

Perhaps a better example, tying in to seduction, would be in his choice of potential campaign manager.

On the one hand, he has a skilled but boring guy who is a safe bet. On the other, he has a not-quite-as-skilled, but talented due to how she manipulates people, sexy bombshell. Who, because she's a known manipulatrix, is a bit of a risk. They might be evenly matched, in theory, based on risk/reward there. Or slightly advantaged towards Mr. Boring, even, since he's as good despite not being a manipulator.

But the real world would suggest that there's a good chance Ms. Bombshell would be selected anyway, because she interviews better. Even without her actively seducing Armus, the fact that she's easier on the eyes, and that she uses social manipulation (and, yes, seduction, even without promise of sex) to convince Armus that he'd enjoy working with her more, means he's going to find himself finding reasons to rationalize hiring her over Mr. Boring.

Now, this is meant to be an interesting choice, but a cold analysis would suggest that risk/reward has Mr. Boring giving 99% as much reward, but with 60% greater reliability, and 50% of the risk of the campaign manager's agenda undermining Armus's. On paper, in a cold, rational analysis, Mr. Boring is the superior choice, if only a little bit.

Add in RP mechanics (using my morale system for an example), though, means that Mr. Boring is neutral or even slightly draining on morale. Especially if Ms. Bombshell set things up to have Armus be a little disappointed every time he compares dealing with Mr. Boring vs. dealing with Ms. Bombshell. Hiring Ms. Bombshell, on the other hand, will give an infusion of morale, and letting her hang around to cajole Armus into the things that campaign managers cajole their people into doing will actually give more infusions of morale, because she'll make it something he wants to do. Or make him feel good about doing it, if only because her regard is its own reward.

Now, hiring Mr. Boring still gets the overall better chance at better results...of campaign management. (I'm not going to make up the mechanics for this; assume he has skills and reliability and contacts which will play well in the various ways to run the campaign.) Hiring Ms. Bombshell means a risk of fewer "smooth running" advantages that Mr. Boring could have brought, though if she uses her manipulation particularly well AND she doesn't have an agenda which clashes with Armus's, she might do even better. But that's a slim chance; more likely she'll be a little less effective on that front than Mr. Boring. But she's still a constant supply of morale points, and she's ALMOST as good as Mr. Boring.

So now the interesting choice is between a smooth-running, highly efficient machine, or a mostly-smooth-running, still efficient (but not as efficient) machine and a stream of morale points. All reflecting that Ms. Bombshell is a more pleasant/exciting experience to have on staff.

I've never felt that morale points would be necessary in this case either. It is a really interesting choice, and I've had similar things in my campaigns. In fact, a solo campaign I'm currently running has the player choosing NPCs for various positions on the space ship crew all the time. The thing is, you have to make sure it's not clear cut. As you say, Mr. Boring would run the campaign in a very different way than Ms. Bombshell might do. Who's to say which is better? One might be a more "safe bet" whereas the other is a bit of a gamble and could thus turn out to be either better or worse depending on how the GM rolls.

Reality actually says that Mr. Boring will be picked most. Most leadership positions end up in the hands of men after all (I'm making a factual statement, not one of value judgement). So I am not sure that adding mechanics to make Ms. Bombshell the more alluring (pun intended) choice accurately reflects reality. Fact is, some people might prefer Mr. Boring, even on a morale level, as they are similar in personality and thus work better together. It's very hard for game mechanics to accurately predict or portray which will be "most in-character" for any given PC. Both choices are equally valid and comes down to personality. If the "RP mechanics" are meant to incentivize roleplaying, they need to do so equally for ALL characters, not just those who like Bombshells.

It's an interesting choice, but doesn't carry the problem that I'm trying to discuss a solution for.

I can't remember anymore what choice that was referring to. Was it the Ministry of War vs. Ministry of Treasury? I know that doesn't carry the problem that you're discussing a solution for, because, my solution to your problem is not to offer choices with this problem in the first place. I think interesting choices in RPGs are either those of "one story/mechanical beneift" vs. "other story/mechanical benfit" or "one human frailty" vs. "other human frailty". Those are much easier to judge on a roleplaying in-character level.

Most people don't want to play "Reality: the RPG" in the first place, so too many mechanics involving digestion, hormonal response, anxiety and whatnot tend to make the game rather un-fun. Those are the stuff we're trying to escape from by playing.

My fix to your problem lies not on the game mechanics level, but on the GM level. Run games that contain interesting choices where there isn't a conflict between what they character should feel and what the player is feeling. Target both character and player emotion equally. Sometimes by having a choice involving base desires, sometimes one involving larger long-term goals. Other times, make the choice one of morality. That is one thing most players can actually emphasis with (if not, they probably don't have much empathy in the first place since real people are sort of "imaginary" to you anyway).

Some might, but it tends to be a "victory lap" sort of thing. Or a "screw it; I'm doing something goofy" maneuver. Kind-of like unleashing all the disasters on your city (which is an option in Sim City). But you're effectively ceasing to play the game, at that point, and instead are just enjoying some mayhem for the sake of it.

The equivalent would be the player of Armus deciding that, for the heck of it, during his speech he's going to just start hurling fireballs into the crowd while laughing maniacally. (Probably fun...if you have a saved game to return to before you did that.)

Yeah, and TTRPGs usually don't have saved games. Some players would hurl fireballs anyway. Not the kind *I* want to play with, but some would.

Technically, it's "Only things I don't have to use mechanics that can fail me are important." So I decide "enjoying tacos" is important, and don't care about any speeches.

I forgot what led us here, but yeah, people can decide what it is and what isn't important to them. Clearly to you speeches are important. But you are saying you want to play a character who finds tacos more important than speeches and thus would get seduced by them but you the player can't put yourself in the character's shoes well enough to portray that? That seems kind of to be what you are saying.

Let's run with that idea for a moment. The character's view is "tacos over speech" but the player's view is "speech over tacos". Right?

So what you want is something that you as player value more than speech to go along with the taco choice so that you'll pick that instead and thus act "in character"? Only here is the problem that this something has to be different depending on how strongly you, as player, value the speech. If you think the speech is really really REALLY important, then maybe you need 5 tokens to go with the tacos whereas another player only need 1. In some strange convoluted way, if we really want to encourage everyone to act in character, we need to offer everyone individual levels of tokens based on the strength, not of the character's taco desire, but on the players desire to full fill the goal that is conflicting the desire.

This is kind of problematic, and kind of hard to put into a system. It is obvious, to me, that IF the player is of such kind only to weigh their own desires when making a character decision, the reward for ignoring the "speeches goal" has to be large enough to be something the player desire. So whatever RP mechanics we put in to help people act in-character has to be tailored to each specific player for each specific goal.

That is the type of Pandora box I don't feel confident in opening.

You really have no idea how hard it is to honestly evaluate decisions when you're only imagining the discomforts, I take it. This isn't meant as an insult.

It is a lot easier to convince myself right now, that I will get up in the morning tomorrow and exercise without rolling over and going back to sleep, than it is to actually do it in the moment. I had planned to, this morning, in fact, and told myself I would last night before going to bed. I...well, I got an extra hour of sleep, instead. ^^;

I'll do better tomorrow. (I hope.)

There have actually been psychology experiments done (sorry, I have no citations and am too lazy to hunt for them) where people were asked if they would take a piece of cake or a $20 bill after not having eaten in 8 hours, knowing they couldn't eat for another 5 hours if they took the $20 bill (or some variant on this kind of choice). Many more said "sure, I can withstand hunger that long for $20" than actually went through with it. In fact, after another hour of waiting past taking the $20 instead of the cake, they were offered a chance to give up their $20 to be let out of the experiment early. (Again, I'm probably misremembering details, but rough idea) A fair number took the offer, valuing eating more than that $20 in the moment of hunger.

The point being, no, I can't really trust myself to evaluate it. Especially since I'm well-fed and looking at a prize (the Ministry of War) which skews my value judgments. "Surely," I say to myself, "I could resist the temptation of the taco when I know there's a chance that it could cost me the Ministry. It's not like Armus is really starving; he doesn't even suffer penalties yet. And he's more used to deprivation than I am, so if I think I might, with sufficient motivation, do it, surely he can!"

Worse, the taco is a bad example because I, IRL, hate tacos. I truly would go hungry, no matter how bad my low blood sugar headache, because the taco isn't something I could keep down. The flavor just makes me retch.

If we go back to the "seduction" thing, too, if I'm playing a character with a different orientation than mine (e.g. if I'm playing a straight girl, and thus she'd be attracted to guys), it's a lot harder for me to evaluate how effective that male NPC's seduction is. Heck, I've never really been the target of seduction, so I don't even know how well I, personally, could or would resist it. I know, personally, I have moral objections to going past a certain point with a person who isn't my wife, so I suspect I'd say "no" there anyway, but...would I, in the heat of the moment? I have no idea; I've never been in such a situation and cannot judge from experience. (Considering I have been in situations where I've made what I think is the foolish choice - e.g. not getting up and exercising rather than sleeping in - that I thought I could do with enough determination, I know I'm still not a great judge even WITH experience. Without it...? How can I know?)

Is it? I'm sure - right now, drinking a can of soda at the gaming table (in this example) - that I could hold off on a soda for another hour or so. Surely, right?

Well, maybe. Or maybe the headache is just so bad that, no, I decide it's worth the risk. But without experiencing THAT headache at THAT moment, how can I know?

The point of the mechanics I suggest is to quantify the suffering/potential pleasure. To let me, the player, know how serious it is to Armus at THAT point in time.

Ironically speaking, if I claim to have no idea how hard it is to evaluate imaginary discomfort, it actually proves that I AM poor at evaluating imaginary troubles, as then I should be able to put myself into your head and evaluate how hard it is for you to evaluate imaginary discomfort (as that is also then imaginary to me, something I should be good at).

Okay, confusing sentence aside; I do think I'm pretty good at judging how my characters feel in any given situation. Unfortunately, as it may be, that sometimes put me at odds with the GM, as they themselves did not expect players to act on their character's perceived discomforts. They may have constructed a really specific scenario and tailored the wealth gain "just right" and then I destroy all their carefully laid plans by spending a week in at a luxury inn instead of sleeping in a barn and then not be able to afford the [item of doom] that would solve the adventure.

Poor railroading scenarios aside, it actually can be problematic when GMs assume players will function like perfect rational beings and the players then act on what they think are their character's desires.

Poorly executed psychology experiment aside (or maybe it wasn't but the information you provided wasn't the full story), I do find it sad that you can't use your own experiences as a basis for evaluating your character's. I mean, yes, I do agree that it IS hard. Obviously. But that's really the thing. To me, it's something that is hard, but if I can do it successfully, it gives me the player great joy. When I really feel like I DO share the character's pains and desires and whatnot, I feel more alive than I sometimes do when, well, alive. At the very least, it is my largest over-arching player goal. To put myself, as much as possible, into my character's head.

I mean, I don't sweat the little failures, who cares if things are not perfect? But I will try, since succeeding brings me much pleasure (partly because of escapism, partly because it's hard).

If I had game mechanics that would do all that imagining for me, what use is it for me to try hard? When the game tells me how my character is feeling, there is no longer any need for me to feel it myself, is there?

I'd rather have a game that challenged me to do my best, even if I sometimes fail, than have a game that tells me I don't even need to try. I LIKE trying.

Maybe you are different, maybe you don't like to try and evaluate your character's imaginary pains, but still want your character to act in a certain way. So you want the pressure and the help from the mechanics. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. We're all different.

I just find it sad that it seems to be included in just about every single game, and the typical response is "if you like roleplaying, you must like this". Which really isn't true.

It would be better, I think, to only include these things as some extra add-on, or supplementary rules or whatever. Then it would be easier for groups to include them if they like or ignore them if they don't.

Why not? Would Segev NOT lose the weight, gain the muscle, etc.? Is there some way you'd reward, me, the player, for Segev enjoying his sodas and his over-indulgence in calories and not suffering through exercise?

Honest question, here: what would your games and how you run them do to correct for the pressures of mechanics to engage in optimal behavior at the expense of suffering that Segev endures, but Segev's player does not?

I removed part of this as I think it has largely been covered above and instead focus on responding to this question.

In a game I run, any increase to stats have to be paid for with XP. All PCs will get the same amount of XP. Assuming the game is properly balanced, and my adventures versatile enough, there is no single stat is "always better" than anymore.

For some games, I will require the character to make some form of effort to be allowed to spend XP on a stat or skill. So if you want higher Str or Con, you might need to have the character do some form of exercise to aid in this.

However, NOT doing so isn't a mechanical disadvantage. It just means you get to spend your XP differently.

This is what I mean with mechanics being "neutral". Going to the gym isn't necessarily the most "optimal choice". It's just one choice out of many of how to get the character to be mechanically better. Because it will be, no matter which choice you make.

(If you wanted a character who was strong and athletic in the first place, you probably made one that really enjoys working out and not one that doesn't. If the campaign is such that suddenly there is a great external incentive to become fit (like say, there are Vampires who want to kill you), then that might be motivation enough even for real-life Segev to head to the gym, thereby providing character growth.)

So, in essence, I would award everyone the same amount of XP, so going to the gym wouldn't necessarily be the "best mechanical choice", it would simply be "a choice".

So, if I really did make the determination today, and I managed to actually stick with it no matter how miserable it was, I wouldn't be me anymore? :smallwink:

No, I get what you're saying, and a more serious reply is this: Playing "Segev," as opposed to that idealized character, is actively discouraged by the game system. I would like the game system to encourage playing "Segev" as much as the real world encourages me to be "Segev." So that me-as-the-player-of-Segev would actually consider it a reasonable, non-punitive-to-me-the-player choice to keep making the less-optimal (for the long-term goal) choices. So that I, as player, experience some of Segev's misery, myself. Perhaps in terms of lower morale (to use my system). Perhaps from addiction-style mechanics, where the hunger pangs and the exercise misery are treated as penalty-granting things throughout the day until I earn enough points to change my habits.

I think game systems might encourage idealized characters partly because, well, we like escapism and power fantasy. I don't think they encourage that to such a degree as you seem to describe though. Maybe it's because your actual play experiences are different to mine, and your GMs are different than, well, I am. In a game I run, if you wanted to play "real world Segev", I would make sure you didn't suffer diminishing returns, nor got behind in any XP curve. I'm not sure that would be enough to you, but it certainly is enough to most to my players.

Largely because I'd like to be physically more attractive than I am. And because it probably would improve my health. It's my hope that, if I ever manage to change my lifestyle in this fashion, I will get used to it and it won't be so miserable. I hope.

If you want, I can help give you some tips for how to improve your health. Generally, people tend to try and do too much at the same time, thus failing because it is too hard. You need to take baby steps, don't change everything all at once.

And you're right, it won't be so miserable in the long wrong. Maybe still a bit miserable, but at least less so. That I can almost promise you.

Sure. And your own PC's feelings will likely be more strongly accounted than an NPC, even if it's an NPC you are GM-controlling, just because the PC is your sole window into the world.

But when the game creates pressure to make a choice that would require diminishing the misery's importance... it's easier to take it LESS into account than, maybe, you "should."

Easier to say "Segev doesn't sleep in this morning, because he determined he wouldn't last night" when you're not actually lying in bed and having to think about getting up and exercising, yourself, but you WILL have to mark the time when you get that stat improvement as moving further into the future if you don't.

Overall, I agree that yes, it can be hard to take imaginary feelings of misery into account to the level that, maybe, you should. I always think the "should" depend on the type of game you're looking for though. Some like power fantasy and idealized characters more than others. I really don't want the system to decide one way or another which is best.

I've never seen it as being such a big problem that you do though. I've always encouraged my players to play the type of characters they want, and they do, and they don't suffer diminishing returns for it. Many times their characters do make suboptimal decisions despite the lack of "RP mechanical rewards".

What do you think yourself? After having read my posts, do you think that you would be more inspired to make in-character decisions in my games, even despite any morale bonuses, or would it still be a problem?

Floret

2016-12-15, 12:15 PM

Well here is an interesting question, is "not rested" an role-play mechanic?

Good question. Didn't even think about it with the example...

Oh and if anyone remembers my last post: Or even read it.
I am still open to answers but I'll give a bit more context. I'm trying to pine down what makes these mechanics intrusive to people, starting from as far from intrusive as I can get.

On Internal vs. External: I lost the quote I had for this. But I was going to ask, what even defines this line? Because I have a line like this in my system I'm working on and strength and intelligence and so on are on the internal side.

I think the mechanics of your example are fine, though rather similar to what Segev proposed, I feel. It would, though, again be a question how do you determine what makes characters happy/sad, and by how much? I could Imagine a system of leveled traits, to be freely worded (Again, FATE aspects for inspiration), but some give +1 moral point per trigger, some +2 and so on. Or however you wanna do it.
Again, there would need to be some form of advise on what constitutes a +1 and what a +2 (Same for the negative).

I can certainly see why people might have problems with these free-form elements of character creation if not used to them. It took me quite some time to adapt to FATE, but after I did, it becomes easier. I always found the method of "try to assign aspects to characters from other media" to be particularly helpful to constructing them. And, yes, this takes practise, and there will be edge cases. Again, group consensus and good advice on how to construct these sorts of things can do a great deal of making it more managable. (I like the way FATE Core does the advice very much. It is available for free online, and I advise anyone to take a look. Much better than the system that I first read about them in explained them. German FATE conversion, that one. And, sure, what we are designing isn't aspects, but I'd argue the same thing can be done for these "personality traits".)

Also the question remains: What do morale points do? Before that question is answered, they are unobtrusive, sure, but it is also hard to say anything concrete.
Can they be spent on rerolls? (Wouldn't work ideal, I think, for a system that makes you loose them in other ways)
Do you drop dead when you run out? (somewhat ridiculous), but do you break down crying? Are they pseudo-hit points, granting bonuses to everything if above certain thresholds, and mali if they fall below them? A lot of ways to design this, depending on what you want to model.
(I could imagine a "declining moral spiral", similar to the "death spiral" of L5R and similar systems that hand out mali for falling below certain thresholds of HP might be interesting. Something similar to Darkest Dungeon (A PC game, mind) that requires morale upkeep if you don't wanna loose your characters to psychological issues and the dangers they might bring with them. Maybe more suited for a darker sort of game.)
And, as you are, I am somewhat unsure on the line between external and internal. It has been put upon as a fact and clear-cut, but I fail to see it that way (And also, largely, why the distinction should matter or the "internals" be holy untouchables.)

I would say that the point of mechanics that force the player to act in accordance with their listed personality are good for a group that tend to munchkin, so long as the rules are balanced from a risk versus reward perspective. [...] If they know exactly what situations their character would do something stupid in, it can be annoying if the dice say that they have decided is out-of-character.
There are situations where it might add to the fun, but not many.

I feel like this is largely missing the point of the debate. None of the rules listed are in any way designed to "force" any behaviour, or even roll the dice to determine how the character would act. (Now, rolling the dice for how much resources it would cost/get the character to act in a certain way is something different). Apart, of course, from the rules that started this thread, yes, but those are trying to simulate the character being non-free willed and made of pure myth. I don't think one can take these as a good example for such rules.
Also, I would strongly argue with the point that there are "not many" situations. Maybe for you, but for me I can see a whole lot of them, and want the rules purely for the fun they could add.

I think Floret made a point that I feel will get lost among the rest of their great reaponses, and won't be addressed properly.

TL;DR
RP rules aren't necessary. But they're fun for some people. That is sufficient reason to justify their existence.

Oh, yes, thank you for pointing that out so clearly! It is absolutely I point I wanted to make, and I maybe didn't stress enough, yes. I do tend to write long posts despite trying to restrict myself, so some things might fall overboard. (Also, thanks for the compliment on my points^^)
I find it rather interesting that we two are both coming from a similar place appearantly, and even so far as that we both cherish (some for) of Free-form; as well as Gamedesign. Maybe that has something to do with shaping perspectives.

Even if one were to hypothetically say that there were "incentive" and "punishment" when the rules don't include RP mechanics (an notion I utterly reject, clearly), then RP mechanics are straight up fighting fire with gasoline.
So far none of these, including Segev's, produce even a mote of resonance with anything I've ever experienced regarding "how I work".

A notion you do utterly reject, yes, but I am still curious as to on what base you reject the notion and explanations that in the examples you brought, at least, there was a clear punishment for "in character" decisions, even IF your perspective might have not made it feel like one. I feel like you still need to adress these points.
Also, for a more productive question: How DO you work? What exactly do the rules not model properly, what do you think they fail to notice, what do they focus on unnecessarily? In what way could the rules be improved to better model you?

Segev

2016-12-15, 12:23 PM

My thought is that's it's going to encourage players to play the rules, rather than play the character. My counterargument is that existing rules encourage players to play the rules, rather than the character, anyway. So there is no degradation of quality of character-playing by introducing rules which help align mechanics with characterization.

Even if one were to hypothetically say that there were "incentive" and "punishment" when the rules don't include RP mechanics (an notion I utterly reject, clearly), then RP mechanics are straight up fighting fire with gasoline. Perhaps it's simply that you're getting hung up on them being called "RP mechanics." Arguably, ALL mechanics are "RP mechanics." The mechanics I'm proposing are designed to improve the simulation, is all.

So far none of these, including Segev's, produce even a mote of resonance with anything I've ever experienced regarding "how I work".I can't speak to "how you work," as I am not you. But when we delve far enough into things, it seems to me that what I'm talking about does jive with how you describe yourself working. Which means at least one of us is failing to communicate something to the other. This frustrates me; I dislike failure to communicate.

Personality traits are different, they're kind of internal to the character. So the player might feel very strongly about this being a case of their traits coming into play, but the GM feels different. These kind of discussions are much harder to reach an agreement in, and also harder (speaking from a GM's point of view) to adjudicate in a neutral way.

Also, it kind of turns the game into "who can write the 'best' character traits". As in, the ones that are most likely to come up often. I want people to write characters that they actually feel like playing, not trying to meta-game and fit their personality into some mind-reading game of what type of situations I, as a GM, might provide.

A spin-off to this is; what if I have a character trait called "competitive"? Can I call on that for basically every roll I make as I'm now performing an action where I am trying to achieve (e.g. "win") at something, and since I am really competitive I will always do my best? Seems plausible but also kind of silly.Oh, I agree, there's an element of "pushing back the question" here. You can optimize anything. The thing is that, in my experience, game systems have a tendency to lack what we've been terming in this thread "RP mechanics" beyond this: "You should take things because they fit your character, not because they're powerful/optimal."

I'm going to use Paladium (parent system for the Rifts setting) as an example for a moment, because it has a few particularly egregious samples. Most notably, to me, "Boxing."

Boxing gives you an extra action every round. For those not familiar with Paladium's system, just pretend it did this in D&D, because while the latter is slightly more powerful, it's not too far off in terms of just how good it is in this system.

If you have the Boxing skill as an option your class will let you take, there is little to no reason not to take it. GMs for Paladium have noticed this, however, and a fair number - and some of the books themselves, IIRC - will scold players that they shouldn't take skills (like Boxing) just because they're powerful. Is your character REALLY likely to have been trained in Boxing? Really?

This, of course, leads the power-gamer/optimizer to optimize his backstory to justify it. The most transparent fig leaves tend to be "oh, yeah, I used to hang out at the boxing gym with my brother/dad/friend/mentor," while those with GMs on the lookout for such backgrounds will write detailed "ex-pro boxer" backstories that are "essential" to how the PC came to be who he is.

In other words, optimizing backstory/personality to justify something that is just good design for your character. Because the game system is unbalanced and tries to fix that by scolding you for "bad RP."

This, obviously, has little to do with the "RP mechanics" rules we're discussing, other than to acknowledge that those, too, can become "optimizable" if you're not careful. "Well, I'll just make sure to have an optimal personality that only ever helps me."

This, too, though, already happens. The optimal personality just happens, under the "RP mechanic-less" systems we're looking at, to be a murder-hobo. At least, as a general rule, murder-hobos arise as a consequence of the most optimal personality being somebody who is Spartan about his comforts, has no connections to property he can't carry with him nor to people who can't take care of themselves (i.e. NPCs), and only cares about morality in a personally advantageous way. He is immune to seduction, to bribery with creature comforts or riches that don't give him more personal power, and to any appeals to emotion other than greed (which again must be feeding his power-acquisition) or ambition (more power acquisition).

Because anything else is a weakness. It's giving up opportunities to get stronger and do better at the parts of the game the player actually gets to play for things which the player doesn't get to enjoy or doesn't have to suffer through.

So yes, optimization of "personality traits" is a thing to watch out for, but it's going to happen anyway.

It is true that there will always be some disconnect, but I think it's far weaker than you give it credit for.

Then again, I've always had very good imagination. It's been my constant companion since I was a child, and I often find it easier to connect with emotions when I do it through imaginary characters in a RPG than I do with my OWN emotions (not talking about hunger here, but things like joy, sadness etc). That's probably not a very good sign for my mental health, but anyway...I would say that my imagination is actually excessively active, and has always been so. (My sister tells me she used to listen outside my room as I talked to myself in different voices and made sound effects for confrontations between various sides in magic sci-fi wars.)

The thing is, I have a tendency to assign/imagine drives and emotions that are far starker than reality suggests. Under my control, a character doesn't give in to something, he perseveres. (I wish I could say the same for myself.) Unless I want that character to fail. I suppose it's more "author" than "actor" stance, to borrow those terms. But at the same time, I do put myself in those roles, but in so doing, I still only share in the things that I can experience through whatever medium I'm using.

In a game, I share in the triumphs and failures that actually matter to playing the game (more than playing the character), even though I do strongly value playing the character.

It really is the same thing that makes using dice to determine if my PC can hit that target or not important: I know my PC is "reasonably good" at target shooting, and that there's a chance he will and a chance he won't hit it. If I'm the sole arbiter of whether he does or not, the fact that he has a reasonable-to-good chance to do so justifies my decision that he DOES. But argument may arise that I have him succeed at target-shooting way too often. Shouldn't he fail more often? Okay, then, how often? What percent of the time? And how do we determine if THIS shot is a success or failure, since THIS one is for the game-important prize? I mean, if you think about it, "I choose the times that don't matter for him to fail, and the times that do matter for him to succeed" could still yield the right percentage accuracy!

The same thing applies to emotional pressures, luxury indulgences, pleasurable temptations, and endurances of suffering. Sure, he doesn't ALWAYS manage to push through the misery of hunger, but since the GM is asking me about it this time, I decide he will. Sure, he doesn't ALWAYS hold his temper, even in dicey situations, but since it's on screen this time and I'll have to suffer the consequences, he does THIS time.

This is why we use dice, rather than player decision, about physical skill results. This is why some sort of mechanic, dice or otherwise, should accrue for linking the character's real emotional investment to the player's gameplay experience.

I guess people have different levels of imagination. Mine is very strong, but unfortunately I often feel like these "RP mechanics" pushes me back a step. Instead of the game asking me to try and imagine and FEEL the emotions myself, it now tells me "you have X emotion to Y action is most likely".

This is probably the "ceiling" that's been up for discussion before. If we have a scale of "how much you are in-tune with your character's feelings" from 1-10, and I function on 8 whereas Segev on 5 (hypothetical values, not real ones). The game without RP mechanics then says "try as hard as you can to reach high on the scale", but the one with them says "you only need to reach 6, that's enough", then there is little incentive to move higher. Thus an experienced "ceiling".This argument puzzles me. But I can't dispute it entirely. It is true: Ask random people to help with something, and various people will help to various degrees, for free. Offer people 3 tiers of reward (say $5, $10, and $15) for various degrees of help, and almost nobody will help beyond the $15 level.

But at the same time, I think that this experiment is flawed in analogy, because the context of playing an RPG is such that the social expectation that you're "playing your character" is the same. Now it's just offering some insight into what "your character" really is feeling.

Also, I don't think the "ceiling" applies because there isn't a bar set by the mechanics. There's a reward/penalty paradigm associated with some choices. Since you can still choose to take the penalty if you feel that it's "worth it," or you feel it's "in character," you can go ahead and do so. There's no ceiling here, because there's no "above and beyond" that you could have done. In situations which still lack the RP mechanics, you are faced with the same RP choices you had where no RP mechanics existed at all, so again, no ceiling. It's more "different lanes." And you happen to be in a "mechanic-less" lane for some choices.

That said, I kind of like Segev's morality mechanic. It has some basis in how people's psyche normally work, and doesn't really create a ceiling in the same way as other mechanics do. I think it will be difficult to implement properly and can easily become overly complicated, but it's worth to investigate.
Ah, thanks. Okay, confusion resolved; you're not saying what I'm proposing creates a ceiling.

I do see how the "get an XP if you RP this much" meets your "soft ceiling" criterion, though I still think it less likely to rear its head in the context of a game where people already came to the table intending to RP. The distorted "force this RP in" flaw seems more likely to arise, to me.

Segev

2016-12-15, 02:15 PM

1. The game is character independent and will grant a token (could be morale point) to the player if their character lets themselves be seduced for five minutes.

This means that only players for whom it is in-character to be seduced will get a token for playing roleplaying. One could make an argument to say that "the other player will be rewarded by his character being in time for the meeting". However, is the token equivalent to being on time? One is a clear mechanical benefit whereas the other is more story-based. How do you value story over token? If the token isn't significant enough, there isn't an incentive for the "seduce-able character" player to act in-character, but if it is significant, it will offer an incentive for the "non seduce-able character" player to act OUT of character. That's not really what we want is it?

It means like this character independent system will only serve to enhance roleplaying in some cases, but actually decrease it in other. That's not really ideal to me. If we should have "RP mechanics" they should serve to encourage everyone to roleplay equally.
This is, indeed, an issue. Should Suzy Seductress really be able to make Gaylord Flam Beyonce - misogynistic lover of men - want to spend time with her bared bosom? At a minimum, you'd think she'd have a more difficult time of it. Which brings us to...

2. The game is character dependent and will only grant a token to the character who has "easily seduced" as a trait.

This one is even more problematic, as it's now only one character type who is incentivized. Mechanics like this can work, but it puts a lot of pressure on the GM to construct scenarios that will target every PCs traits equally, or else give unfair advantage to one player. It is a kind of pressure I, as a GM, would prefer to avoid. It is difficult enough to come up with fun and engaging scenarios without having to consider that every character should have equal opportunity to gain tokens. If the game mechanics themselves contained some form of restraining effect (say, once's you've gotten a token you have to wait for all other players to also get one before you can get the next), then maybe it would work. However, that means it won't actually work to give incentive for in-character behavior every time such an opportunity show up.

So, either a bit toothless, failing the mark of what it wants to do, or easily imbalancing the group. I'm not sure this is something I want either.
Here, of course, Gaylord is not going to be influenced, which, from a simulation perspective, makes sense, but from a balance perspective, does not. The obvious argument here is that, if it's a deliberate effort by sinister forces to have Suzy seduce him into being late to his meeting, these same sinister sybarites would seek to send Miles Musculon, student and sometime lover of Jack Harkness.

That answer reveals the overall solution to this problem, even without deliberate effort on the part of some pernicious force: sometimes, your likes will be triggered, and others, they won't.

Used in social mechanics, too, this makes some sense: the socialite should not be able to forcibly make you like what she wants you to like. Instead, she should learn what you do like and try to manipulate you with that.

3. The game is character dependent and will offer a token to character A if they act according to their (pre-defined) type. That is, if they are of the type easily seduced, they'll get a token if they are seduced, but if they are of the other kind, they'll get a token if they continue to come on time to the meeting.

It is quite obvious that this isn't what you want. As going to the meeting was the preferential choice to begin with, it would thus doubly reward the kind of player whose character is pre-defined as not being very seduce-able. Seems a bit unfair right? That would just further inspire people to create characters that only cares about "the goal" and not these other frivolous stuff.

Another big issue is that this type of mechanic means people really have to define their characters extremely well from the start (in order to cover all possible temptations). That is hard to do, and many people don't really know what kind of character they are playing until a few sessions down the road (like myself). Personally, I want my character's personality to both show itself through the decisions I make and to evolve dynamically through play. Having to write down a lot of personality traits and have a system with how often they can change etc just seems like too much work for too little gain.

On the one hand, typically no. Though if the "don't be late" were due to playing off of some personality trait or other social influence, perhaps so.

The underlying assumption of this scenario is that "sexy girl" is on the list of temptations that actually matter to [target character]. It's meant as a stand-in, not a singular example. Replace Suzy Seductress with whatever temptations are applicable to [target character] to see why the mechanic is needed.

As to defining the character particularly well, yes and no.

Do you have another way of creating a system that would incentivize people to play their character's personality in such a situation? My experience is that it isn't necessary; I've had players allowing their character's to be seduced when it's clearly not in their best interest. Not everyone wants to play a perfect rational goal-seeking machine. In fact, very few do. Some people actually experience wish-fulfillment by playing characters that are the target of seduction, as they themselves usually aren't (in real life).

So I guess, yes, if you find it to be a problem that people are not acting the way they think their character should act, then maybe you need to find some "RP mechanics" to help you. I've never actually experienced that problem. When people want to play characters that are high on willpower and not easily seduced by temporary temptations, I let them. Don't think I've had "I really want to play a hot-head" but instead turns out to be a rational willpower machine. Is this really such a big issue in your games?

(...)

Question about the morale system.

Do you have to pre-define what sort of activities grant you morale points? Does the GM have to pre-define which type reduce or require morale points (I'm guessing not)? What about the times when the system interferes with your internal feelings about your character (as in, you as player feel that this should generate morale but the system say it doesn't)? Can you simply gain morale by saying "this makes me feel better"? Is it the GM that "offers" morale points in return for doing something disadvantageous?

In a way, morale points does sort of represent the human psyche. I just think it can be difficult to implement well without also being overly complex. Perhaps we can work something out?

I answer the question in the last quote here, as it's related to this quote as well.

A complete picture of this system would include (but not be limited to, and still probably require refinement of) Aspect-like personality traits, Exalted-inspired mechanics for building and eroding those traits, and a certain amount of broad-brush understanding. Using the "morale points" basis, the GM would no more have to pre-define the "unpleasantness" rating of things he feels a character would dislike than he would have to pre-define the DC of a skill check at which he feels a character wouldn't automatically succeed. Perhaps Traits come with ratings of their own, which represent how many morale points resisting temptations to indulge costs as well as how many indulging can gain. The ratings might also be used to counterbalance Unpleasantnesses. A kid with a Trait that says he LOVES playing in mud and getting dirty at rating 3 might be able to pit that against the Unpleasantness 5 of wading through a smelly sewer. A student of architecture or of sewer life might have a Trait that makes the exploration of it fascinating and likewise counteract the Unpleasantness. Heck, (to borrow from D&D), perhaps Profession(Sewer Worker) leaves you innured to it, allowing you to subtract your skill bonus from the Unpleasantness. Or make a roll to ignore/reduce it.

When it comes to things like Suzy trying to delay Gaylord, I wouldn't actually bake Gaylord's sexual preferences into the morale point awards/costs. I would instead have the morale point rewards/costs be related to how well Suzy rolls her social skills. I would bake Gaylord's preferences into either the bonus (or penalty) at which Suzy rolls, or into the threshold/target value Suzy has to achieve. As a simplistic example, let's say that Gaylord's base defense against any social roll is 10+(Sense Motive Bonus). (This is probably not a good value for it in a better-developed system, but work with me here for this example, please.) Gaylord has "Flagrantly Homosexual" at 4, and "Women are Horrible" at 3 as a couple of traits. Because Gaylord's player has made it clear all along that "Flagrantly Homosexual" is as much a disinterest in sex with women as it is an interest in sex with men, the two of these wind up becoming either additions to his base DC to be persuaded by a woman's seductive efforts, or penalties to her roll at said efforts. Either way, she now has to essentially beat (17 + [Gaylord's Sense Motive bonus]), rather than 10+(Gaylord's Sense Motive Bonus). If she gets to offer 1:1 morale point rewards/penalties for staying/going for each point she exceeded that DC, she's going to have to roll 7 points higher to manage it.

An alternative approach might be to bake it in to the morale points, after all: Suzy still just rolls against 10+sense motive, with 1:1 reward/penalty for each point by which she exceeds that. But Gaylord would have an Unpleasantness 7 rating due to his two traits that say he HATES this interaction, meaning it costs him 7 morale points to even go along with it. So she's going to have to offer him more than that to get away. I don't like this one quite as much, in practice, though, because it means that she can penalize him either way. Unless he can gain morale points for going with his two traits against her social roll. Hrm.

And yes, I know this is rife for abuse intra-party. "Brad, could your bard please roll to persuade my character to set up camp tonight? I need the extra morale points from giving in to that persuasion." So it's not by any means perfect. But it's a rough outline of something that starts to encourage what I'm going for, I think.

Oh, and mechanics for building and eroding traits would also need to exist. Probably a slow-ish process related to how often a trait earns or costs you morale, to represent you learning to hate or love something you previously liked, hated, or were indifferent to.

I do find it sad that you can't use your own experiences as a basis for evaluating your character's. I mean, yes, I do agree that it IS hard. Obviously. But that's really the thing. To me, it's something that is hard, but if I can do it successfully, it gives me the player great joy. When I really feel like I DO share the character's pains and desires and whatnot, I feel more alive than I sometimes do when, well, alive.The issue, here, is that there's not really any way for me to tell if I really "got it right." Did I have Armus eat the taco because it was really, truly, "in character," or was it just guilt over the possibility that I would be playing out of character? Did I have Armus refuse it because he's that dedicated, or because I'm a metagaming munchkin?

If I had game mechanics that would do all that imagining for me, what use is it for me to try hard? When the game tells me how my character is feeling, there is no longer any need for me to feel it myself, is there?
On the contrary, I think the game telling you how strong the urges are makes it more powerful as RP. Now, if you resist the seductor's charms, the resistance is meaningful because of the penalties suffered. You're feeling your character's pains, mechanically. But you know that she has the grim satisfaction of sticking to her guns and doing "the right thing" (whatever it is she chose to do instead of what the seductor wanted).

By making the choices MECHANICALLY meaningful, you make the RP choice have an appropriate level of meaning. It's easy to say that Hiro Protagonist turns down the vacation of a lifetime to be able to afford a new +5 sword. It has more meaning when you, the player of Hiro, actually have to give up something commensurate with Hiro's potential enjoyment of that vacation.

It would be better, I think, to only include these things as some extra add-on, or supplementary rules or whatever. Then it would be easier for groups to include them if they like or ignore them if they don't.
The reason I push for it to be "core" is because it ties in to social mechanics, if done right/well.

Sam Shyster the Salesman is going to use social mechanics to sell things well above retail. It's all too easy to say "no, I won't buy his overpriced junk" when the GM isn't slick like Sam. Add in mechanics that make it so that you really share in your PC's satisfaction at buying this thing he doesn't need, though, and suddenly Sam's social skills are effective in the game.

From a PC socialite's perspective, too, these mechanics let them show the GM a real, mechanical measure of how influential they are on NPCs. Without having to "mind control" the NPCs. The PC offers rewards or penalties for doing (or not doing) what he asks of the NPCs, and the NPCs act how the GM wants. But if they don't do what the PC wants, appropriate penalties apply, and the PC thus got use out of his social prowess even if the NPC, according to the GM, would never do as asked. The guilt/desire/urge/distraction is enough to still be of use to the PC.

What do you think yourself? After having read my posts, do you think that you would be more inspired to make in-character decisions in my games, even despite any morale bonuses, or would it still be a problem? Hard to say. The thing is that I feel like I'm doing a bad job getting my point across, as the wrong parts of my analogies and examples become the focus of what you reply to. I do think you get what I am saying, a fair bit of the time, as evidenced by some of the points you've said, but...

Well, the biggest thing you've indicated is that it just wouldn't be a problem. And you're right, a lot of what I've used as examples wouldn't be in a lot of games. I've had to contrive some mechanical rewards that are unlikely to use real-world examples, for instance.

I mean, let's be honest: if we could just expend XP on anything we wanted IRL, and it didn't have to reflect anything we did with our downtime or even our screen time, we'd all be different than we are, to one degree or another. I would have a ST and CN of 12 or so, and (given that physical description isn't even stat-dependent) I'd not have the obvious gut and would have some definition to my muscles. (Truth be told, I'm not "obviously" fat by American standards, just slightly overweight, despite the BMI charts insisting I'm obese. I don't feel obese, and I am exaggerating my dissatisfaction with my body a little, because expressing it in precise terms is difficult without going into essay-length posts on just that. And frankly, that's both gross and beside the point.)

I have fun in lots of games where this punishment-for-RP thing comes up, in spite of it. So please don't take it as a judgment on your games when I say that I am not convinced that the way you run it would avoid the frustrations I am expressing with the lack of "RP mechanics."

Floret

2016-12-15, 04:15 PM

No single set of RPG rules can accurately cover all possible scenarios, or all possible parts of human existence. That is simply an order to tall to request.
However, rules were, I think, never truly meant to be RULES. I think that it is unfortunate that the true nature of how RPGs are supposed to work are often forgotten and have largely been reduced to "rule 0".
Rules were never meant to be anything other than help or guideline for the GM. Instead of the GM having to come up with mechanical effects for ALL situations, the game now offers them for some situations that are likely to occur. But, in situations where the rules are silent, the GM has to do their job.

Yes, I do realize the latter "description" part only works if people actually try to imagine being inside the world. But if they don't, what's really the point of roleplaying? We might as well play some form of D&D-inspired Descent game.

Anyway, my largest reply to this "problem" is that the GM HAS TO invoke penalties that aren't mentioned in the rules, simply because the rules can't cover everything. Why do you blame the for the failure of the GM to do their job?

So your problem with RP rules is that they require some GM arbitration to be fair enough, which might make people salty, but your solution instead is to rely totally on GM arbitration?
Sorry for phrasing it so over-the top but that is essentially what this combination of arguments boils down to.
Also I don't quite agree with your points. Yes, rules should have some leeway and not model in too great detail. But "just let the GM fill in the blanks/fudge it, that is how the game is MEANT to be played!" I find to be a rather strange and upsetting argument. Because 1) It is again arguing about "how things are SUPPOSED to be", aka. everything else is having Badwrongfun, and 2) ...who decided that? I, as a GM, surely will make some judgement and arbitration - but I heavily dislike houserules, for example. And I don't think "having and wanting clear rules and guidelines that cover a lot of things" is me refusing to "do my job" or whatever. Being GM isn't a job in the first place.
As well as the premise... sorry, no, I don't buy that it is impossible for rules to cover everything. Everything IN DETAIL? Sure. But not impossible to cover everything. Rules-lite systems do things like that all the time.

1. The game is character independent and will grant a token (could be morale point) to the player if their character lets themselves be seduced for five minutes.
2. The game is character dependent and will only grant a token to the character who has "easily seduced" as a trait.
3. The game is character dependent and will offer a token to character A if they act according to their (pre-defined) type. That is, if they are of the type easily seduced, they'll get a token if they are seduced, but if they are of the other kind, they'll get a token if they continue to come on time to the meeting.

Another big issue is that this type of mechanic means people really have to define their characters extremely well from the start (in order to cover all possible temptations). That is hard to do, and many people don't really know what kind of character they are playing until a few sessions down the road (like myself). Personally, I want my character's personality to both show itself through the decisions I make and to evolve dynamically through play. Having to write down a lot of personality traits and have a system with how often they can change etc just seems like too much work for too little gain.

My argument would be: 1) Isn't actually RP rules at all, they are not modelling character, they are social rules, about how to get characters to go along with things. 2) would actually be RP rules, and... I dunno, the problems you list really only apply to certain ways of doing these mechanics. And, sure, player traits might come up more or less often, but players with agency can generally steer the game a bit in appropriate situations, and if the token isn't THAT centrally important, it would not unbalance the game if one players did not come up as often as anothers. As with many things, this depends heavily on execution. 3) is kinda the same in green to me, to be honest. As for your objections... the whole thing is, these RP rules aren't meant to give benefits for character drawbacks, as far as I understood them. They are meant as an equalizer when a player takes a mechanically suboptimal decision in favor of a RP one. In the example "get held up for 5 minutes or not" none of the sides in the original actually has any mechanics involved. Such rules would not be required to solve any imbalance that isn't there (yet).
To your last point... not really, in my view. Sure, might be too little gain for you. For me? I'd really like such a system (With the goals I set for it, only solving the problem Segev has incidentally, if at all), and I find FATE (that does sth similar) to be doing that quite excellent already.

If I had game mechanics that would do all that imagining for me, what use is it for me to try hard? When the game tells me how my character is feeling, there is no longer any need for me to feel it myself, is there?

No? I mean, why would it eliminate it? If you have a guideline for how to feel, be it written down character description, hard-baked into the rules character descriptors or even just your own mental image of "who the character is" - that is something that shall aid you in feeling it yourself. If the end point was feeling it yourself beforehands, why should that change just because some other source tells you what that feeling might be?

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-15, 07:24 PM

ComradeBear

2016-12-15, 07:38 PM

I can't keep up with the volume of discussion and detail.

There's another reason I'm suspicious of these sorts of rules -- they bleed subjective matters into the objective framework of a game's mechanics. The character's thoughts and feelings are given the power to directly affect the reality of the game's settings through their influence over inputs or outputs of the mechanics. This is effectively magic of a very particular sort, and really only appropriate to certain settings.

This is closely related to one of my core objections to "narrative rules" -- in that case reality appears to be warped by the "needs of the story".

This is a very individual problem and does not expand to the community at large.

Basically put, your personal feelings about narrative have no impact into whether or not RP rules are good or bad. You just don't happen to like them.

And that's reason enough for you to avoid them, but insufficient reason to say that they're not worth having ever for anybody.

To put it simply, this is a complicated way of saying "They tend to irritate one of my pet peeves."
It's neat information, but is essentially an opinion and not good fodder for discussion.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-15, 08:00 PM

Just out of curiosity, (Because to the first part my answer would be "Okay, playing without them is better to you, sure") what would you feel is limiting about (numbers taken from my earlier post) Model 2, if done with something non-permanent, or (especially) Model 3?

1. "XP for playing character" -- this only becomes a problem if the GM is awarding based on caricatures, archetypes, tropes, etc. As you note, this is when it starts to distort and limit roleplaying. If the character is allowed to be nuanced and complex, and the awards for the attempt and intent rather than great acting skill or whatever, then this really doesn't distort play that much.

2. " Tradeoff for In-character decisions negatively effecting mechanics otherwise". Many systems along these lines tempt the players to "farm" the tradeoff by playing to specific traits. And again, as far as I'm concerned, cause-and-effect consequences are not punishments, and there's nothing there to offset in the first place. The real world doesn't give you a magic cookie to offset the negative effects of an action or decision, even when they're negative consequences for doing the right thing. I see no reason a game should either.

3. "Personality traits influencing dicerolls" -- players distort their character's actions to game the mechanical benefits, play to simplified caricatured traits, etc. Plus, any time you want to show any nuance or complexity or internal conflict for your character, most of these systems lean towards considering that "not in character".

So, as Talakeal pointed out, a simulationist perspective. (I know you don't like the term, but as I said in a different thread, that does not make it less applicable. And as having a shared register of terms is very helpful for communication, I am going to use the existing terms most people understand and use. Sorry. )

My objection is less to the term, and more to the baggage that people attach to it. Once people say "you're a simulationist", they start making assumptions about the sort of games you like, the sort of systems you like, the sort of characters you play, etc.

I find your "punching the wall" example to be somewhat poorly chosen, since I don't think even proponents of RP rules would disagree with you there. Punching the wall is not something that generally has positive sideeffects, that humans might feel tempted to do.

Though... I would go so far as to say, that if my character is hitting the wall intentionally, they're gonna have some reason for doing that, just as humans have IRL (Letting off pent-up frustration, mostly). So if the game models this in any way, I want a mechanical benefit to punching the wall to accurately simulate this.

Punching a wall is something I've seen someone do when they were inconsolably angry.

However, there's no objective benefit to punching the wall -- why should the game's mechanics give any sort of benefit when there is not benefit?

(The following paragraph depends heavily on splitting off "Role-playing games" in "Role playing" and "game" aspects)
Now, your other example, is somewhat perfect. Because it illustrates what I think Segev has been trying to say very well: There is game incentive for certain choices. There WAS a game incentive to commit the Diablerie. There is no denying that. The other players got more powerful, rewarded in the context of the "Game" part of the experience.

Now, it was, for you, not enough to overcome your desire to make the in-character decision not to do it. And maybe not even enough to consider it, I can't tell. But there was an incentive there, just not enough for you. Maybe for one of the other players, since they seem to all have taken up the offer, but maybe they were just playing characters that would jump at the opportunity.

You did not view it as punishment, because you seem to actually care solely about the Role-playing aspect (To which, if that is truly so, the question "why use the rules, the game part, at all" does at least SEEM valid, if you get nothing out of them). But from a Game-perspective, it was. One choice was, gamistically, objectively better.

I don't view it as a punishment because there's a difference between the natural outcome of sequence of events, and a punishment.

A punishment is a deliberate action taken by one person in response to an action by another person (that they have some form of power over) that they don't approve of. Reality -- operating in a blend of objective, unthinking, unmotivated, cause-and-effect; and randomness -- does not punish.

If someone jumps off a tall cliff and falls to their death, their death is not a punishment... it is the simple consequence of their action.

If a character doesn't commit Diablerie, then they don't get the benefits of Diablerie. That's not a punishment, that's simple cause-and-effect.

And, even though you do not: Can you understand that some people let that skew their perception of "who their character is" and shift that construct just a little, to be able to justify taking this bonus? I know as a fact for me the decision wouldn't have been as clear and easy. (I do value the "game" aspect, for TRPGs). And can you understand that for these people, giving them rules with Tradeoffs of a different kind for it, to help them stay in character, and not shift character or toss it out, might be a positive thing? (These tradeoffs still have to make sense in-world, sure, but a LOT of things can make sense in-world, if you care to think about justified reactions and the like.)

If another player makes that decision, then that's what their character does.

People aren't consistent, and we see some people tempted to do things they'd otherwise never do if the (real or perceived) gain is big enough. I've had people tell me that they'd get naked on national television for a million dollars, and call me a liar when I say that I wouldn't. Or ask me how much money it would take, and then call me a liar when I say "Not for a billion, or a trillion".

A hypothetical someone who only cares about the game side, however... I mean that choice is obvious.

That hypothetical person should perhaps be playing CRPGs or board games. An RPG is about more than manipulating numbers and working the system.

The setting...the world in which the game is taking places... that "other reality"... that's the actual territory. The rules are just the map of it. If you're not mapping a "territory" where a person's feelings can physically affect the actual world around them, then the rules of the game should not allow their feelings to do so either. If you're not mapping a "territory" where "dramatic considerations" can physically affect the actual world, then the rules of the game should not give weight to "dramatic considerations".

Floret

2016-12-15, 09:51 PM

1. "XP for playing character" -- this only becomes a problem if the GM is awarding based on caricatures, archetypes, tropes, etc. As you note, this is when it starts to distort and limit roleplaying. If the character is allowed to be nuanced and complex, and the awards for the attempt and intent rather than great acting skill or whatever, then this really doesn't distort play that much.
2. " Tradeoff for In-character decisions negatively effecting mechanics otherwise". Many systems along these lines tempt the players to "farm" the tradeoff by playing to specific traits. [...]
3. "Personality traits influencing dicerolls" -- players distort their character's actions to game the mechanical benefits, play to simplified caricatured traits, etc. Plus, any time you want to show any nuance or complexity or internal conflict for your character, most of these systems lean towards considering that "not in character".

General Question: Why. Just why. Is with introducing these mechanics suddenly such a big incentive to play for the mechanical optimum - but never for any of the other myriad of rules that exist, especially those that Segev points out have some mechanical optimum that might be opposed to RP from the beginning? If the player were playing "suboptimally" (Mechanically) before, why assume that they are suddenly gonna start looking for the optimal way? (Not the first time this question is asked, but it feels especially appropriate here.)
Another general thing: Talking about specific systems, "most of these systems" etc. I find kinda defeats the point of the discussion. It is, from my view, more about thinking what COULD be done, and "it has been done terribly before" is not really much of an argument against the hypotheticals we are discussing.
As for your complaints about number 3: Uhm... what? I don't... quite understand. No, really. I don't see how any of these rules can kill nuance, by granting you bonusses to rolls where it fits as per GM/Group consensus arbitration? And I don't quite see how a system that doesn't say "If in doubt, don't allow it" COULD even lean in any particular direction on any particular issue? I think we have very different pictures of what we are talking about here. (Also, even if you don't get a bonus to a roll... that is... fine? I mean, sure, you are more efficient at things in tune with who you are, but... you can still do things you don't? I am quite puzzled. This system would never be constructed, at least not by me, as one where you'd have some bonus on all rolls. Just a part of them, maybe even just a small part.)
Also, the only way to pull off 1. in the way you describe are either by pure GM arbitration of you having "acted in character", neccessitating that your GM does interpret and "get" the character the same way you do (Otherwise it is just arbitrary of what the GM considers "good" RP, which for me at least is too close to "training players to play correctly" which is a concept I abhor. We are all adults with different preferences, and training someone that their preferences aren't the "right" ones is a foolish and dickish thing to do.). Or by phrasing out traits, running into the same issues as with 2 and 3 in your view. Mind you, I don't mind "caricatures" and find a good bit of what falls under what I think you consider part of that label as such can make for very interesting characters capable of producing great situations and experiences. Or, in other words: I don't give a damn if a character is "realistic", I care that they are fun and their character traits are built in a way to enhance the experience of everyone involved.

Punching a wall is something I've seen someone do when they were inconsolably angry.
However, there's no objective benefit to punching the wall -- why should the game's mechanics give any sort of benefit when there is not benefit?

Did punching the wall help with the anger? If yes, there is your benefit. Do the rules consider anger? If yes, punching the wall should interact with that.
As for the rest... yes, that was my point exactly.

I don't view it as a punishment because there's a difference between the natural outcome of sequence of events, and a punishment.
A punishment is a deliberate action taken by one person in response to an action by another person (that they have some form of power over) that they don't approve of. Reality -- operating in a blend of objective, unthinking, unmotivated, cause-and-effect; and randomness -- does not punish.
If someone jumps off a tall cliff and falls to their death, their death is not a punishment... it is the simple consequence of their action.
If a character doesn't commit Diablerie, then they don't get the benefits of Diablerie. That's not a punishment, that's simple cause-and-effect.

Thing is, though: None of this is real. Every action not decided by a dieroll is a deliberate action taken by a person, either GM or player.
"The world reacting to your choices"? That is a deliberate action taken by the GM. For each situation there would be a hundred different ways to react, all of which perfectly in character for everyone involved. It is the GM that decides which of them applies. Deliberately. Maybe ignorant of some perfectly valid actions, maybe in the spur of a moment, but definitely deliberate. So while it might be entirely logical that your character, refusing to commit diablerie, was denied the boons of it, it was the GMs deliberate decision not to grant you some other power in return and thereby keep you on a lower power level than the other players. (You did not care about it, sure. And I am not saying you'd have to, mind). There was NOTHING hard-and-fast in the world that would FORCE there to be this one path. Because this isn't actually cause and effect, unless you have the dice decide everything the players don't and simulate any NPC with an actual AI.
There is no automatic "cause and effect". Not for anything that isn't decided by the rules as a completely uncaring and neutral arbiter. (Okay, it IS cause and effect, but with "players do things" as the cause and "DM thinks of an appropriate reaction" as the effect. Only on the table-level, not on the In-Game level.)

If another player makes that decision, then that's what their character does.
People aren't consistent, and we see some people tempted to do things they'd otherwise never do if the (real or perceived) gain is big enough. I've had people tell me that they'd get naked on national television for a million dollars, and call me a liar when I say that I wouldn't. Or ask me how much money it would take, and then call me a liar when I say "Not for a billion, or a trillion".

While I wouldn't call you a liar, that would not be fair, there is no indication that you are not saying this truthfully - in fact I do believe you truly hold the belief that you wouldn't do it.
But I would definitely call into question if you WOULD. Being on the spot is something different entirely then thinking about hypotheticals. And we can talk about ethics and principles all we want, they can still fly out the window, and sometimes surprisingly fast.
I once swore to myself that I would never smoke. Ever. It took falling maybe a bit too deep in character on a Larp, being maybe a bit young and naive and a pretty girl responding to the advances of my womanizer character to get me in a shisha tent without a second thought. Only after having left I thought "Oh ****, I just broke a deeply-held principle of mine." (Didn't stay a one-off thing either. Never touched a cigarette and never will, at least I think and dearly hope so, but if a waterpipe is being passed around? I will probably partake. So much for principle.)
My point with this is not that you would, in any given situation, give in to the heat of the moment. But rather that it is perfectly possible to do things you would never have dreamed or feared you would actually do.

That hypothetical person should perhaps be playing CRPGs or board games. An RPG is about more than manipulating numbers and working the system.

Perhaps. But perhaps they just like the rules of TRPGs to play out combat (or whatever other thing). Especially gamey systems like DnD might be usable in that way. And who am I, are you, or anyone to tell them that, no, this is the wrong way to have fun with this? "They are about more" is a blanket statement that I personally would not support. "They CAN be about more"? Sure, obviously. "I like them to be about more, and wouldn't want to play in a way restricting them to that"? Yeah.
For The Dark Eye, there exists a Tabletop skirmish game, with miniatures and all, running on pretty much the same combat rules. Works perfectly fine, if not my cup of tea.

The setting...the world in which the game is taking places... that "other reality"... that's the actual territory. The rules are just the map of it. If you're not mapping a "territory" where a person's feelings can physically affect the actual world around them, then the rules of the game should not allow their feelings to do so either. If you're not mapping a "territory" where "dramatic considerations" can physically affect the actual world, then the rules of the game should not give weight to "dramatic considerations".

Uhm... I'm afraid I will have to heavily disagree. I wrote out arguements against every single point of what you say there, and would do so quite energically - but I realise it would be somewhat pointless. We have INCREDIBLY different ways of thinking about TRPGs. I simply don't buy any of the premises of yours. And you wouldn't with mine.
Just so much: The person's feelings can, even with these rules, only influence their own capabilites. And that is, quite frankly, incredibly realistic. If I want to do something, or happy, it'll turn out better. And take me less time. That is not feelings morphing reality. That is feelings influencing reality THROUGH the person having the feelings. And none of the rules actually ever argued for created any more direct influence.

Lorsa

2016-12-16, 04:08 AM

I am going to make a short pause and reply to something I *think* Floret wrote earlier, perhaps in response to Max_Killjoy, but I can't for the life of me find the quote at this point. Maybe it was someone else entirely, I don't know. Later on, I hope to get back to replying to the replies to my replies, as some of them rightfully point out issues in my thought processes.

Anyway, the subject matter is related to that of consequences and what you want game mechanics to do and how some (not all, and not necessarily the ones proposed by some people here) RP mechanics change the dynamics of decision-making in an unwanted way.

So, typically when I play, and I think possibly also Max_Killjoy, my decision process works like this:

1. The GM describes a situation for me.
2. I decide how my character acts in the above situation.
3. The GM decides what the consequence of my character's action is, requesting help from game mechanics to decide on success/failure or the like.
3 b) If the consequence/penalty is such that it reveals there is a large discrepancy between how the GM envisioned the situation and how I as player envisioned it, we may move back to number 1.

So in general, the game mechanics don't enter into the mix until after the decision to act has been made. They are called upon to resolve the action. Most of the time, I don't really think about what the consequences could be; I like to be surprised. Only when there is a really large discrepancy between GM/Player will I go back and change or revoke the decision.

Some certain subset of existing or proposed RP mechanics would change my decision process to work like this:

1. The GM describes a situation for me.
2. I ask the GM and game mechanics to tell me what is the "most likely decision" for me to make in the situation, what penalties would be applied and whatnot.
3. I decide how my character acts in the above situation.
4. The action is resolved.

With this method, the "call for game mechanics" actually happen before the decision of how to act. They have to, by their very nature. Also, they may come into play afterwards when resolving the action, but that is beside the point.

Therefore, some type of "RP mechanics" actually work to change my (and possibly Max_Killjoy's) decision-making process. I tend to like the one I have, as for me it feels more "immersive" (for lack of a better term) and less "meta-game".

Now, if your decision process, even without RP mechanics, looks like the second example, then obviously the introduction of RP mechanics doesn't change the dynamics of your game that much. If your typical response when asked to make a decision is to first request game mechanics, then nothing major has changed.

I am not saying that this in any way is "badwrongfun". People should have fun however they like (as long as it's not on someone else's expense). I am just trying to highlight a way in which people may work differently in a RPG and how the addition of a certain type of game mechanics by necessity can alter a very crucial part of it in a way that is undesirable. That it's not about the specific mechanics or what they model but the structural decision-making changes that comes with them. And, if you already have a process that works well with the mechanics, you may not feel this change at all.

Floret

2016-12-16, 06:58 AM

I am going to make a short pause and reply to something I *think* Floret wrote earlier, perhaps in response to Max_Killjoy, but I can't for the life of me find the quote at this point. Maybe it was someone else entirely, I don't know. Later on, I hope to get back to replying to the replies to my replies, as some of them rightfully point out issues in my thought processes.

Anyway, the subject matter is related to that of consequences and what you want game mechanics to do and how some (not all, and not necessarily the ones proposed by some people here) RP mechanics change the dynamics of decision-making in an unwanted way. [...]

Yaknow, I don't REMEMBER making a point that this replies to... but then again, I don't remember if I have eaten supper some days. Anyways.

As for the argument: That is an incredibly valid point, and I had not considered that. (Maybe the best argument against RP rules I have read in this thread, in so far as it is the first one I actually intellectually comprehend its workings.)
Now for the fun part: I, one of the proponents for these rules, work like think process I. (Roman numerals to hopefully lessen confusion when compared to the arabic of the models). And would, aside from allowing my players an out after the mechanics have been described if they differ too greatly from what they expected (They describe an action, I set a difficulty that they hadn't thought that high, I will allow them to change it) also try and stay on that.
I will suggest one thing: That it maybe doesn't NEED to change thinking processes. And it doesn't even have to really change when the mechanics come into play. At least with model 3 and 1, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to still keep thought process I while having the rules. Model 1 really only comes into effect at the end of the session, or after a decision is made at least, with Model 3 simply after the action has been described, in the mechanics affecting it, personality traits come to bear. Heck, in FATE they can come in even after the roll has been made to still sway it.
I do think with model 2 the shift might be more likely. But: As these rules should provide not "multiple choice" but should dynamically represent the options of the player, I can see something like Process I working here.
As in:
1. Situation description
2. Suggesting an action
3. Hearing what mechanics would be involved
4. Possibly suggesting another action
5. Hearing the mechanics involved
Repeat 4/5 until you run out of ideas or move on to
6. Make the final decision
7. Resolve. (I call it process I.V. Or process III? Is it different enough for that?)

Just a thought. Me working for rules that don't, from my perspective, run the risk of changing my Process I into Process II might explain very well though why I didn't see much of the criticism. Actually, I work (As GM, at least, though I suspect as player, too) mostly like process I.V... scratch that, III looks cleaner. I take back my point of working like think process I, though I think it is closer to I than to II in practice.

Cluedrew

2016-12-16, 08:56 AM

I have been putting a lot of time into reading and writing posts for this thread. I have no idea how you guys do it. In other news, I would like to nominate this thread (or this section of it) for having the longest average post length.

I think the mechanics of your example are fine, though rather similar to what Segev proposed, I feel. It would, though, again be a question how do you determine what makes characters happy/sad, and by how much?The players decide how much to adjust the score by, this is the "minimally interfering" example and so leave control entirely in hands of the players. Now there would be guidelines, but the players are free to adapt them to fit their characters as they see fit.

In fact I don't actually know how the system feeds back into mechanics. I agree spending it does not quite fit the model of happiness it is using, so perhaps it would provide some small passive bonuses. Still even that would be the next step on top of the current version. The fourth point in the system if you will.

I think the fifth point in the system would be a point to adjust changes to the score depending on where you are on the track. So if you are already really happy it is harder to become happier, if you are sad you can't as easily become that much sadder.

On Forcing Behaviour: I have been reflecting on the idea that role-playing mechanics* would necessary force a certain type of behaviour. I think they do in the same way the absence of them does. Which is to say it doesn't. Both however create a certain default behaviour and I have actually been wrestling with this default in my own system to a couple of ends. First is to allow variation from the default easily (the absence of mechanics does this quite well) and second to have the default be the average player character for this game (the absence mechanics do not do that part so well).

I think we have covered why the absence of mechanics can create defaults, so I will not cover that again. But I swill want to create a proper (or game fitting) default because it... it is really a communication thing. For instance I mentioned I am working on my own system. Every time I playtest that people build their characters "wrong". But I never tell them that, because I haven't created a system that encourages the way characters are supposed to be built.

On Decision Making: I think system I.V (I don't think the Romans used decimals) is actually the one that most real games use, it slowly becomes system I with system mastery. I've never actually played with a system that lead to system... process II but I could see it happening. That being said, does anyone have any particular examples?

*For now, just ignoring the question of what exactly is a role-playing mechanic.

Lorsa

2016-12-16, 09:46 AM

I am going back to reply to some things that's been unreplied to as I feel that is polite.

Yeah, sorry for writing such long posts. But thanks for responding in such detail!

I'm glad you are happy with my replies on some level at least!

I dunno. You don't, but I do. Because (As per my desire for model 3) I actually want them for something else.
But I think this your question is spot-on. The supposed model 2 especially tries exactly that - if maybe in a way you don't want.

So please correct me if I am wrong; but your desire is for having some sort of "RP mechanic" is not the same as Segev's? You want your character's personality to matter mechanically whereas Segev wants to alter the mechanical benefits relating to certain choices?

You are right though, model 2 tries to solve it in a way I don't want (see my objections to it).

And, just for protocol: I would agree with you on every point. I am for option 3, don't really care for option 2, and think option 1 best avioded. Heck, I give XP to players who were absent. I don't like characters with differing "levels", even though I don't play any system that actually has levels, mind you.

Guess we don't have to discuss that option anymore then? :smallsmile:

Hm. I find these to be good points. I think one could potentially solve these problems, but then I wouldn't care to put in the effort. Only the versimilitude thing I won't quite buy. Because these can easily be constructed to be simulating of something. FATE doesn't, but a Willpower-system as has been proposed might.

I am glad you find some points to be good. Maybe then we can reach closer to understanding and hopefully some agreement.

You are right that they can be constructed to simulate something. This is why I have an easier time to accept White Wolf's Willpower mechanics than certain other systems. I think Segev's morale system also could, depending on how it is designed, fall under the "it is simulating something" side of the spectrum. Therefore, obviously, my verisimilitude objection only really works for games which have a specific type of RP mechanics which isn't really part of the reality of the world.

In my experience of playing FATE, where "is this really applicable" is a question that comes up regularly, I have found it to resolve itself quite easily through group consensus and GM statement. A player that is reaching will generally accept a decision of "no, not applicable", at least in a group that doesn't have some problem talking out things and is generally friends and good sports (Also called a group where playing RPGs is a good idea).
And... I don't think this clear-cut differentiation between character "externals" and "internals" is something that actually exists in the way people argue. Try and convince me, but other people have tried with little effect. As I said, I have personally had very good experience with this thing working rather well.
I am not quite sure I agree it necessarily does. And even then I can see ways to solve this problem. Not least of which, tying it to a metacurrency: For your personality to matter positively, you have to spent it, and you get it for them affecting you negatively, for example. Or you flat-out say "x times per session max". Or... you just give some guidelines for how specific such a character trait should be, and rely on GMs and group consensus if a certain trait actually would work. Sure, you need groups that work for this. But groups that get riled up over this sort of thing I don't think are necessarily best for playing RPGs with in the first place.
And... Dunno. If such a trait is allowed, I would allow you the bonus pretty much everywhere where there is actually competition. So, no, cracking a lock, and even fighting a fight to the death? Nah, rather not. That is not competition. That's just fighting for your life. A duel? If you really want to. Cooking competion? Sure.
But also... In a certain way, these traits tend to balance themselves out, if there is also a drawback to them, the GM can call upon them to negatively affect you, or incentivise you to certain suboptimal decisions (Sure, now this is metacurrency level...). And broadly applicable traits... are broadly applicable, for better or worse :smallwink: Being first up the 10.000 stairs? I mean, sure it would exhaust you, and you would be alone, but... you can't really NOT be THE FIRST, can you?

It might be the sort of thing that gets easier with practice. I have little experience with this type of "personality aspect judgement", and my general view is that I, as a GM, shouldn't be the one to tell players how to play their character. So if they say "this would be a situation where I feel X is really applicable", who am I to argue? Similarly, if I say "I want to invoke your competitive spirit to make you climb these stairs really fast", what is to stop the player from saying "naaah, my character doesn't really feel competitive enough about this thing to care"? Why should I, as a GM, decide what another player's character is feeling? And why should my decision weight stronger than their?

This is pretty much what I mean with "internal" vs. "external". I really find it easier to say "since you stand on gravel, you get a -2 penalty to movement" than "since your character is competitive, you get a -2 penalty to resist this particular temptation". The former statement is one a player can't really argue with, whereas the second has "but I don't really care about this competition" as an objection that is completely warranted.

Who am I, as GM, to decide what your character cares or doesn't care about? How can this be objectively measured? While it is possible that these questions CAN be answered by the mechanics themselves, I still think they are very important questions to consider when implementing mechanics that deal with the inner world of a character's emotions.

Also, slight tanget: Really, where does this sudden potential for metagaming come from? And why is it always brought up with these proposed systems, but in the current state, where there are clear mechanically optimal decisions, they just get brushed aside as "yeah, but RP is more important"? Why can the same not apply to these RP rules? It feels somewhat... strange.

Well, I think I've partly given the answer before. Mostly this has to do with the kind of RP mechanics that award XP or narrative tokens that turn out to be EXTREMELY useful for the game. Basically the kind of systems where "you have to follow this course of action or you are ****ed".

Before the introduction to such rules, whatever choice you made, unless it lead to your death, never really affected your character progression. As said, I've always awarded group based XP, obviously also to absent players. Therefore, even if players made decisions that were suboptimal on a game mechanics level, they still saw progression. There is no need to meta-game to ensure some form of advancement.

However, the way some types of these "RP rules" work, you NEED to act in a certain manner to get some progression. Therefore, there is now an incentive to meta-game with your personality traits and character goals to ensure maximum character progression.

Basically, it creates the kind of game that Segev wants to avoid; the one with a spiral of diminishing returns.

I can't really remember what exactly your quote was a reply to, so I'm not sure if my answer is fully applicable. I am also very tired today due to stress-related sleep issues for about a week now, so I apologize if I get something wrong.

However, in a way you are right. Meta-gaming existed before "RP mechanics", so in the end I guess it just depends what kind of meta-game I feel comfortable with. Not all types of meta-game are identical in nature.

Is it? I mean, it can simulate responses, sure. I can drop down as if dead if only cut across the stomach by a foam weapon without a second thought, I have been there. But... As I have said: I am not conjuring up this disconnect out of thin air and theory, I am speaking from comparing two very distinct experiences: One of playing a character and feeling the world around me with all five senses, one of playing a character and hearing the GM describe things and imagining the situation.
Have you? Can you draw that direct comparison? Because before Larping, I think I wouldn't have thought the difference for "getting in character" between the two would be quite so great as I do now, and were I to play TRPGs solely for that feeling of "getting into character"/"roleplaying", I would find them to just pale in comparison. But I know Larpers that don't feel that way, and play TRPGs for much the same reason as they do Larp. I couldn't, I'd give up TRPGs in a heartbeat, they are quite lackluster at the thing I get out of Larp (And I know friends who gave up TRPGs because of that). So your mileage might indeed vary.
I wouldn't want to think of myself as having little imagination. I have always been a called a dreamer, and am quite imaginative in general. Maybe I am just worse at really sinking into it in TRPGs - I do have my own mental hangups that make it more difficult. Constantly noticing very many things and being very distractable might not help with forgetting my western european livingroom around me when imagining myself in a bustling medieval eastasian town. (Me rather consistently being GM might be "somewhat" hindering as well, I imagine.)

You mentioned psychology being able to make people change sleeping and speech habits when taking on another role. This is pretty much the same psychology as I was talking about; simulating responses based on imaginary stimuli. And yes, it IS a thing. People can feel pain relief by simply being told they're getting morphine for example. Our brains are truly wonderful. So yes, simply imagining yourself in a situation can generate physiological responses.

Admittedly I haven't done LARPing. I can see how it would help with some parts of the immersive experience, but also be problematic with others.

For example, I really hate olives. According to you, if I played a character in a LARP that very much enjoyed olives and then ate one, I'd feel as much satisfaction as my character. I somehow doubt that this is true, although I wouldn't mind the experiment.

So I can see how sharing similar sensory input to your character might help you understanding what sensory input the character is having. I don't see how it would make it any easier to be "in-character" though. Since the definition of a different character is one that will interpret the sensory input in another way and act different than you, that is kind of irrelevant to the point to you feeling the input yourself or not.

Also, LARP has the issue of making it more difficult to play, and be seen as, a member of the opposite sex, vastly different age, different body build etc etc, since it actually aims to make the sensory input MORE important and not less. Not to mention characters with skills different than yours (I don't think I will magically be better at picking locks just because I pretend to play a character who is).

I can certainly see your problem, the way you phrase it. Having rules to represent things does not get me closer to "really being there", the way for that would be rather opposite. "Get out of the house and on a Larp, and then rid of the rules since you don't really need to simulate anything anymore" would be my answer to how to achieve that, since that is pretty much the closest you can get - though also a potentially very different experience, sure. And in certain ways much more limited in what can be portrayed (Though much less than many people give it credit for).
Doesn't at all adress why I want those rules, but I was trying to summ up all reasons and the discussion is currently focussed on rules trying to represent it better. I think the rules are especially good for something like temptations - by giving the PLAYER a temptation as well - though it will be a different one.
Example: I as a GM will not go and seduce my players (Whether I actually could or not). So I won't offer my player the same reward for giving in to a seduction that their character gets (That would be weird and also incredibly uncomfortable for all other players at the table.), but to actually tempt the player for letting their character give in, I might offer something else - morality tokens, willpower points, some other meta-currency, XP (Bad idea, in my view), the like.
And by such a system get the draws of each option (Refuse and continue/give in and get some(thing)) closer to the players feelings - the player is now also tempted, instead of just imagining it. I think this is how its supposed to work.

Just as a side note here, if I read this right, it means that if you tried to seduce another player at a LARP, you'd actually HAVE to give the player the same reward as the character? Since you said "this is the best because then character experience = player experience"?

And I get the idea behind offer the player temptations that help highlight the character temptations. It's not really the way for me, since I prefer to go for "really being there" as much as possible. Other than that I also think it is very hard to find something that would simulate for and tempt the player equally much as the choice the character is currently facing. Those type of rules would by necessity have to be player-specific, as different players value different things to varying extents.

Oh, I agree, they don't need to. But I think they might be fun to include. I have never spoken for a NECESSITY of RP rules, merely for including them because they might be mechanically enjoyable to interact and play with. Your option would be a perfectly fine way of dealing with things.

Wow, thanks. Someone likes the way I do things (at least to some extent).

Are you asking for myself as a player, or as a character? Unsure. I as a player have never been in such a situation. I'd hope I'd sneak out, try and analyse the situation, and help however I can, if I actually wake up from the noise (I am a rather heavy sleeper, though my postapo character isn't. And, yes, psychology can make my sleeping habits different when I'm in character, even on a Larp. Though the uncomfortable sleeping arrangements surely did their part. I know a guy who stutters. His characters? Don't. So, yes, if he, on a Larp, gets into character his stutter literally stops. Psychology and roleplaying can be a powerful things.). And, no, I wouldn't need tokens. As I said: The example was from a Larp, so there were no tokens there. But a TRPG is something very different, where the world only exists in simulation, and a lot of emotional aspects flow in that the rules often don't take into account, but maybe should or at least could. It is everyones choice how deep they want the simulation to go, how accurate they want it to be, and what aspects they want it to cover.
I'd like a rather rules-medium to light simulation, don't require all too much accuracy but at least a bit, and would very much like personality to be covered in some way. Other people have other preferences.^^

(Also, just to note: They did find out, and berated us. I talked my way out of it with and smoothed things over, but I had to put in effort.)

Yes, I was asking you as a player. It seems as you, as a player, wouldn't necessarily need some form of "meta-world" currency to motivate you to help. You do it, despite the potential drawbacks, because you are a good person. Why do you suddenly need such extra motivation to have your character act in a way that you would as a player (assuming here you had a good character instead)?

I like your idea. I also have a possible explination for why it is usually assigned character-by-character: That is how most XP works, the character who does the thing is the one who had the experience and hence gets the XP. It both fits convention and makes more sense in world. Despite having some game level problems.

Yay, someone likes my idea! Although I'm not sure it IS usually assigned by character. For example, D&D assumes the whole group was involved in fighting the monster, so everyone gets equal share of the XP, despite who did most damage to it.

If more "RP based XP" had been shared by the group by RAW, I would have much less resistance towards them.

I think this is a more general problem just applied to a new mechanic. If you ever have to defend your character's actions at 9 times out of 10 your doing it wrong. Still I think the defence to this would be "but it leaves my character in a bad place costing them tokens." Also if tokens have some in character side to them (say more moral tokens and less karma tokens) your character can still get very upset.

Well, yes, my character can still be upset with their behavior. However, since the game system offers the player such large rewards for acting in this fashion, there is little pressure to change the in-character behavior. This ties into the idea I had that whenever a character of the group makes a decision for "RP reasons" that affects the group negatively (because it will always be the group and not the one character), every player should get the token.

... You know I agree but it takes me to a different conclusion. Which is work on the matter until I feel I am writing down the most importance kinds of traits on the sheet. Or at least closer, because honestly whether my character has 11 or 12 constitution when she is an acrobat really doesn't matter (16 dexterity might be) but the fact she loves the applause might be critical. But most games don't have a stat for that.

Indeed most games don't have a stat for "loving the applause", which would be an important trait for her. This is because most games only deal with how well you physically can perform whatever action that may or may not give you the applause, then leave it up to the player to judge how much their character values attempting such actions.

But if I read your "work on the subject matter..." it means I should wait with writing down my character's personality until I've played enough sessions to really see what kind of people they are? Unfortunately most "RP mechanic" systems really does require me to do so from the start, and if I don't, I miss out on all the awesome tokens.

Well here is an interesting question, is "not rested" an role-play mechanic? You seem to not think so yet it could be. In D&D if you don't get enough sleep you generally don't get some major class features and that is terrible and so you get some sleep. But if it has a softer edge then maybe you can start choosing. Maybe the wizard often stays up into the night geeking out over some new obscure theorem he stumbled across. But the monk meditates every evening and gets a full nights rest every night there isn't an emergency (which for an adventurer means once a month). And the bard usually spends hours at the tavern, listening to rumours and earning extra coin with a song, but when she has a performance coming up she gets a good nights sleep the nights leading up to it.

The penalties and bonuses are different in every case, I'm not even sure what they are, but they hit at the type of character that would pick each one.

There are many different types of games and many different rules that suit them. I would never try to cram most of these into a D&D style game (mind you I would never try to make a D&D style game, D&D has it covered) or a particularly rules lite system.

I guess it's a matter of definition. Maybe "not rested" is a role-play mechanic at its most crude level? I never really saw it as such though, just like I don't see "suffocation" as a "RP mechanic", but rather an effect of an in-world event causing certain actions to become more difficult than others.

Oh and if anyone remembers my last post: Or even read it.
I am still open to answers but I'll give a bit more context. I'm trying to pine down what makes these mechanics intrusive to people, starting from as far from intrusive as I can get.

On Internal vs. External: I lost the quote I had for this. But I was going to ask, what even defines this line? Because I have a line like this in my system I'm working on and strength and intelligence and so on are on the internal side.

I'm afraid I have to return to this at a later date. If you're really curious about more input, and I forget, feel free to prod me in a PM.

Oh, I agree, there's an element of "pushing back the question" here. You can optimize anything. The thing is that, in my experience, game systems have a tendency to lack what we've been terming in this thread "RP mechanics" beyond this: "You should take things because they fit your character, not because they're powerful/optimal."

I'm going to use Paladium (parent system for the Rifts setting) as an example for a moment, because it has a few particularly egregious samples. Most notably, to me, "Boxing."

Boxing gives you an extra action every round. For those not familiar with Paladium's system, just pretend it did this in D&D, because while the latter is slightly more powerful, it's not too far off in terms of just how good it is in this system.

If you have the Boxing skill as an option your class will let you take, there is little to no reason not to take it. GMs for Paladium have noticed this, however, and a fair number - and some of the books themselves, IIRC - will scold players that they shouldn't take skills (like Boxing) just because they're powerful. Is your character REALLY likely to have been trained in Boxing? Really?

This, of course, leads the power-gamer/optimizer to optimize his backstory to justify it. The most transparent fig leaves tend to be "oh, yeah, I used to hang out at the boxing gym with my brother/dad/friend/mentor," while those with GMs on the lookout for such backgrounds will write detailed "ex-pro boxer" backstories that are "essential" to how the PC came to be who he is.

In other words, optimizing backstory/personality to justify something that is just good design for your character. Because the game system is unbalanced and tries to fix that by scolding you for "bad RP."

This, obviously, has little to do with the "RP mechanics" rules we're discussing, other than to acknowledge that those, too, can become "optimizable" if you're not careful. "Well, I'll just make sure to have an optimal personality that only ever helps me."

This, too, though, already happens. The optimal personality just happens, under the "RP mechanic-less" systems we're looking at, to be a murder-hobo. At least, as a general rule, murder-hobos arise as a consequence of the most optimal personality being somebody who is Spartan about his comforts, has no connections to property he can't carry with him nor to people who can't take care of themselves (i.e. NPCs), and only cares about morality in a personally advantageous way. He is immune to seduction, to bribery with creature comforts or riches that don't give him more personal power, and to any appeals to emotion other than greed (which again must be feeding his power-acquisition) or ambition (more power acquisition).

Because anything else is a weakness. It's giving up opportunities to get stronger and do better at the parts of the game the player actually gets to play for things which the player doesn't get to enjoy or doesn't have to suffer through.

So yes, optimization of "personality traits" is a thing to watch out for, but it's going to happen anyway.

Yes, you are right, everything can be optimized. I think my point is more like this "the introduction of RP mechanics is meant to increase the RP commitment by the player, but unless the player already takes those things into account, it will just end up being yet another thing to optimize around.

I would say that my imagination is actually excessively active, and has always been so. (My sister tells me she used to listen outside my room as I talked to myself in different voices and made sound effects for confrontations between various sides in magic sci-fi wars.)

The thing is, I have a tendency to assign/imagine drives and emotions that are far starker than reality suggests. Under my control, a character doesn't give in to something, he perseveres. (I wish I could say the same for myself.) Unless I want that character to fail. I suppose it's more "author" than "actor" stance, to borrow those terms. But at the same time, I do put myself in those roles, but in so doing, I still only share in the things that I can experience through whatever medium I'm using.

In a game, I share in the triumphs and failures that actually matter to playing the game (more than playing the character), even though I do strongly value playing the character.

It really is the same thing that makes using dice to determine if my PC can hit that target or not important: I know my PC is "reasonably good" at target shooting, and that there's a chance he will and a chance he won't hit it. If I'm the sole arbiter of whether he does or not, the fact that he has a reasonable-to-good chance to do so justifies my decision that he DOES. But argument may arise that I have him succeed at target-shooting way too often. Shouldn't he fail more often? Okay, then, how often? What percent of the time? And how do we determine if THIS shot is a success or failure, since THIS one is for the game-important prize? I mean, if you think about it, "I choose the times that don't matter for him to fail, and the times that do matter for him to succeed" could still yield the right percentage accuracy!

The same thing applies to emotional pressures, luxury indulgences, pleasurable temptations, and endurances of suffering. Sure, he doesn't ALWAYS manage to push through the misery of hunger, but since the GM is asking me about it this time, I decide he will. Sure, he doesn't ALWAYS hold his temper, even in dicey situations, but since it's on screen this time and I'll have to suffer the consequences, he does THIS time.

This is why we use dice, rather than player decision, about physical skill results. This is why some sort of mechanic, dice or otherwise, should accrue for linking the character's real emotional investment to the player's gameplay experience.

I have one minor question after reading this.

Do you enjoy playing characters which perseveres?

If you do, then why do you want the system to punish you for playing something you enjoy?

If you don't, then why do you play such character?

I'm not one to judge what type of character you feel happy playing, or how well you portray them (well, there are some extreme fringe cases, but I doubt you are one).

This argument puzzles me. But I can't dispute it entirely. It is true: Ask random people to help with something, and various people will help to various degrees, for free. Offer people 3 tiers of reward (say $5, $10, and $15) for various degrees of help, and almost nobody will help beyond the $15 level.

But at the same time, I think that this experiment is flawed in analogy, because the context of playing an RPG is such that the social expectation that you're "playing your character" is the same. Now it's just offering some insight into what "your character" really is feeling.

Also, I don't think the "ceiling" applies because there isn't a bar set by the mechanics. There's a reward/penalty paradigm associated with some choices. Since you can still choose to take the penalty if you feel that it's "worth it," or you feel it's "in character," you can go ahead and do so. There's no ceiling here, because there's no "above and beyond" that you could have done. In situations which still lack the RP mechanics, you are faced with the same RP choices you had where no RP mechanics existed at all, so again, no ceiling. It's more "different lanes." And you happen to be in a "mechanic-less" lane for some choices.

Ah, thanks. Okay, confusion resolved; you're not saying what I'm proposing creates a ceiling.

I do see how the "get an XP if you RP this much" meets your "soft ceiling" criterion, though I still think it less likely to rear its head in the context of a game where people already came to the table intending to RP. The distorted "force this RP in" flaw seems more likely to arise, to me.

I'm glad we can have some understanding. It is possible some kind of morale system as the one you propose might work out okay for both of us. Even if not, use whatever mechanics you like in your games; what you enjoy should never be a question up for debate.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-16, 10:16 AM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-16, 11:34 AM

My counterargument is that existing rules encourage players to play the rules, rather than the character, anyway. So there is no degradation of quality of character-playing by introducing rules which help align mechanics with characterization.

As stated repeatedly, I fundamentally and vehemently disagree that there's any punishment or pressure -- outside of games where the slightest "non-optimal" choice sets a character irrevocably behind the curve. Outside of that sort of game, a character taking the night off to relax with friends, or whatever, simply is not going to leave them unable to ever make up that gap; in fact it probably won't create a gap at all, because the "do or die" choice isn't being constantly created in the first place.

And if the rules ARE putting this sort of pressure on a in-character decisions, then THAT is the problem, either with the rules or with the GM. The rules and/or the GM are micro-tracking the character's time and effort and CREATING a distorted situation wherein only the "most optimal" choices are ever valid.

The solution to the game rules routinely putting pressure on character decisions IS NOT to add MORE rules that add more pressure to character decisions.

Perhaps it's simply that you're getting hung up on them being called "RP mechanics." Arguably, ALL mechanics are "RP mechanics." The mechanics I'm proposing are designed to improve the simulation, is all.

I'm "hung up on" fighting a gasoline fire by pouring more gasoline on it.

And if I wanted to "simulate" character decisions via rules and formulas, rather than playing them out myself, I'd be working in an AI lab, not playing an RPG.

I can't speak to "how you work," as I am not you. But when we delve far enough into things, it seems to me that what I'm talking about does jive with how you describe yourself working. Which means at least one of us is failing to communicate something to the other. This frustrates me; I dislike failure to communicate.

All of the examples given and mechanisms proposed here have been about how people are driven by what they want.

What I want is (for lack of a less poetic term) a ghost. It is gone, it is dead, it can never be. So, I endure.

Let's leave it at that, and move on.

This is not the place to discuss my mental state in detail, and I refuse to let anyone else tell me what's going on in my head. And, in my past experience, too many people will have their model of how humans "work", and will move heaven and earth to fit all other people into that model, re-framing whatever is said to fit the model. (So someone who says that they don't want things, they avoid things, will be told "Well then what you want is to avoid things".) I'm not going through that nonsense here and derailing the thread.

Oh, I agree, there's an element of "pushing back the question" here. You can optimize anything. The thing is that, in my experience, game systems have a tendency to lack what we've been terming in this thread "RP mechanics" beyond this: "You should take things because they fit your character, not because they're powerful/optimal."

I'm going to use Paladium (parent system for the Rifts setting) as an example for a moment, because it has a few particularly egregious samples. Most notably, to me, "Boxing."

Boxing gives you an extra action every round. For those not familiar with Paladium's system, just pretend it did this in D&D, because while the latter is slightly more powerful, it's not too far off in terms of just how good it is in this system.

If you have the Boxing skill as an option your class will let you take, there is little to no reason not to take it. GMs for Paladium have noticed this, however, and a fair number - and some of the books themselves, IIRC - will scold players that they shouldn't take skills (like Boxing) just because they're powerful. Is your character REALLY likely to have been trained in Boxing? Really?

This, of course, leads the power-gamer/optimizer to optimize his backstory to justify it. The most transparent fig leaves tend to be "oh, yeah, I used to hang out at the boxing gym with my brother/dad/friend/mentor," while those with GMs on the lookout for such backgrounds will write detailed "ex-pro boxer" backstories that are "essential" to how the PC came to be who he is.

In other words, optimizing backstory/personality to justify something that is just good design for your character. Because the game system is unbalanced and tries to fix that by scolding you for "bad RP."

That's a problem in a system full of problems. RP mechanics to "balance" out that "temptation" would be putting perfume on a pig.

The better solution is to fix the system (or create the system from the start) so that one particular skill isn't so "tempting". If stuck in that system RAW, treat "boxing" as more generic, instead of literally boxing, which at least softens the blow (heh) to backstories somewhat.

This, obviously, has little to do with the "RP mechanics" rules we're discussing, other than to acknowledge that those, too, can become "optimizable" if you're not careful. "Well, I'll just make sure to have an optimal personality that only ever helps me."

This, too, though, already happens. The optimal personality just happens, under the "RP mechanic-less" systems we're looking at, to be a murder-hobo. At least, as a general rule, murder-hobos arise as a consequence of the most optimal personality being somebody who is Spartan about his comforts, has no connections to property he can't carry with him nor to people who can't take care of themselves (i.e. NPCs), and only cares about morality in a personally advantageous way. He is immune to seduction, to bribery with creature comforts or riches that don't give him more personal power, and to any appeals to emotion other than greed (which again must be feeding his power-acquisition) or ambition (more power acquisition).

Because anything else is a weakness. It's giving up opportunities to get stronger and do better at the parts of the game the player actually gets to play for things which the player doesn't get to enjoy or doesn't have to suffer through.

So yes, optimization of "personality traits" is a thing to watch out for, but it's going to happen anyway.

So... why is it that -- despite the systems we were using having none of the sorts of enforced-RP-mechanics being discussed here -- none of the RPGing that I was actively involved in from high school until most of my post-college gaming friends moved away or got married or whatever, 20+ years later, ever showed any signs of this "optimal personality" thing?

Why is it that I didn't see a cavalcade of "murder-hobos" resulting from this supposed relentless pressure to be as stone-cold efficient as possible?

Why is it that in games run by multiple different GMs, I didn't feel pressured to play a rules-robot character?

(There was one GM who had the mantra "It's supposed to be a challenge!" who made us all gunshy about taking any risks or doing anything spontaneous, but that was a far broader issue.)

I would say that my imagination is actually excessively active, and has always been so. (My sister tells me she used to listen outside my room as I talked to myself in different voices and made sound effects for confrontations between various sides in magic sci-fi wars.)

The thing is, I have a tendency to assign/imagine drives and emotions that are far starker than reality suggests. Under my control, a character doesn't give in to something, he perseveres. (I wish I could say the same for myself.) Unless I want that character to fail. I suppose it's more "author" than "actor" stance, to borrow those terms. But at the same time, I do put myself in those roles, but in so doing, I still only share in the things that I can experience through whatever medium I'm using.

In a game, I share in the triumphs and failures that actually matter to playing the game (more than playing the character), even though I do strongly value playing the character.

It really is the same thing that makes using dice to determine if my PC can hit that target or not important: I know my PC is "reasonably good" at target shooting, and that there's a chance he will and a chance he won't hit it. If I'm the sole arbiter of whether he does or not, the fact that he has a reasonable-to-good chance to do so justifies my decision that he DOES. But argument may arise that I have him succeed at target-shooting way too often. Shouldn't he fail more often? Okay, then, how often? What percent of the time? And how do we determine if THIS shot is a success or failure, since THIS one is for the game-important prize? I mean, if you think about it, "I choose the times that don't matter for him to fail, and the times that do matter for him to succeed" could still yield the right percentage accuracy!

The same thing applies to emotional pressures, luxury indulgences, pleasurable temptations, and endurances of suffering. Sure, he doesn't ALWAYS manage to push through the misery of hunger, but since the GM is asking me about it this time, I decide he will. Sure, he doesn't ALWAYS hold his temper, even in dicey situations, but since it's on screen this time and I'll have to suffer the consequences, he does THIS time.

This is why we use dice, rather than player decision, about physical skill results. This is why some sort of mechanic, dice or otherwise, should accrue for linking the character's real emotional investment to the player's gameplay experience.

Attempting to hit the target is about the character's interaction with the outside physical world -- it comes after the decision.

The emotional pressures, luxury indulgences, pleasurable temptations, etc, are about the decision itself, internal to the character.

Floret

2016-12-16, 12:14 PM

I have been putting a lot of time into reading and writing posts for this thread. I have no idea how you guys do it. In other news, I would like to nominate this thread (or this section of it) for having the longest average post length.

The players decide how much to adjust the score by, this is the "minimally interfering" example and so leave control entirely in hands of the players. Now there would be guidelines, but the players are free to adapt them to fit their characters as they see fit.
In fact I don't actually know how the system feeds back into mechanics. I agree spending it does not quite fit the model of happiness it is using, so perhaps it would provide some small passive bonuses. Still even that would be the next step on top of the current version. The fourth point in the system if you will.
I think the fifth point in the system would be a point to adjust changes to the score depending on where you are on the track. So if you are already really happy it is harder to become happier, if you are sad you can't as easily become that much sadder.

By being an easily-distracted (By forum posts, not from them) student with too much free time on her hands. :smalltongue:
I don't personally think leaving everything up to the players is all that good an idea (I mean, really, the temptations to go "I get tons of points because I feel that appropriate" is... there... As I said, I like group consensus with GM as the last arbiter better and have seen it work).
So something like the spiral of death, just in both directions? I need to test sth like that. Also: For the adjustment being dependant on your currenct score, I'd try and look at L5Rs Honor system as a model. The more honor you have, the grander the gestures have to be to still improve, and the more honerless behaviour stings. Some things even loose their impact completely if you are too far into one direction - an honourless dog will be expected to not be corteous, so noone really cares anymore when they are.

So please correct me if I am wrong; but your desire is for having some sort of "RP mechanic" is not the same as Segev's? You want your character's personality to matter mechanically whereas Segev wants to alter the mechanical benefits relating to certain choices?

Guess we don't have to discuss that option anymore then? :smallsmile:

No, my desire for RP mechanics seems to me at least to be very different from Segevs, in a way that you describe correctly. Now, the same rules might satisfy both desires, sure, but the base point is sth. different.
And... Not with me, no. The merits of Model 1 have never been clear to me.

It might be the sort of thing that gets easier with practice. I have little experience with this type of "personality aspect judgement", and my general view is that I, as a GM, shouldn't be the one to tell players how to play their character. So if they say "this would be a situation where I feel X is really applicable", who am I to argue? Similarly, if I say "I want to invoke your competitive spirit to make you climb these stairs really fast", what is to stop the player from saying "naaah, my character doesn't really feel competitive enough about this thing to care"? Why should I, as a GM, decide what another player's character is feeling? And why should my decision weight stronger than their?

This is pretty much what I mean with "internal" vs. "external". I really find it easier to say "since you stand on gravel, you get a -2 penalty to movement" than "since your character is competitive, you get a -2 penalty to resist this particular temptation". The former statement is one a player can't really argue with, whereas the second has "but I don't really care about this competition" as an objection that is completely warranted.

Who am I, as GM, to decide what your character cares or doesn't care about? How can this be objectively measured? While it is possible that these questions CAN be answered by the mechanics themselves, I still think they are very important questions to consider when implementing mechanics that deal with the inner world of a character's emotions.

There should, I find, always be a way for a player to "opt out". If the GM in fate invokes an aspect against someone, they can either take the bribe, or spent a Fate point to deflect it. (Or even, by group consensus, simply reject the bribe. That is not a houserule, that is actually just in the rules :smalltongue:)
As for who are you to argue... A fellow player, that has had probably at least a similar amount of time interacting with the character as the player playing it has. So you are gonna have a certain image, even if it is slightly off. I think it is a matter of group consensus if the GM telling "yaknow, this would trigger your thing (if you don't spent resource X)" is appropriate or not.
So less "I am deciding what they are feeling", but maybe "I am deciding if it costs something/gives a boon" to feel that way.
And I would imagine it being very easy to argue with the exact penalty for the gravel. I personally solve this in my system by having rather rough mechanics that solve a lot of things through the same system, but the more detail, the more edgecases, the more arguing. If the scale of "good mood" modifier goes from 1 (generally upbeat) to 3 (Happiest day of my life), which level a situation is will be much clearer than if the scale goes from 1 to say 20. And... really, if the character has taken every other opportunity to compete, I wouldn't actually find it "completely warranted", want an explanation on why the character doesn't care, and then judge by that. Perfectly willing to go "sure, that sounds alright". But I'd wanna hear something fit to make me say that.
(Tangent: My system deals with this by "conditions" of several, predetermined types but open to new inventions on the spot, that can cover everything from bleeding, fear, mental illness, as well as having appropriate tools or being in certain combat stances.)

You mentioned psychology being able to make people change sleeping and speech habits when taking on another role. This is pretty much the same psychology as I was talking about; simulating responses based on imaginary stimuli. And yes, it IS a thing. People can feel pain relief by simply being told they're getting morphine for example. Our brains are truly wonderful. So yes, simply imagining yourself in a situation can generate physiological responses.

Admittedly I haven't done LARPing. I can see how it would help with some parts of the immersive experience, but also be problematic with others.
For example, I really hate olives. According to you, if I played a character in a LARP that very much enjoyed olives and then ate one, I'd feel as much satisfaction as my character. I somehow doubt that this is true, although I wouldn't mind the experiment.
So I can see how sharing similar sensory input to your character might help you understanding what sensory input the character is having. I don't see how it would make it any easier to be "in-character" though. Since the definition of a different character is one that will interpret the sensory input in another way and act different than you, that is kind of irrelevant to the point to you feeling the input yourself or not.
Also, LARP has the issue of making it more difficult to play, and be seen as, a member of the opposite sex, vastly different age, different body build etc etc, since it actually aims to make the sensory input MORE important and not less. Not to mention characters with skills different than yours (I don't think I will magically be better at picking locks just because I pretend to play a character who is).

Sure, imagining yourself there can generate responses, yes. But I have noticed a difference there still, I was saying. In the intensity, the "realness", so to speak.
How it can make it easier to fall into character... The brain has limits to its capability. So if you are imagining everything, there is less "power" left to "running the character", so to speak. Also I don't have to imagine the things external to the character, which would pull one (or do with me) out of them (the character) a bit, but just the things internal, leaving me with more power for that one task, as well as squarely IN character, not in the landscapes around them.

Uhm, sure, Larp restricts the sorts of characters you can play, and ties it much closer to you as a real person. That is a fact about the "system" that one will have to accept. I will never play a dwarf, and I know that. Now I have played both male and female characters (As well as one weird one), seen age be done quite well (Both characters vastly older as well as a woman in her early twenties playing a prepubescent girl.) and different body can be done. You do have to have certain requirements in your person, however. If not for my androgyny, I wouldn't pull different genders off that well, and so on.
A character with skills higher than yours will require some work of improving yours, too, yes. Though there is some level of fibbing and LOOKING competent that gets you quite some way - more, if the game has rules for something (As for example with "getting out of rope bindings" being a skill in some games bought with character points or some other way, because ACTUALLY tying people up might be bad for Outgame safety reasons. So there your character could obviously be better than you.). But you are restricted, yes.
(And, no, I wouldn't say you'd feel as much satisfaction as your character from eating olives. Maybe, but there are limits to what psychology can do. My skald has a vastly differing taste in men than I do, and that does work to change how I look at them, but even though I tried getting my Diplomat to be more used and approachable about certain Japanese foods than I am, that did not. I could make other people believe I liked it more than I did, but not actually myself. So that character does not like them more than I do, though she is more willing to eat them anyways.)
Edit: Another note: For you, the player being distracted by using tools to look identical to the character, and feeling the tools pulling you away from character (I realise that might be an argument as well), I can offer this anecdotal story: I have, for years, played a halfelf. With latex ears glued onto my own (And makeup to make the ear and the latex blend together). One would think I'd feel them, and that that might pull me out, but actually... this sensation fades away. So much so, that I, if I was falling out of character a bit (As it happens, can't be "there" for 20 consistent hours without some drops), I sometimes felt my ears to see if they were still there, because I felt them so little. They never actually fell down, btw.

Just as a side note here, if I read this right, it means that if you tried to seduce another player at a LARP, you'd actually HAVE to give the player the same reward as the character? Since you said "this is the best because then character experience = player experience"?

Oh. Oh gods no. Larp is, and should be, still a game, in some ways, and you shouldn't need to cross thresholds you the player don't wanna, just because your character might. No, the "reward" for giving in to seduction is usually the two (or more) people going into some backroom or other secluded area, playing cards, talking or other things, then returning with ruffled clothes. Sometimes there is a sort of minigame for simulating how the characters did in bed, by grabbing each other by the wrists and moving your hands up the arms as sort of an indication of "getting close to finishing". With "prostitutes", the player quite often gets a massage when the character gets it on.
Despite knowing this, though, the temptation is STILL much closer to the characters. Because really, the pretty girl (or guy, or whatever) whispering things in your ear, stroking your skin, letting you do so with theirs (Arms, legs, maybe the torso of a well-muscled guy. Not the... more delicate parts, of course.) just is something else than the GM describing it, and the temptation the character is feeling MUCH more real.

There are, and should be, some areas where the In-game and Out-game actions differ, by virtue of the characters feelings and desires having to stand back behind the players'. Outgame is more important. This is a game. (Sex being one of them, any safety concerns another, as described in example with being tied up above. Or fistfights, very often, get reduced to a comparing of stats by handsign, and then just acting out the predetermined result. Just much easier not to ACTUALLY hit each other in the face with the reduction in adrenaline.) They are just far, far fewer than with TRPGs.
(That is not to say people never get it on on Larps (they do), but just because someone's character is wanting some from your character doesn't mean jack **** about them and you, is the point.)

And I get the idea behind offer the player temptations that help highlight the character temptations. It's not really the way for me, since I prefer to go for "really being there" as much as possible. Other than that I also think it is very hard to find something that would simulate for and tempt the player equally much as the choice the character is currently facing. Those type of rules would by necessity have to be player-specific, as different players value different things to varying extents.

Yes, I was asking you as a player. It seems as you, as a player, wouldn't necessarily need some form of "meta-world" currency to motivate you to help. You do it, despite the potential drawbacks, because you are a good person. Why do you suddenly need such extra motivation to have your character act in a way that you would as a player (assuming here you had a good character instead)?

I would actually almost agree with the "player-specific" on one condition: Game/Group-specific. I am heavily in favour of having multiple wildly varying game systems for TRPGs, and wouldn't want there to be one constant. Different systems for different tastes. Sure. I wouldn't want every player to be treated differently within the same game, though. Though I also generally want every player in one game to have a roughly similar desire for what to get out of the game.
And, quite frankly, I don't. As I said, I didn't need metacurrency for my decision as the scene took place. I would act in whatever way I felt the character would, consequences be damned. (Sure, my characters are build in a way to get me more of what I want out of a game - if I have to consistently sit silently and listen I'll go mad, I need a character that is allowed to talk, for example.)
I am not arguing for mechanics as a tool to equalize or incentivise decisions. I just want my personality to influence mechanics. In whatever way possible, after thinking about Cluedrews thing I now have 2 (rather incompatible) ideas running around in my head (And written out in the thread).
(Truth be told, I am arguing for them, but not because I want them, but because I see misunderstandings and feel confident enough in my interpretation of what these rules aim for to share my objection to these misunderstandings. In this case? Meh. I can only say "I wouldn't need a token, but can see why other people might". Non-pissed of allies might be a good "token", though.)

Segev

2016-12-16, 12:47 PM

I can't keep up with the volume of discussion and detail. I sympathize. I will try, and likely fail, to keep this one...shorter. I know it won't be short.

There's another reason I'm suspicious of these sorts of rules -- they bleed subjective matters into the objective framework of a game's mechanics. The character's thoughts and feelings are given the power to directly affect the reality of the game's settings through their influence over inputs or outputs of the mechanics. This is effectively magic of a very particular sort, and really only appropriate to certain settings.

This is closely related to one of my core objections to "narrative rules" -- in that case reality appears to be warped by the "needs of the story".The difference, to me - at least insofar as the rules I have been advocating goes - is that the "bleed over" is logical. Believable. Related to the simulation of a person who experiences emotions and urges and drives.

It isn't, "You were a good boy, Mr. Player-of-the-game; you can have more powerful mechanics." It's, "Your character is more confident, happy, and focused, and you can represent how this makes him better at this upcoming task by expending some of the morale points that represent this on bonuses to his roll." Nor is it, "Because you didn't play your character as I wanted you to, you're being punished." It's, "Your character is sad, distracted, annoyed, or unfocused, so it's making it harder for him to do well." And, in between, there's simply "he's okay and all, but he doesn't have the mental energy to go above and beyond." That last being "he doesn't really have morale points to spend on bonuses, but he's not in negatives and suffering penalties."

Does the conceptual difference here make sense? I know you can map the two together if you want, but I think the conceptual difference is very important, as it will influence the finer details of how such a system works. "Play the way I want you to" will lead to mechanics rewarding choices rather arbitrarily, according to what the GM thinks is 'right.' "Your character is happier or sadder because of this" will lead towards mechanics trying to accurately model the character's emotional state.

2. " Tradeoff for In-character decisions negatively effecting mechanics otherwise". Many systems along these lines tempt the players to "farm" the tradeoff by playing to specific traits. And again, as far as I'm concerned, cause-and-effect consequences are not punishments, and there's nothing there to offset in the first place. The real world doesn't give you a magic cookie to offset the negative effects of an action or decision, even when they're negative consequences for doing the right thing. I see no reason a game should either.
To a degree, I don't see a problem with this. "It's downtime, so I'm going to have my PC go to the gym and work out, because that's something he enjoys!" is perfectly fine. In fact, a lot of systems assume you do stuff like that anyway.

Now, maybe you don't want "he always goes to the gym" to be mechanically reinforced, but that theoretically should be balanced by having more broad-based "likes." He is "into physical fitness" as a trait? Okay, going to the gym is but one way to exploit that. So would "reading health magazines" or "going to sporting events." Spectating things you enjoy doing yourself also applies. (Of course, you could explicitly exclude spectating, if you like, because your character has another trait relating to preferring to "do" rather than "watch.")

As somebody else points out - and I think I have a multiquote later in this post for - this seems an odd complaint, simply because you're saying "now there's incentive to go farm this trait," but you previously rejected the notion that there's incentive to disregard that trait when it comes in conflict with a real, in-game reward. Either you value the mechanical rewards or you don't; that you would value them only when they're "RP mechanics" but not when they're other mechanics, the ones I'm saying distort and create pressures to choose only the optimal choices, confuses me.

3. "Personality traits influencing dicerolls" -- players distort their character's actions to game the mechanical benefits, play to simplified caricatured traits, etc. Plus, any time you want to show any nuance or complexity or internal conflict for your character, most of these systems lean towards considering that "not in character". Again, you're complaining that you aren't getting a bonus if you don't play a caricature, but earlier were saying that not getting a bonus for playing "in character" paled in comparison to the joy of playing in character.

If you apply your earlier statements consistently, it would seem to me that you should be fine with picking what the GAME tells you is "not in character" but which you believe is a nuanced, conflicted choice, even if you don't get the "caricature trait" bonus to the action.

General Question: Why. Just why. Is with introducing these mechanics suddenly such a big incentive to play for the mechanical optimum - but never for any of the other myriad of rules that exist, especially those that Segev points out have some mechanical optimum that might be opposed to RP from the beginning? If the player were playing "suboptimally" (Mechanically) before, why assume that they are suddenly gonna start looking for the optimal way? (Not the first time this question is asked, but it feels especially appropriate here.)Yes, this is what I was remembering multi-quoting. This encapsulates my confusion to some of these objections.

If, as the argument goes, the pressures from the game to choose "don't buy ale and whores, even though the madam is fantastically hot and her girls amazingly seductive" because of the risks of blackmail, robbery, loss of resources to buying ale and whores when you could buy better gear, and STDs all make it not worthwhile and you, the player, aren't having your hormones enflamed, your taste buds (and other senses) titillated, and generally won't get to enjoy the "faded to black" pleasures...but you will experience whatever consequences might come from it. If the argument is that these pressures to avoid it won't stop you because it's in character, and the risks are part of the fun of playing that character...

...then why is it that suddenly introducing mechanics to make it cost you something to refrain, or which would reward you for indulging, makes players feel pressured into something they wouldn't want their PC to do? If the decision would be made unpressured by the real mechanics that exist to make it a bad idea, why does adding mechanics to make it at least partially a good idea change things for the worse?

Did punching the wall help with the anger? If yes, there is your benefit. Do the rules consider anger? If yes, punching the wall should interact with that.Also a good point, and something what I am looking for would encapsulate.

While I wouldn't call you a liar, that would not be fair, there is no indication that you are not saying this truthfully - in fact I do believe you truly hold the belief that you wouldn't do it.
But I would definitely call into question if you WOULD. Being on the spot is something different entirely then thinking about hypotheticals. And we can talk about ethics and principles all we want, they can still fly out the window, and sometimes surprisingly fast. This, too, gets to the heart of my point. Being on the spot, like your character is, is very different from thinking about it hypothetically (no matter how much imagination you apply). And unless you're LARPing in far more realism than I would be comfortable with, you're never going to be more than hypothetically thinking about it, as a player. You're never - or at least rarely - going to be as "on the spot" as your character is.

The person's feelings can, even with these rules, only influence their own capabilites. And that is, quite frankly, incredibly realistic. If I want to do something, or happy, it'll turn out better. And take me less time. That is not feelings morphing reality. That is feelings influencing reality THROUGH the person having the feelings. And none of the rules actually ever argued for created any more direct influence.Also this. This is all the "impact on the game world" that the rules I'm proposing should have.

So, typically when I play, and I think possibly also Max_Killjoy, my decision process works like this:

1. The GM describes a situation for me.
2. I decide how my character acts in the above situation.
3. The GM decides what the consequence of my character's action is, requesting help from game mechanics to decide on success/failure or the like.
3 b) If the consequence/penalty is such that it reveals there is a large discrepancy between how the GM envisioned the situation and how I as player envisioned it, we may move back to number 1.

So in general, the game mechanics don't enter into the mix until after the decision to act has been made. They are called upon to resolve the action. Most of the time, I don't really think about what the consequences could be; I like to be surprised. Only when there is a really large discrepancy between GM/Player will I go back and change or revoke the decision.

Some certain subset of existing or proposed RP mechanics would change my decision process to work like this:

1. The GM describes a situation for me.
2. I ask the GM and game mechanics to tell me what is the "most likely decision" for me to make in the situation, what penalties would be applied and whatnot.
3. I decide how my character acts in the above situation.
4. The action is resolved.

With this method, the "call for game mechanics" actually happen before the decision of how to act. They have to, by their very nature. Also, they may come into play afterwards when resolving the action, but that is beside the point.

Therefore, some type of "RP mechanics" actually work to change my (and possibly Max_Killjoy's) decision-making process. I tend to like the one I have, as for me it feels more "immersive" (for lack of a better term) and less "meta-game".

Interesting. On the one hand, I think my general algorithm is more along the lines of the first set. However, there is a certain divorcement of decision-making implied, there, that I couldn't possibly manage.

When faced with a situation, I often do inherently know most of the mechanics involved. I can't make the decision absent them. I can try to consider "what would my character do," but I will always be biased when I have inherent knowledge that there is mechanical reward for one choice but not the other. Don't get me wrong: there are times the choice is CLEAR that "my character would absolutely do the foolish thing, here." It frustrates me, still, but at least the choice is clear. A lot of the time, though, when a character is supposed to be torn, the choice to always pick the thing which gives him something for it - gives ME something for it, as his player, which I can use to enjoy the game more later - is there, and cheapens the "torn" nature of the decision.

On the other hand, if you're going to ignore the mechanics before making your decision, nothing says you have to be told what the morale point rewards or costs would be before you decide. If you discover that the mechanics telling you how your PC feels don't jive with how you think he should, it would be a hint that you should re-evaluate your mechanical build. Whether it's because you need to rejigger his likes and dislikes, or reconsider whether you're playing the character you said you wanted to, would be up to you.

I am glad you find some points to be good. Maybe then we can reach closer to understanding and hopefully some agreement.That'd be nice! :smallsmile:

You are right that they can be constructed to simulate something. This is why I have an easier time to accept White Wolf's Willpower mechanics than certain other systems. I think Segev's morale system also could, depending on how it is designed, fall under the "it is simulating something" side of the spectrum. Therefore, obviously, my verisimilitude objection only really works for games which have a specific type of RP mechanics which isn't really part of the reality of the world."It's simulating something" is absolutely the paradigm for which I'm aiming.

It might be the sort of thing that gets easier with practice. I have little experience with this type of "personality aspect judgement", and my general view is that I, as a GM, shouldn't be the one to tell players how to play their character. So if they say "this would be a situation where I feel X is really applicable", who am I to argue? Similarly, if I say "I want to invoke your competitive spirit to make you climb these stairs really fast", what is to stop the player from saying "naaah, my character doesn't really feel competitive enough about this thing to care"? Why should I, as a GM, decide what another player's character is feeling? And why should my decision weight stronger than their?Barring obviously inappropriate applications ("I apply my love of sailing to this effort to persuade the guard to let me into the dungeon"), it's probably fine to be permissive. Again, there's risk of optimization for always-applicable things, but you can also apply their negatives rather freely, then.

As for "I'm not feeling competitive about this," that's the reason why I advocate for penalties and rewards, rather than compulsions. The player doesn't get to say, "I am not feeling competitive about this." He does get to say, "I am going to hold back despite my competitive nature." If he does, he either suffers the penalty you assign, or fails to get the reward with which you were bribing him.

Personally, for the race-up-the-stairs-that-doesn't-have-to-be-a-race example, if I were the GM, I'd say something like, "Since you have a strong competitive spirit, if you're the first one to the top of the steps, you get X morale points. Bonus Y morale points for each of the others you successfully goad into actually deliberately racing you."

This is pretty much what I mean with "internal" vs. "external". I really find it easier to say "since you stand on gravel, you get a -2 penalty to movement" than "since your character is competitive, you get a -2 penalty to resist this particular temptation". The former statement is one a player can't really argue with, whereas the second has "but I don't really care about this competition" as an objection that is completely warranted.One way to handle it is to not simply assign penalties for not acting competitive. Tie it to another character's social efforts. "I'm not feeling competitive about this," means that he can't get his bonuses for participating, and that he can't suffer penalties. But if he's not feeling competitive, and this other person wants to tempt him with it, they just have to MAKE him feel competitive about it.

So they roll a social skill of some sort, probably with a bonus due to the target's competitive nature, to MAKE him care. The temptation arises because he has a competitive nature and this guy's made it into a competition.

Who am I, as GM, to decide what your character cares or doesn't care about? How can this be objectively measured? While it is possible that these questions CAN be answered by the mechanics themselves, I still think they are very important questions to consider when implementing mechanics that deal with the inner world of a character's emotions.I think such mechanics are important to role-playing games that are meant to actually allow people to play socially adept characters, honestly.

Yes, I was asking you as a player. It seems as you, as a player, wouldn't necessarily need some form of "meta-world" currency to motivate you to help. You do it, despite the potential drawbacks, because you are a good person. Why do you suddenly need such extra motivation to have your character act in a way that you would as a player (assuming here you had a good character instead)?Perhaps I wouldn't. Perhaps helping would be its own reward. The "good feels" my character gets really are something I, too, can enjoy.

Where the kind of mechanics I'm talking about would kick in here are under only two circumstances: 1) the target of the charity is actively using persuasion mechanics to get my PC to give that charity; and 2) my PC has strong drives which push him that way.

(1) is a situation that is important for times when I, the player, don't think it's really a case of need, or when I'm not playing a naturally charitable person and what's being simulated is a very skilled bit of manipulation to get even the hard-hearted, CN, selfish rogue to give the adorable little urchin a coin or few.

(2) remains the same if I, the player, and the "charity case" scenario are in agreement. I just get a morale boost for actually doing it, whereas before, I got nothing. Yay, bonus. If, on the other hand, I, the player, for some reason think it actually would tear the character a bit - does he REALLY have to do this particular good deed? Is it REALLY all that good, is the need that great? - it's nice to have a metric for seeing just how torn up he is. (This may also fold back into (1), since it could be a manipulator making it look more dire and needy than it is.)

Yes, you are right, everything can be optimized. I think my point is more like this "the introduction of RP mechanics is meant to increase the RP commitment by the player, but unless the player already takes those things into account, it will just end up being yet another thing to optimize around.Which is neither net improvement nor net negative. And gives those NPCs who have social skills hooks to play with and make the "game optimization only" PCs still react more like people would to social interactions.

I have one minor question after reading this.

Do you enjoy playing characters which perseveres?Usually, yes.

If you do, then why do you want the system to punish you for playing something you enjoy?Excellent question! The answer is that "a character who perseveres" is laudable for that perseverance. For what they endure, what they give up, what difficult choices they make to continue on.

If I told you a story about a character who persevered in getting to the palace of golden rewards, because he resisted the temptation to eat poop each time it was offered, resisted the temptation to get side-tracked by wading in the thornbush of agony, and chose to take the easy and wide path of comfort over the alternative paths made of d4s and burning-hot jacks, does his "perseverance" against these "temptations" and do his "hard choices" seem all that meaningful?

What if I told you a tale of the girl who kept working hard at a job she loved, refusing to quit it when offered a job she'd hate and with lower pay, chose to let her rival take the project neither of them wanted which didn't do anybody any good, and chose not to give away company secrets for a picture of a new car that she could use as her background on her computer desktop...would that sound like a heroic tale?

If I'm going to play a character who perseveres, who stays steadfastly pointed at the mechanically rewarding goals I have set for him, it's not very meaningful when I refuse to let him be sidetracked by sexy girls, delicious tacos, luxury hotel rooms, and other things which are lavishly tempting to real people, but which it's easy for me as a player who won't share in them to say "meh" to.

Similarly, if I were playing a game where I play myself, and I set my goal to lose 80 lbs and develop an Adonis-like physique, it's a lot less heroic when I say, "And Segev, my character, refuses all the temptations of delicious soda and desserts, endures his headaches and hunger pangs, and forces himself through the pains of exercise every day," than it would be if I actually did it, myself, IRL. Because people can rightly look at that and say, "Yeah, right. You SAY he does that, but honestly, would he really?" But if I actually did it, truly enduring all that suffering and hardship, people who know me would be rightfully impressed.

Even without external judgment, this treads on the same ground as the dreaded Mary Sue. Sure, maybe you get a kick out of playing a perfect character whose suffering is an informed attribute.

But in an RPG, I'd actually like my perseverance to mean something. I'd like the choices I made, the things I gave up to get where I'm going, to have some impact.

When I think about how I'd play Segev (the necromancer, not a pastiche of myself as a character), the things he gives up are hard to justify as real sacrifices for a real person. With RP mechanics, he'd be fairly obviously cold, as his list of things he values (and thus gains any morale points from) would be small, and he'd largely be an exercise in a character who neither expends morale nor loses it easily. Which is a valid character to play, and I think still has more meaning in a system where the alternative - a character who feels deeply and uses morale (and suffers for it sometimes) - legitimately plays differently.

If I'm going to play a character who always makes "the right" choices, it's nice when "the right" choice comes at a cost to me, as a player, commensurate with the cost to my character. From a social acceptance standpoint, it's harder to say "you're being a munchkin" when the costs are legitimate, and from a self-satisfaction standpoint, I can legitimately say that I reflected my character's turmoil over it adequately, whatever choice I make.

In short, having a cost makes the perseverance meaningful.

Lorsa

2016-12-16, 04:42 PM

Continuing with this never-ending stream of posts to reply to. I feel as though I am always behind, but my trait "loves a discussion" has been triggered so it's hard to stay away.

So, moving back a few steps in the discussion.

This is, indeed, an issue. Should Suzy Seductress really be able to make Gaylord Flam Beyonce - misogynistic lover of men - want to spend time with her bared bosom? At a minimum, you'd think she'd have a more difficult time of it. Which brings us to...

Here, of course, Gaylord is not going to be influenced, which, from a simulation perspective, makes sense, but from a balance perspective, does not. The obvious argument here is that, if it's a deliberate effort by sinister forces to have Suzy seduce him into being late to his meeting, these same sinister sybarites would seek to send Miles Musculon, student and sometime lover of Jack Harkness.

That answer reveals the overall solution to this problem, even without deliberate effort on the part of some pernicious force: sometimes, your likes will be triggered, and others, they won't.

Used in social mechanics, too, this makes some sense: the socialite should not be able to forcibly make you like what she wants you to like. Instead, she should learn what you do like and try to manipulate you with that.

It is possible I might again frustrate you by answering to a slightly different part than you focused on. Partly because I think overall we have some agreement with which type of character should be seduced (pun intended) by certain things and which should not. You also seem to have an eye for game balance so I won't delve deeper into that either.

Expanding on my thoughts here, which is related to do "can things be solved by the game narrative rather than the system" and "try to set up interesting choices" as well as "characters are always defined through their actions".

If you play a character who is the target of seduction, you may not be aware of if giving in to the temptation is a bad thing or not. There's a risk, but no sure and certain drawback. It is possible you might be five minutes late to a meeting (although a Drive skill might prevent it), but then again, you don't know that being late will be bad!

You mention nefarious sybarites trying to delay the character - this is a very specific type of example (yes, I do get bogged down in examples at times, I'm sorry).

As a GM, I may provide these kind of "will your character be seduced by the busty lady" choices without necessarily telling them what will happen with either choice. It's not like the character will KNOW it is horribly bad to come late to the meeting. You say that "the player may suspect this is bad; why else would the GM have this seductress there?". Well, that is true if the GM works like this (which, I would argue, is bad GMing).

I might place such a choice there for the simple reason to allow you to further explore and develop your character. You might not really know if your target is easily seduced or not at character creation, but when put in the situation, you have to decide. You've know explored and refined your character's personality.

Sometimes getting seduced might bring about some undesired consequences, but other times it will not. I'm not going to tell you, the player which times are which. To you, the choice is instant character reward (if you feel like your character likes to be seduced) vs. the potential of a risk. How much does your character value a potential risk? The answer according to me should be up to you, the player, not the GM or the game itself. Obviously any "RP mechanics" like the proposed morale system which still leaves this in the hands of the player would receive a warmer welcome with me.

Unfortunately, many types of "RP mechanics" only reward players with tokens when their character does a thing that actively brings about a complication for their character. This means that now I, as a GM, has to specify if the choice will lead to a complication or not. I don't want to do that. In fact, I may not even have decided this myself, deciding first when I see how the scene plays out (how long the character gets seduced for etc).

This again ties into the decision-making process I was talking about earlier. A certain subset of mechanics asks the GM to specify to the player, in exact terms, the consequences of a choice before it's made. I don't want to do that, as simply, the character wouldn't know, the player shouldn't know and often, the GM shouldn't know either.

On the one hand, typically no. Though if the "don't be late" were due to playing off of some personality trait or other social influence, perhaps so.

The underlying assumption of this scenario is that "sexy girl" is on the list of temptations that actually matter to [target character]. It's meant as a stand-in, not a singular example. Replace Suzy Seductress with whatever temptations are applicable to [target character] to see why the mechanic is needed.

As to defining the character particularly well, yes and no.

Uh, I forgot what quote you were replying to now. You said you don't want "RP mechanic type 3"?

And yes, the underlying assumption is that the character is tempted by something that matters to the character. However, as I argued, how do you really know what stuff tempts a character or not, until they've been tempted by it?

So in the Suzy Seductress case, I as GM could say "you need to expend morality tokens to not go along with her" but the player might say "err, why? my character isn't of the easily seduced kind". Unless we've defined the character in advance there's no way of knowing who is correct, GM or player (probably the player).

How do you get around having to define the character in large detail before the game has even begun? I find this very hard and often undesirable. Isn't it better to figure out during play?

I answer the question in the last quote here, as it's related to this quote as well.

A complete picture of this system would include (but not be limited to, and still probably require refinement of) Aspect-like personality traits, Exalted-inspired mechanics for building and eroding those traits, and a certain amount of broad-brush understanding. Using the "morale points" basis, the GM would no more have to pre-define the "unpleasantness" rating of things he feels a character would dislike than he would have to pre-define the DC of a skill check at which he feels a character wouldn't automatically succeed. Perhaps Traits come with ratings of their own, which represent how many morale points resisting temptations to indulge costs as well as how many indulging can gain. The ratings might also be used to counterbalance Unpleasantnesses. A kid with a Trait that says he LOVES playing in mud and getting dirty at rating 3 might be able to pit that against the Unpleasantness 5 of wading through a smelly sewer. A student of architecture or of sewer life might have a Trait that makes the exploration of it fascinating and likewise counteract the Unpleasantness. Heck, (to borrow from D&D), perhaps Profession(Sewer Worker) leaves you innured to it, allowing you to subtract your skill bonus from the Unpleasantness. Or make a roll to ignore/reduce it.

When it comes to things like Suzy trying to delay Gaylord, I wouldn't actually bake Gaylord's sexual preferences into the morale point awards/costs. I would instead have the morale point rewards/costs be related to how well Suzy rolls her social skills. I would bake Gaylord's preferences into either the bonus (or penalty) at which Suzy rolls, or into the threshold/target value Suzy has to achieve. As a simplistic example, let's say that Gaylord's base defense against any social roll is 10+(Sense Motive Bonus). (This is probably not a good value for it in a better-developed system, but work with me here for this example, please.) Gaylord has "Flagrantly Homosexual" at 4, and "Women are Horrible" at 3 as a couple of traits. Because Gaylord's player has made it clear all along that "Flagrantly Homosexual" is as much a disinterest in sex with women as it is an interest in sex with men, the two of these wind up becoming either additions to his base DC to be persuaded by a woman's seductive efforts, or penalties to her roll at said efforts. Either way, she now has to essentially beat (17 + [Gaylord's Sense Motive bonus]), rather than 10+(Gaylord's Sense Motive Bonus). If she gets to offer 1:1 morale point rewards/penalties for staying/going for each point she exceeded that DC, she's going to have to roll 7 points higher to manage it.

An alternative approach might be to bake it in to the morale points, after all: Suzy still just rolls against 10+sense motive, with 1:1 reward/penalty for each point by which she exceeds that. But Gaylord would have an Unpleasantness 7 rating due to his two traits that say he HATES this interaction, meaning it costs him 7 morale points to even go along with it. So she's going to have to offer him more than that to get away. I don't like this one quite as much, in practice, though, because it means that she can penalize him either way. Unless he can gain morale points for going with his two traits against her social roll. Hrm.

So, in fact, your goal isn't only to create mechanics to help with roleplaying your character, but also a specific type of social mechanics? This makes the issue a bit more complicated, as both systems gain some interdependency. Can we return to social mechanics at a later time when we've gotten bored of the RP mechanics discussion?

And yes, I know this is rife for abuse intra-party. "Brad, could your bard please roll to persuade my character to set up camp tonight? I need the extra morale points from giving in to that persuasion." So it's not by any means perfect. But it's a rough outline of something that starts to encourage what I'm going for, I think.

Glad you didn't need me to point that out for you. :smallsmile:

Oh, and mechanics for building and eroding traits would also need to exist. Probably a slow-ish process related to how often a trait earns or costs you morale, to represent you learning to hate or love something you previously liked, hated, or were indifferent to.

You're making my job even easier. Character personality progression needs to be built into the mechanics, or at the very least allowed in them.

The issue, here, is that there's not really any way for me to tell if I really "got it right." Did I have Armus eat the taco because it was really, truly, "in character," or was it just guilt over the possibility that I would be playing out of character? Did I have Armus refuse it because he's that dedicated, or because I'm a metagaming munchkin?

To this I would say; yes, you got it right. No matter what you chose, it was the "right" choice, as only YOU the player can be the true arbiter of your character's personality, and by making this choice you told me "THIS is Armus". The way I like to think of things is "in principle, there is no right or wrong in roleplaying your character". Extreme cases exist though, but the principle is sound.

Now, RP mechanics often work by saying "NO, there IS a right way to play your character and THIS IS IT". Since I disagree with that statement in principle, it is very difficult for me to embrace such mechanics.

However, what YOU are proposing is actually some kind of system that would help you, the player, play your character the way you want him to be played. This is a somewhat different goal, and I am not the one to tell you this is wrong (it isn't, obviously). By extending this discussion though, I hope to give you insight into what could be objections to your system, so you can work out the kinks and eventually come up with something that can be accepted by most people.

On the contrary, I think the game telling you how strong the urges are makes it more powerful as RP. Now, if you resist the seductor's charms, the resistance is meaningful because of the penalties suffered. You're feeling your character's pains, mechanically. But you know that she has the grim satisfaction of sticking to her guns and doing "the right thing" (whatever it is she chose to do instead of what the seductor wanted).

By making the choices MECHANICALLY meaningful, you make the RP choice have an appropriate level of meaning. It's easy to say that Hiro Protagonist turns down the vacation of a lifetime to be able to afford a new +5 sword. It has more meaning when you, the player of Hiro, actually have to give up something commensurate with Hiro's potential enjoyment of that vacation.

The reason I push for it to be "core" is because it ties in to social mechanics, if done right/well.

Sam Shyster the Salesman is going to use social mechanics to sell things well above retail. It's all too easy to say "no, I won't buy his overpriced junk" when the GM isn't slick like Sam. Add in mechanics that make it so that you really share in your PC's satisfaction at buying this thing he doesn't need, though, and suddenly Sam's social skills are effective in the game.

From a PC socialite's perspective, too, these mechanics let them show the GM a real, mechanical measure of how influential they are on NPCs. Without having to "mind control" the NPCs. The PC offers rewards or penalties for doing (or not doing) what he asks of the NPCs, and the NPCs act how the GM wants. But if they don't do what the PC wants, appropriate penalties apply, and the PC thus got use out of his social prowess even if the NPC, according to the GM, would never do as asked. The guilt/desire/urge/distraction is enough to still be of use to the PC.

See my above statement about social mechanics. It's a different beast to tackle entirely, one of which I have similar answers to (that is, I solve it with how I run my games).

Also, Eon has mechanics for haggling, where if an NPC salesman beats your roll, you have to buy the item at a higher price. It's a little bit annoying as it doesn't have a "my character is a cheap bastard" system.

But, let me end this with a question:

Do all choices have to be mechanically meaningful? Can't some simply be narratively meaningful (or even just "player experience meaningful)?

I probably know what you will answer, but I figured I'd ask the question anyway.

Hard to say. The thing is that I feel like I'm doing a bad job getting my point across, as the wrong parts of my analogies and examples become the focus of what you reply to. I do think you get what I am saying, a fair bit of the time, as evidenced by some of the points you've said, but...

I apologize if I make you feel as though you are doing a bad job of getting your point across. I don't think you are, really, but there are some underlying core assumptions or goals or desires of yours I haven't quite figured out yet. This might be why the "wrong parts become the focus", because I'm trying to figure out more in detail where you are coming from and what you hope to achieve.

Well, the biggest thing you've indicated is that it just wouldn't be a problem. And you're right, a lot of what I've used as examples wouldn't be in a lot of games. I've had to contrive some mechanical rewards that are unlikely to use real-world examples, for instance.

On a certain level, I DO think the question of "would this show up in games often enough to warrant mechanics to adjudicate" is an important one. If the only examples you can find are very unlikely scenarios; what is the purpose of developing mechanics for these?

I mean, let's be honest: if we could just expend XP on anything we wanted IRL, and it didn't have to reflect anything we did with our downtime or even our screen time, we'd all be different than we are, to one degree or another. I would have a ST and CN of 12 or so, and (given that physical description isn't even stat-dependent) I'd not have the obvious gut and would have some definition to my muscles. (Truth be told, I'm not "obviously" fat by American standards, just slightly overweight, despite the BMI charts insisting I'm obese. I don't feel obese, and I am exaggerating my dissatisfaction with my body a little, because expressing it in precise terms is difficult without going into essay-length posts on just that. And frankly, that's both gross and beside the point.)

If we could expend XP on anything we wanted, I'd spend mine on the Resources trait. Or possibly some skill that has a direct correlation with monetary gain.

I have fun in lots of games where this punishment-for-RP thing comes up, in spite of it. So please don't take it as a judgment on your games when I say that I am not convinced that the way you run it would avoid the frustrations I am expressing with the lack of "RP mechanics."

I don't take it like that. You should like the games you like, and play with GMs that run frustration-free games. I've never claimed my games are for everyone (although for some reason most people I play with seem to enjoy them).

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-16, 04:53 PM

As a GM, I may provide these kind of "will your character be seduced by the busty lady" choices without necessarily telling them what will happen with either choice. It's not like the character will KNOW it is horribly bad to come late to the meeting. You say that "the player may suspect this is bad; why else would the GM have this seductress there?". Well, that is true if the GM works like this (which, I would argue, is bad GMing).

I might place such a choice there for the simple reason to allow you to further explore and develop your character. You might not really know if your target is easily seduced or not at character creation, but when put in the situation, you have to decide. You've know explored and refined your character's personality.

Sometimes getting seduced might bring about some undesired consequences, but other times it will not. I'm not going to tell you, the player which times are which. To you, the choice is instant character reward (if you feel like your character likes to be seduced) vs. the potential of a risk. How much does your character value a potential risk? The answer according to me should be up to you, the player, not the GM or the game itself. Obviously any "RP mechanics" like the proposed morale system which still leaves this in the hands of the player would receive a warmer welcome with me.

Unfortunately, many types of "RP mechanics" only reward players with tokens when their character does a thing that actively brings about a complication for their character. This means that now I, as a GM, has to specify if the choice will lead to a complication or not. I don't want to do that. In fact, I may not even have decided this myself, deciding first when I see how the scene plays out (how long the character gets seduced for etc).

This again ties into the decision-making process I was talking about earlier. A certain subset of mechanics asks the GM to specify to the player, in exact terms, the consequences of a choice before it's made. I don't want to do that, as simply, the character wouldn't know, the player shouldn't know and often, the GM shouldn't know either.

Another example of how these mechanics are similar to the "narrative stance (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games)" mechanics that I greatly dislike.

Too many of them end up changing the game into a succession of "negotiations" between the GM and player, and/or require the GM to telegraph to the player when something is going on versus when not, before the character even could know it.

ComradeBear

2016-12-16, 05:02 PM

Another example of how these mechanics are similar to the "narrative stance" mechanics that I greatly dislike.

Too many of them end change the game into a succession of "negotiations" between the GM and player, and/or require the GM to telegraph to the player when something is going on versus when not, before the character even could know it.

Are you just haphazardly combining buzzwords at this point?

I realize that you have me on ignore and so you can't actually get an accurate description of what the stances describe, but I'll try again:

The stances describe the 4 broadest terms by which we can describe the ways people go about controlling their character. There is nothing good or bad about any stance. They just describe one aspect of the player/character interaction.

They are not a mechanic.

They're not included in games. They're a meta-description. Like how Micromanagement and Macromanagement in RTS titles get talked about as layers of such games. It's just a description of what kinds of things are happening.

A point made in blatant ignorance to what it references loses its impact.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-16, 05:07 PM

It isn't, "You were a good boy, Mr. Player-of-the-game; you can have more powerful mechanics." It's, "Your character is more confident, happy, and focused, and you can represent how this makes him better at this upcoming task by expending some of the morale points that represent this on bonuses to his roll." Nor is it, "Because you didn't play your character as I wanted you to, you're being punished." It's, "Your character is sad, distracted, annoyed, or unfocused, so it's making it harder for him to do well." And, in between, there's simply "he's okay and all, but he doesn't have the mental energy to go above and beyond." That last being "he doesn't really have morale points to spend on bonuses, but he's not in negatives and suffering penalties."

Does the conceptual difference here make sense? I know you can map the two together if you want, but I think the conceptual difference is very important, as it will influence the finer details of how such a system works. "Play the way I want you to" will lead to mechanics rewarding choices rather arbitrarily, according to what the GM thinks is 'right.' "Your character is happier or sadder because of this" will lead towards mechanics trying to accurately model the character's emotional state.

I do not want to model the character's emotional state.

Not only do I see no need to model the character's emotional state, I also do not want to interfere with the player's control over their character, or ever tell the player how their character feels or what their character thinks.

To a degree, I don't see a problem with this. "It's downtime, so I'm going to have my PC go to the gym and work out, because that's something he enjoys!" is perfectly fine. In fact, a lot of systems assume you do stuff like that anyway.

Now, maybe you don't want "he always goes to the gym" to be mechanically reinforced, but that theoretically should be balanced by having more broad-based "likes." He is "into physical fitness" as a trait? Okay, going to the gym is but one way to exploit that. So would "reading health magazines" or "going to sporting events." Spectating things you enjoy doing yourself also applies. (Of course, you could explicitly exclude spectating, if you like, because your character has another trait relating to preferring to "do" rather than "watch.")

As somebody else points out - and I think I have a multiquote later in this post for - this seems an odd complaint, simply because you're saying "now there's incentive to go farm this trait," but you previously rejected the notion that there's incentive to disregard that trait when it comes in conflict with a real, in-game reward. Either you value the mechanical rewards or you don't; that you would value them only when they're "RP mechanics" but not when they're other mechanics, the ones I'm saying distort and create pressures to choose only the optimal choices, confuses me.

Again, you're complaining that you aren't getting a bonus if you don't play a caricature, but earlier were saying that not getting a bonus for playing "in character" paled in comparison to the joy of playing in character.

If you apply your earlier statements consistently, it would seem to me that you should be fine with picking what the GAME tells you is "not in character" but which you believe is a nuanced, conflicted choice, even if you don't get the "caricature trait" bonus to the action.

Yes, this is what I was remembering multi-quoting. This encapsulates my confusion to some of these objections.

If, as the argument goes, the pressures from the game to choose "don't buy ale and whores, even though the madam is fantastically hot and her girls amazingly seductive" because of the risks of blackmail, robbery, loss of resources to buying ale and whores when you could buy better gear, and STDs all make it not worthwhile and you, the player, aren't having your hormones enflamed, your taste buds (and other senses) titillated, and generally won't get to enjoy the "faded to black" pleasures...but you will experience whatever consequences might come from it. If the argument is that these pressures to avoid it won't stop you because it's in character, and the risks are part of the fun of playing that character...

...then why is it that suddenly introducing mechanics to make it cost you something to refrain, or which would reward you for indulging, makes players feel pressured into something they wouldn't want their PC to do? If the decision would be made unpressured by the real mechanics that exist to make it a bad idea, why does adding mechanics to make it at least partially a good idea change things for the worse?

1) I'm not complaining that I wouldn't get a bonus for not playing a caricature -- I'm stubborn and respond to pressure by doing the other thing anyway, or by blowing it off and doing whatever I'd have done anyway. I'm complaining that players in general would get a bonus for playing a caricature.

2) Your argument here can just as easily be turned around against you -- why are you complaining about pressure YOU feel from the existing rules to do one thing, and then suggesting a "solution" that involves pressure from new rules to do a different thing?

3) If a player cares primarily about roleplaying, then they're not going to be swayed by the existing mechanics or these proposed RP mechanics. If a player cares primarily about gaming the system, then these proposes RP mechanics give them another layer of system to game, and they're not really RPing anyway. It's only those who fall on the edge between the two who might be to some degree swayed. And again, that's even if one takes this hypothetical "murderhobo" pressure in existing mechanics as a real thing, which I don't.

I do not want to get between the player and their character. I do not want filters or rules or mechanisms inserted in the player-character "connection". These proposed RP mechanisms come across as telling the player "You're not playing your character the way we think you should, so we're going to add another layer of simulation to change what you're doing."

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-16, 05:18 PM

On a different front... does anyone else ever get the sense that certain people can't take a damn hint? :smallconfused:

(Not a comment on anyone I've been replying to here...)

Segev

2016-12-16, 05:47 PM

If you play a character who is the target of seduction, you may not be aware of if giving in to the temptation is a bad thing or not. There's a risk, but no sure and certain drawback. It is possible you might be five minutes late to a meeting (although a Drive skill might prevent it), but then again, you don't know that being late will be bad!

(...)

Sometimes getting seduced might bring about some undesired consequences, but other times it will not. I'm not going to tell you, the player which times are which. To you, the choice is instant character reward (if you feel like your character likes to be seduced) vs. the potential of a risk.Here's the thing, though: "being seduced" might cause problems that I, the player, will suffer the consequences of through my play experience. Loss of resources, opportunities, or capabilities for my character. Closed-off options, or increased penalties.

There is, potentially, the chance that "being seduced" is mutual, and that it offers an opened up opportunity.

Weighing just those two possibilities together, the optimal decision is not to take the risk, as the reward is too unlikely and too unknown in value to be worth the risks.

The idea that my character might enjoy being seduced enters into it as a "are you playing your character right?" question. But again, without something telling me how badly my character wants to give in, it comes out to my judgment. And so I, in what I would personally term "being a bad RPer," would always choose to not take the risk. I term it being a bad RPer because, while in theory it could happen either way believably, and I could claim it "just happened" to go this way this time, the pattern would make it obvious that I never go the other way. And even if I, the player, said "80% of the time he won't give in," to determine whether this time is or is not one of those times, I'd have to roll dice. Which...is a mechanic. And a not terribly satisfying one, since I had to make up the number and now I either stick with it regardless of situation, or I'm re-calculating it with lots of unbased assumptions and...

It's unsatisfying because there's no cost to making the supposedly-hard (but right) choice. So it just comes off as artificially perfect behavior.

How much does your character value a potential risk? The answer according to me should be up to you, the player, not the GM or the game itself. Obviously any "RP mechanics" like the proposed morale system which still leaves this in the hands of the player would receive a warmer welcome with me.:smallsmile:

Unfortunately, many types of "RP mechanics" only reward players with tokens when their character does a thing that actively brings about a complication for their character. This means that now I, as a GM, has to specify if the choice will lead to a complication or not. I don't want to do that. In fact, I may not even have decided this myself, deciding first when I see how the scene plays out (how long the character gets seduced for etc).

Max_Killjoy expresses a good point in response to the immediately above quote, here, on which I'd like to elaborate:

Another example of how these mechanics are similar to the "narrative stance" mechanics that I greatly dislike.

Too many of them end change the game into a succession of "negotiations" between the GM and player, and/or require the GM to telegraph to the player when something is going on versus when not, before the character even could know it.
While I can appreciate such narrative mechanics, where the flaw/complication/whatever has to be meaningful to the story to garner the rewards, I don't think it necessary. Done right, such mechanics, too, are less about narrative and more about balance, though yes, they are designed to encourage narrative storytelling patterns over simulationism. Which Max_Killjoy has expressed a dislike for, and I agree to a certain extent. I appreciate, personally, genre conventions and all, but I do like my level of suspension of disbelief to only have to hold steady, rather than wobble up and down to accommodate "narrative need." I am one of those frustrating folks who'll pick apart stories with fridge logic when they use tropes like an unjustified idiot ball or a sudden character flaw that exists only to drive an episode's plot or the like.

That is not what I am pushing, here. As thankfully has been noticed, what I'm pushing is for simulation of the emotional and mental state of the character(s). Which is part of the simulation, not part of the narrative (outside of how the narrative evolves from the simulation).

This again ties into the decision-making process I was talking about earlier. A certain subset of mechanics asks the GM to specify to the player, in exact terms, the consequences of a choice before it's made. I don't want to do that, as simply, the character wouldn't know, the player shouldn't know and often, the GM shouldn't know either.Hm. This might be a separate thing from what I'm going for.

What I think you're getting at is a kind of mechanic where the GM tells the player what the GM thinks his options are, and which options lead to complications and which are optimal. Is that right? ...I think I might be misreading this.

I actually think that the "points for complications" models are supposed to be run not by the GM bribing a player with a hero point or XP or whatever if he lets the GM activate his flaw, but by the GM presenting the situation, and, if the player acts on his PC's flaw, the player gets the "reward token" when the complication arises from it. Not the moment he takes the bait; only when the hook is set and the PC/player realizes that he's in trouble he wouldn't otherwise have been.

This version allows the player to stay in the dark as to whether giving in "this time" is good or bad, and doesn't make him suddenly know it's going bad until...well, he'd know anyway.

In what I'm proposing, the morale points for "being seduced" are offered regardless of whether it's going to result in "complications." As are the morale penalties for resisting. Because this is a simulation-based mechanic, it's all about whether the character would get emotionally boosted or drained by the choice.

So if Lorsa-the-GM were just providing Gaylord's player with a chance to RP his character by presenting Miles Musculon as a potential one night stand, Gaylord would get the morale points for going along with it even though nothing bad was going to come of it.

Such "morale recharge" activities mostly serve to reinforce the character, give a chance for RP or just letting the player make note of his character's proclivities, and encourage him to make a point of them as side notes. If he does so anyway, it's just cream on top of his RP pie. If he isn't the sort, it does encourage integration and still costs him little. "Yeah, I do that thing on my sheet." No LESS immersive than "Er, he does, um, something." And when it would cause problems, the GM has already giving him the reward for it. There's no "but he wouldn't have been doing that THIS time!" or "surely he wouldn't have fallen for it!" to be said, because the player agreed he did.

Now, I'm not really saying that all tables have confrontational problems like this. But it does help avoid hard feelings to have it established that yes, this really is how things go, and no, nobody is taking control of anybody's character away. And yes, there's reason why you would play the guy who did Activity X even though there's risk of Complication Y coming up from it, even if you "play to win."

So in the Suzy Seductress case, I as GM could say "you need to expend morality tokens to not go along with her" but the player might say "err, why? my character isn't of the easily seduced kind". Unless we've defined the character in advance there's no way of knowing who is correct, GM or player (probably the player).

How do you get around having to define the character in large detail before the game has even begun? I find this very hard and often undesirable. Isn't it better to figure out during play?
This gets back to these rules conflating with social mechanics. When you, as GM, say, "It costs you X morale points to resist Suzy's seduction," you came to a value of X based on her social check, and how good she was at that is based on the target's proclivities. If she really did manage to get a positive, morale-costing seduction result out of Gaylord, then she's the proverbial "even the women want her" seductress who can overcome somebody's orientation enough to make them FEEL it.

Now, because Gaylord's player strongly identifies with Gaylord being, well, gay, he's free to choose to turn this down. The morale point cost can be RP'd by him however he likes. Maybe he's flustered at the lost opportunity. Maybe he's actively horrified that he felt desire for that...that...*ugh* WOMAN. Heck, maybe her efforts really grossed him out so badly that he's horribly discomfited. (This one's a stretch since the alternative would have been "gain morale points for being seduced," but I'm a fan of refluffing things to suit.) Or maybe he just feels really bad about turning her down because he thinks he hurt her feelings. (Or, because he's a misogynist, maybe it was because he's so offended that she thought he's go for it, or horrified that she hit on him at all.)

I admit some of the above are twists around the assumed causes. But ideally, barring Suzy being over-the-top amazing at seduction, to the point she could seduce a literally sexless alien creature like an aboleth, Gaylord's strong proclivities to the contrary should serve as such a barrier that she probably isn't succeeding with that approach, anyway. i.e., the mechanics won't say that Gaylord has to spend any morale points to turn her down.

So, in fact, your goal isn't only to create mechanics to help with roleplaying your character, but also a specific type of social mechanics? This makes the issue a bit more complicated, as both systems gain some interdependency. Can we return to social mechanics at a later time when we've gotten bored of the RP mechanics discussion?I suppose. But to me, they're inextricably linked, since making a functional set of social mechanics that doesn't become "I rolled high, so you're mind controlled" requires modeling the very drives and emotions that we've been discussing.

Character personality progression needs to be built into the mechanics, or at the very least allowed in them.Absolutely. Not only is it important to the player who wishes to RP character growth in a personality sense (because it legitimately helps them pace it), but it's important to that social interaction stuff, because "I want to make sempai notice me" should be something a socialite can achieve, possibly by building up "I like spending time with Haremette #3" as a personality trait in sempai.

Or, more sinisterly, building "I like engaging in [vice]" in a target so that you can become his supplier of said vice, and use it to manipulate him better.

To this I would say; yes, you got it right. No matter what you chose, it was the "right" choice, as only YOU the player can be the true arbiter of your character's personality, and by making this choice you told me "THIS is Armus". The way I like to think of things is "in principle, there is no right or wrong in roleplaying your character". Extreme cases exist though, but the principle is sound.Here's the thing, though. I know I didn't, most likely. Because I will probably always choose "don't eat the taco," because...I can justify it "this time." Whereas I know that, in a lot of cases, I look at things that are my RL version of "eat the taco" and I find reasons to justify it "this time" the other way. Heck, I STILL have a soda from lunch! :smalltongue: And I'm likely going to finish it before the end of the day.

Now, RP mechanics often work by saying "NO, there IS a right way to play your character and THIS IS IT". Since I disagree with that statement in principle, it is very difficult for me to embrace such mechanics.

However, what YOU are proposing is actually some kind of system that would help you, the player, play your character the way you want him to be played. This is a somewhat different goal, and I am not the one to tell you this is wrong (it isn't, obviously). By extending this discussion though, I hope to give you insight into what could be objections to your system, so you can work out the kinks and eventually come up with something that can be accepted by most people.Well, what I'm proposing doesn't say, "This is the only right way for Armus to be played." What it does is tell the player how Armus feels about it, and what it will cost him to forgo that taco.

If Armus's player chooses to forgo the taco, he knows his choice was meaningful, and he shares in Armus's struggle because he knows the loss of morale points.

Even if he chooses "don't eat the taco" every time it could cost him, he is establishing something meaningful about Armus and what he's willing to endure, rather than simply writing a perfect Gary Stu whose "hard choices" are informed attributes, because they cost him nothing meaningful to what's presented as important.

But, let me end this with a question:

Do all choices have to be mechanically meaningful? Can't some simply be narratively meaningful (or even just "player experience meaningful)?

I probably know what you will answer, but I figured I'd ask the question anyway.No. But if a choice is mechanically meaningful already, the mechanics had best model the meaning on all sides.

If the choice of "taco or not taco" doesn't have any bearing on the speech's mechanical outcome, there's no need for mechanics covering how Armus feels about the taco, since there's nothing against which to weigh it. Several proposed solutions have been to just remove the mechanical meaning from the other side of the choice. That works, sometimes. Other times, it really isn't possible without removing fundamental mechanics from the game.

On a certain level, I DO think the question of "would this show up in games often enough to warrant mechanics to adjudicate" is an important one. If the only examples you can find are very unlikely scenarios; what is the purpose of developing mechanics for these?Mainly because I'm bad at coming up with examples, despite having run into this often enough to have it annoy me.

If we could expend XP on anything we wanted, I'd spend mine on the Resources trait. Or possibly some skill that has a direct correlation with monetary gain.Sure! And you'd do that while still living however you like, rather than spending your time on finding and excelling at a high-paying job, risking your assets on high-return ventures, and living extremely frugally to save a nest egg that can become a fortune as fast as possible.

Which is kind-of my point about that: when XP-related improvements need not be connected to IC choices and RP, it changes out the characters behave. And conversely, if you could only spend XP on things you'd done something about "on screen," it would change how your character behaves, most likely. Perhaps for the better, perhaps for the worse; I am not advocating something like this. Just noting that it's almost certainly true.

Kish

2016-12-16, 05:50 PM

No. Nope, I do not care he will never see this or if it was an accident. You do not get to insult my GM, who is a friend of mine and what you say is completely wrong.

He does not run D&D, having described his last experience with the game "having fun despite the system" so what he would do in a D&D is a moot point.
He plays very organic settings with enemies that are people. In one of my first sessions with him I was attacked by a pair of assassins who were sent to kill my character. By the end of that scene they had helped fix my jeep and sent me on my way.

I request an apology.
You asked why something that isn't a default assumption is a default assumption, and apparently you consider that assumption (which you introduced) highly insulting. And you think I owe you an apology? You'll have to do better than saying you only meant people who play D&D (to whom you are not apologizing), not your DM, and you're offended to see the same assumption applied to the game of the person who did the assuming. Perhaps you shouldn't generalize like that if you don't want it to be taken as a statement about you which you're generalizing to other people. I stand corrected in that I gather you were posting a snipe at D&D players, not an assumption that your playstyle is universal; I'm not sure whether that's better or worse.

Segev

2016-12-16, 05:50 PM

On a different front... does anyone else ever get the sense that certain people can't take a damn hint? :smallconfused:

(Not a comment on anyone I've been replying to here...)

I know at least one person like that in real life. He's...frustrating to deal with.

And while I know you said you're not talking about anybody here, so you're hopefully not talking about me, I will acknowledge that I am INCREDIBLY slow to take hints. It's why I usually ask people to tell me directly if they want something from me. Because otherwise I may seem uncaring when I'm really just oblivious.

It's also why I seem blunt at times. I recognize that if I can't take a hint, others may miss mine. So I will state outright if I want something or do not want something. (A friend of mine paid me what I considered a great compliment once, when, after I told a third party that if they wanted any help to let me know and I'd be happy to, he added, "He means it, too. If he doesn't want to help, he'll tell you." Which is true, and something I deliberately try to do, because I think it avoids hard feelings down the line.)

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-16, 06:55 PM

I know at least one person like that in real life. He's...frustrating to deal with.

And while I know you said you're not talking about anybody here, so you're hopefully not talking about me, I will acknowledge that I am INCREDIBLY slow to take hints. It's why I usually ask people to tell me directly if they want something from me. Because otherwise I may seem uncaring when I'm really just oblivious.

It's also why I seem blunt at times. I recognize that if I can't take a hint, others may miss mine. So I will state outright if I want something or do not want something. (A friend of mine paid me what I considered a great compliment once, when, after I told a third party that if they wanted any help to let me know and I'd be happy to, he added, "He means it, too. If he doesn't want to help, he'll tell you." Which is true, and something I deliberately try to do, because I think it avoids hard feelings down the line.)

I promise, it's not you at all. While we're having some frustrating disagreements, I don't think there's any bad faith on your part at all.

Cluedrew

2016-12-16, 07:10 PM

I think I got everything I need to reply to... I probably forgot some things. I am not a fan of massive quoting but at this scale it is almost necessary

You are right that they can be constructed to simulate something. This is why I have an easier time to accept White Wolf's Willpower mechanics than certain other systems. I think Segev's morale system also could, depending on how it is designed, fall under the "it is simulating something" side of the spectrum. Therefore, obviously, my verisimilitude objection only really works for games which have a specific type of RP mechanics which isn't really part of the reality of the world.I think this comes down to "disassociated vs. associated" and all other things being equal I (and most people I have heard speak on the matter) prefer associated mechanics. But then you have tricky matter of "all other thing being equal" which works out... a lot less often than one might hope.

I was considering a long example to explain, but I think those terms are common enough I don't have to. (Short story just in-case associated=in-character & disassociated=out-of-character.) Still I don't feel two strongly on the matter and would rather take a disassociated mechanic that works well over an associated one that is so-so. Others would argue the simple fact it is disassociated makes it a bad mechanic. I could go on with this, but ultimately it is a tangent to the main topic. But I think "personality mechanics" have plenty of room to be associated with the world, although "narrative mechanics" may be stuck outside it.

This is pretty much what I mean with "internal" vs. "external". I really find it easier to say "since you stand on gravel, you get a -2 penalty to movement" than "since your character is competitive, you get a -2 penalty to resist this particular temptation". The former statement is one a player can't really argue with, whereas the second has "but I don't really care about this competition" as an objection that is completely warranted.

Who am I, as GM, to decide what your character cares or doesn't care about?Well assuming you can trust the player, why not just ask: "Do you have any personality modifiers?" It may not fly in a competitive game but most role-playing games aren't that competitive.

Well, I think I've partly given the answer before. Mostly this has to do with the kind of RP mechanics that award XP or narrative tokens that turn out to be EXTREMELY useful for the game. Basically the kind of systems where "you have to follow this course of action or you are ****ed".XP has that issue of being cumulative, so if you miss a step you may stay behind. But in most other cases I have actually found most narrative awards really weak actually. Still this raise the point: like most form of optimisation in role-playing games the rate of return should be low enough you can take other paths (besides the best one) and not fall behind.

Yay, someone likes my idea! Although I'm not sure it IS usually assigned by character. For example, D&D assumes the whole group was involved in fighting the monster, so everyone gets equal share of the XP, despite who did most damage to it.

If more "RP based XP" had been shared by the group by RAW, I would have much less resistance towards them.Don't only the people involved in the fight get XP? So if you are not present you don't get any so that is (to me) an assignment by character, just several at once. Still I think group XP definitely has some advantages. I think XP systems should push characters the same strength, although there are other ways to do it. I've never seen an role-playing game with mentoring rules, but you could do it.

But if I read your "work on the subject matter..." it means I should wait with writing down my character's personality until I've played enough sessions to really see what kind of people they are? Unfortunately most "RP mechanic" systems really does require me to do so from the start, and if I don't, I miss out on all the awesome tokens.I'm not sure if this is necessary an issue with role-playing mechanics... although the only other place it really comes up is the longer level progressions. Still I believe there are several solutions. If filling your character as you go is the assumption than you might start with 1 trait, then after a bit get another and so on. Or guess and allow them to be switched around easily.

Then if we have rules that go more in the "personality->mechanics" direction it might not matter. So you make have done slightly better in that early tavern scene if you had picked out that "outgoing personality" trait by then... but not by a lot and it doesn't really matter anymore.

I guess it's a matter of definition. Maybe "not rested" is a role-play mechanic at its most crude level? I never really saw it as such though, just like I don't see "suffocation" as a "RP mechanic", but rather an effect of an in-world event causing certain actions to become more difficult than others.Well in a sense any rule that effects your ability to role-play a character would be a role-playing a character would be a role-playing mechanic. And since most mechanics represent some thing in would that you can account for as a character, the only rules in a game that are not role-playing mechanics would be character creation and some of these narrative rules we have been talking about.

Still I don't think that is quite what we are talking about. For me, anything that is designed to represent a character's personality or make them more human (or whatever type of person the character is) is a role-playing mechanic. So the "not rested" mechanic could be, but that would depend on a number of other factors. Not really an answer but like one hand clapping I think the question was more important than the answer.

I'm afraid I have to return to this at a later date. If you're really curious about more input, and I forget, feel free to prod me in a PM.{Prod?}

The solution to the game rules routinely putting pressure on character decisions IS NOT to add MORE rules that add more pressure to character decisions.Putting aside the question of any such pressures existing for a moment. If they do I believe you can fix them by applying an opposite pressure. Sort of like the matching pressures on the inside and outside of a container, or cancelling forces.

If a character is facing a choice, A and B (I don't have a concrete example OK) and A is in more in character, but B gives them a bonus X for choosing it, there does exist a pressure to exist choice B. However if you also provide bonus X for choosing A than the pressure to choose B goes away (or is cancelled).

So... why is it that -- despite the systems we were using having none of the sorts of enforced-RP-mechanics being discussed here -- none of the RPGing that I was actively involved in from high school until most of my post-college gaming friends moved away or got married or whatever, 20+ years later, ever showed any signs of this "optimal personality" thing?Because people are smart. (... close enough) And so they correct for the short comings of the system. And I don't even mean as in "this is a problem that must be fixed either" I mean "this is something that could be done even better". Also luck may be part of it, in my much shorter table-top history I have encountered two. Although one was bad enough at the system they could never approach optimal.

By being an easily-distracted (By forum posts, not from them) student with too much free time on her hands. :smalltongue:Similar situation here. With the notable exception of "too much free time".

I don't personally think leaving everything up to the players is all that good an idea (I mean, really, the temptations to go "I get tons of points because I feel that appropriate" is... there... As I said, I like group consensus with GM as the last arbiter better and have seen it work).
So something like the spiral of death, just in both directions? I need to test sth like that. Also: For the adjustment being dependant on your currenct score, I'd try and look at L5Rs Honor system as a model. The more honor you have, the grander the gestures have to be to still improve, and the more honerless behaviour stings. Some things even loose their impact completely if you are too far into one direction - an honourless dog will be expected to not be corteous, so noone really cares anymore when they are.It may be open for abuse but it was supposed to try and scope out what about social mechanics people felt were interfering with their character. But here you come with completely ligament questions about other points. Speaking of which, that does seem to fit, although I wouldn't describe it as a spiral because that is usually used to describe a positive feedback loop and this is more of a negative feedback loop. So a rubber-band might be a better term.

Also I agree with game/group-specific and I am also in favour of "personality mechanics as character expression".

In short, having a cost makes the perseverance meaningful.Which reminds me of something. I can remember a rough analysis of a 1st level fighter from D&D in real world terms. Its actually kind of absurd how well developed and varied there skills are. But everyone loses sight of that. Why? Context, it is still side by side with a wizard.

Rules may be abstractions to represent the in-game world (or not, depends on your model) but for us, who exist out side the game, it is the game world that is abstract and we often judge according to the rules, not the abstract world that exists behind them.

I do not want to model the character's emotional state.I have several other quotes and replies but they all boil down to this: Why? Why is the internals such a forbidden zone for mechanics (and what is the line between internal and external) for you? If you have answered that question... sorry I missed it (or forgot) that can happen in this thread.

On a different front... does anyone else ever get the sense that certain people can't take a damn hint?So tempted by the way, but I will pay a point and resist.

To Kish: I saw your post but I have been quadruple swordsaged and I will reflect on it for a response later.

ComradeBear

2016-12-16, 07:15 PM

On a different front... does anyone else ever get the sense that certain people can't take a damn hint? :smallconfused:

(Not a comment on anyone I've been replying to here...)

Unspecified and vague ad hominem is still ad hominem.

If you have an issue with someone, take it up with them in private, but up-front. It's how one generally deals with fellow adults.

Floret

2016-12-16, 08:24 PM

Expanding on my thoughts here, which is related to do "can things be solved by the game narrative rather than the system" and "try to set up interesting choices" as well as "characters are always defined through their actions".

I think this is another excellent example of one of the problems the discussion highlights: Why need the narrative and the system be separate? Or are they even? The system, the way I play at least, drives the narrative. If players fail or succeed on their roles, influences the narrative, and changes what happens. So putting the Narrative so utterly in front of the system is not a thing all players will agree on is good. Sure, if the system threatens to bog down a cool scene in minutia, I myself might just wing it - but generally, the two are intrinsically interconnected from my perspective.
(One reason I let the players roll so comparatively much in my games is simply to have inspiration for the narrative and narration.)

This again ties into the decision-making process I was talking about earlier. A certain subset of mechanics asks the GM to specify to the player, in exact terms, the consequences of a choice before it's made. I don't want to do that, as simply, the character wouldn't know, the player shouldn't know and often, the GM shouldn't know either.

I don't quite think this is true... or a bad thing... Let me, as so often these days, come back to FATE. Now to invoke an aspect, the GM has to offer up a Fatepoint, and actually tell which aspect is being triggered. The player may now form an opinion on if they want that aspect to trigger or if they are gonna make damn sure it doesn't by expending a Fatepoint. Now FATE does give the players more control over the setting outside of the characters than usual, but my point is: The player having a rough idea of what a complication is gonna be like, need not be a gamebreaking thing. And on the other hand: "exact terms" aren't really necessary for such mechanics.

How do you get around having to define the character in large detail before the game has even begun? I find this very hard and often undesirable. Isn't it better to figure out during play?

My solution would be thusly: Define the character in rough terms (Maybe a temperament, a Myers-Briggs example, whatever (Actually, the temperament, while less accurate, would be far easier to handle and produce better results); maybe just some keyword you find fitting) before play, take that as a guideline - and then define them out in play. If an example comes up that fits the rough result, but not the idea of who the character is? Allow for it, give some leeway the first couple sessions. Or have a system of allowing a trait preventing temptation to be conjured up always, but at cost of a metacurrency.
It would fit with how I do my characters: Rough outline given, focus on one-word stuff for character, some for backstory - and then run from there.
(Now, my newest character, my Diplomat, had (and has) "Regret" as her primary motivator. After the first time playing her I can safely add "likes to play with fire" (As in, literal fire, candles especially) on the list of traits. Those don't conflict, but I generally don't write characters whose detail traits conflict much with their primary motivation.)

So, in fact, your goal isn't only to create mechanics to help with roleplaying your character, but also a specific type of social mechanics? This makes the issue a bit more complicated, as both systems gain some interdependency. Can we return to social mechanics at a later time when we've gotten bored of the RP mechanics discussion?

As Segev pointed out, those two are connected, since social skills are always about dealing with personalities, temptations and other things and using and manipulating those to accomplish your goals. Reading people is a central skill for any socially inclined person, precisely to gather information on how to act to achieve any given goal. So if one wants detailed and interesting social mechanics, as well as RP mechanics, you need to connect them.
Also, I find that no one mechanical system should be entirely seperate from the rest of the game. Ideally, they will all tie together to create a consistent experience, and something developed wholly separate will always feel tagged on. Therefor, I find it important to design with these sorts of rules in consideration from the beginning or at least early on.

Personally, for the race-up-the-stairs-that-doesn't-have-to-be-a-race example, if I were the GM, I'd say something like, "Since you have a strong competitive spirit, if you're the first one to the top of the steps, you get X morale points. Bonus Y morale points for each of the others you successfully goad into actually deliberately racing you."

One way to handle it is to not simply assign penalties for not acting competitive. Tie it to another character's social efforts. "I'm not feeling competitive about this," means that he can't get his bonuses for participating, and that he can't suffer penalties. But if he's not feeling competitive, and this other person wants to tempt him with it, they just have to MAKE him feel competitive about it.

Might I just say this sounds great? (Especially the "Bonus for getting people to goad others in") And it helps me tie together some mechanics from entirely different games in ways I had never thought about. Great basis for building things on, a system that is able to handle this in an interesting way.
I think these rules move a bit away from actually being Model 2 though, what you originally set out to do afai think. They sound like Model 3, which is probably why I like the sound of them so much.

I do not want to model the character's emotional state.
Not only do I see no need to model the character's emotional state, I also do not want to interfere with the player's control over their character, or ever tell the player how their character feels or what their character thinks.

You might no, but at least in certain games, I want to. I think the solution would be as suggested: For us both to play different games. Talking about how we would have no fun in the sort of game the other wants seems only somewhat useful through explaining WHY.

1) I'm not complaining that I wouldn't get a bonus for not playing a caricature -- I'm stubborn and respond to pressure by doing the other thing anyway, or by blowing it off and doing whatever I'd have done anyway. I'm complaining that players in general would get a bonus for playing a caricature.
2) Your argument here can just as easily be turned around against you -- why are you complaining about pressure YOU feel from the existing rules to do one thing, and then suggesting a "solution" that involves pressure from new rules to do a different thing?
3) If a player cares primarily about roleplaying, then they're not going to be swayed by the existing mechanics or these proposed RP mechanics. If a player cares primarily about gaming the system, then these proposes RP mechanics give them another layer of system to game, and they're not really RPing anyway. It's only those who fall on the edge between the two who might be to some degree swayed. [...]

I do not want to get between the player and their character. I do not want filters or rules or mechanisms inserted in the player-character "connection". These proposed RP mechanisms come across as telling the player "You're not playing your character the way we think you should, so we're going to add another layer of simulation to change what you're doing."

1) But... why? Why is it a problem for you, that other players play the game in a way that you don't? Where is the inherent problem, if they are not playing in a game with you (As you don't like such mechanics and wouldn't likely play in a game that had them)?
2) The ultimate solution suggested is to remove pressure entirely, by having each choice be equal in scope, but different in the details. If the examples didn't nail that, it is probably because the designing of these rules isn't finished yet.
3) But why not make a system for them? Collect a group of those people and have the perfect game for them. Segev seems to be one, and I'm not sure I would count myself out entirely, either.
With the rest, I feel you are misrepresenting what the rules set out to do. Rather than tell or change what someone is doing, they are supposed to open up and/or legitimise more decisions then with a "conventional" system. (Again, noone is saying you have to switch.)

On a different front... does anyone else ever get the sense that certain people can't take a damn hint? :smallconfused:

(Not a comment on anyone I've been replying to here...)

Considering I was not one of the people you replied to in the immidiately preceding text: If it was something I did, I hope it was a misunderstanding that it is possible to clear up.
Generally I must question the decision to resort to this sort of vague-posting, especially in an open thread, because it isn't all that good form. If one has a problem with people, talking it out is much more productive than throwing out what is basically a blanket accusation, given that noone can be REALLY sure if they aren't who is meant.

It may be open for abuse but it was supposed to try and scope out what about social mechanics people felt were interfering with their character. But here you come with completely ligament questions about other points. Speaking of which, that does seem to fit, although I wouldn't describe it as a spiral because that is usually used to describe a positive feedback loop and this is more of a negative feedback loop. So a rubber-band might be a better term.

Oh, I think there was some mixup between two systems I was talking about in too little space.
The first is the death spiral, a general concept of "take HP hits, get a penalty, which makes you worse at defending yourself, so you get more hits, which makes the penalty even worse", etc. Now L5R does have that in one of its purest forms, but also Dark Eye (5th Edition) does, over a middle-man of dealing out a specific condition providing the penalties for falling below certain HP thresholds ("Death spiral" is the general term for that, and not by me.). This is what I was suggesting for the morale system to DO in the end, with either just a spiral down, or a second spiral up (Providing bonuses instead of penalties), with the general starting point being the middle, neutral ground.
The second is the honor system (from L5R), the feedback loop. There you get diminishing returns on producing honor, but also on honorless behaviour (The more honor you have, the harder it is to gain and the easier to loose, and vice versa). This is what I thought might be worth looking at for more inspiration on how this morale would be awarded, since you mentioned something that rang of it.
...I hope that clears up confusion.
Both of these combined would, of course, mean the further a character is gone into depression, it gets somewhat easier to get them out of it (For someone else, that is not suffering the spiralling penalties). That sounds rather strange, but could be worked around or even desired, depending on the tone of the game.
And, yes, I do realise I am storming away a bit from what you desired, but I honestly think that it might be, for finding the threshold, easier to present something somewhat invasive, and then dial back from there. People are much more eager to respond to percieved flaws and things that disturb them, than they are to state "yeah, this is still fine" :smallwink:

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-17, 12:55 AM

Putting aside the question of any such pressures existing for a moment. If they do I believe you can fix them by applying an opposite pressure. Sort of like the matching pressures on the inside and outside of a container, or cancelling forces.

If a character is facing a choice, A and B (I don't have a concrete example OK) and A is in more in character, but B gives them a bonus X for choosing it, there does exist a pressure to exist choice B. However if you also provide bonus X for choosing A than the pressure to choose B goes away (or is cancelled).

Probably better off without an example at this point, just using variables/placeholders.

Rules may be abstractions to represent the in-game world (or not, depends on your model) but for us, who exist out side the game, it is the game world that is abstract and we often judge according to the rules, not the abstract world that exists behind them.

While I want the rules and the world to be in sync, it's always going to be the world that gets primacy in that comparison, not the rules. As I've said before, the "world" of the game is the territory, the actual place -- the rules are just the map of that place. A good map can help you get around the place, but when the map shows wide open road ahead, and there's a cliff in front of you... I'd suggest setting the map aside.

I have several other quotes and replies but they all boil down to this: Why? Why is the internals such a forbidden zone for mechanics (and what is the line between internal and external) for you? If you have answered that question... sorry I missed it (or forgot) that can happen in this thread.

Because that's the one thing the player has actual control over, as opposed to having to filter through the GM and/or the dice to interact with all the parts of "the world" outside the character.

Because the character's "internals" are part of the decision "segment" of the interaction loop, not the task/action/resolution/whatever you want to call it part.

Because if you were to model combat or climbing or crafting with a coin toss, then to be at the same relative level of abstraction, you'd need 100s rolls and endless nested tables for a single character's mind.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-17, 01:14 AM

1) But... why? Why is it a problem for you, that other players play the game in a way that you don't? Where is the inherent problem, if they are not playing in a game with you (As you don't like such mechanics and wouldn't likely play in a game that had them)?
2) The ultimate solution suggested is to remove pressure entirely, by having each choice be equal in scope, but different in the details. If the examples didn't nail that, it is probably because the designing of these rules isn't finished yet.
3) But why not make a system for them? Collect a group of those people and have the perfect game for them. Segev seems to be one, and I'm not sure I would count myself out entirely, either.
With the rest, I feel you are misrepresenting what the rules set out to do. Rather than tell or change what someone is doing, they are supposed to open up and/or legitimise more decisions then with a "conventional" system. (Again, noone is saying you have to switch.)

For starters, it's a problem for the same reason that other sorts of mechanics (narrative, etc) have become a problem -- the space of available games that are neither D&D or derivative thereof (classes, levels, intense gear focus, etc, etc) nor built around these "new school rules" is increasingly small.

Considering I was not one of the people you replied to in the immidiately preceding text: If it was something I did, I hope it was a misunderstanding that it is possible to clear up.
Generally I must question the decision to resort to this sort of vague-posting, especially in an open thread, because it isn't all that good form. If one has a problem with people, talking it out is much more productive than throwing out what is basically a blanket accusation, given that noone can be REALLY sure if they aren't who is meant.

Not you, either.

When one's posts are repeatedly, immediately, followed by the posts of a poster that one has put on ignore for repeatedly insulting one, repeatedly and blatantly misrepresenting one's positions, and demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt they are more interested in "winning" arguments than bothering with even a cursory understanding of one's position... one has to wonder if that other poster is unable to comprehend what it means to be on an ignore list.

Lorsa

2016-12-17, 12:55 PM

I'll just quickly respond to Cluedrew here since I was prodded. The rest of you will have to wait (since I am actually working this entire weekend).

I have an idea, what if we completely take the mechanical control out of the equation for a moment. Use a system like this:

Each character has a pool of moral points.
When a character does something that makes them happy, increase their moral points.
When a character does something that makes them sad, decrease there moral points.

It is an odd system, all it really does is apply a number to how happy your character is at any given time. So you take a day off, the character becomes happier (unless that doesn't make them happy, but lets just say it does) in accordance to how much happier it would actually make them. A regular day of work may keep things stable and working hard takes away some points (again, something the character doesn't enjoy as much).

But the player (or players or GM or whatever) decides how much to adjust it by. Hence allowing for an arbitrary amounts of control by the player to express their character. How well does that work for you? (Here, "you" is anyone who wants to reply.)

PS: Yes I realize the system doesn't do anything, it is a thought experiment I hope will lead somewhere.

I personally wouldn't find such a system intrusive, which is part of the reason why I didn't offer any lengthy post in response to it in the first place.

Anyway, while I don't find such a system intrusive, it also doesn't really do anything. I mean, usually, *I* know how happy or sad my characters are feeling. If too many things happen that makes them sad, their morale goes down and I feel it with them, or at the very least, usually know that.

The issue is if there are long times between sessions, so you forget your character's emotional state. For this, such a morale system could be helpful. Then again, you could also simply write notes for yourself after the session like "my character feels really upset after the latest turn of events, and is starting to doubt her ability to be useful to the group".

However, unless the game system forces everyone to keep track of their morale score (with a punishment for not doing it?), the system would be rather divorced from the rest of the game mechanics. It would basically be "here is something you can use to help you determine your character's mood if you want". Could be applied to basically any other system as some form of add-on.

Therefore, I can't really see how it would be intrusive to everyone. They'd be easy to ignore if you want, and is just there to help you. Unless there's something else I'm missing?

ComradeBear

2016-12-17, 01:17 PM

Max is talking about me.

Just making that evident and obvious. I'm the target of his ad-hominem character attacks, not anyone else. Consider me the lighting rod.

No, I'm not bothered. Just figured it would put everyone else at ease and assure that nobody else here is being targetted and not to worry about it.

I'm not gonna take the bait to get into a flame war, either. So don't worry about that. I'm not interested in such activities. Though I will retain the right to reply to whomever I so choose. Because there is no rule to the contrary.

Cluedrew

2016-12-17, 02:23 PM

You asked why something that isn't a default assumption is a default assumption, and apparently you consider that assumption (which you introduced) highly insulting. And you think I owe you an apology? You'll have to do better than saying you only meant people who play D&D (to whom you are not apologizing), not your DM, and you're offended to see the same assumption applied to the game of the person who did the assuming. Perhaps you shouldn't generalize like that if you don't want it to be taken as a statement about you which you're generalizing to other people. I stand corrected in that I gather you were posting a snipe at D&D players, not an assumption that your playstyle is universal; I'm not sure whether that's better or worse.First of, to provide some context, I have a few points I would like to raise:
"The default behaviour for enemies in D&D is to engage in combat and then fight until dead." the expanded version of my original statement, is not an insult to D&D players. It is a comment about the mechanics of the system itself. A rather minor thing that is not universally bad (D&D is in many ways a hybrid war game and role-playing game, and that fits the war game side quite well) nor, if it was, be an insult to the players. I did say that many who don't like it will correct for it and that if anything, shows their ability.
My statement is not an assumption. I assumed some things to get to that conclusion and if you have something against those assumptions and the logic I used to go from them to my conclusion (I spoke about both here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21484886&postcount=573), I can add more detail if you want) you can argue against them.
I clarified that my GM does not run D&D because it makes the title DM inaccurate. And out of respect for his opinion on the matter. I don't dislike D&D, I have my complaints yes but I have complaints about every role-playing system I have used.
Other systems have similar issues. I have seen similar things happen in other systems but D&D is the one I know the most about, so I used it for my example.
And I think that will address the rest of the post indirectly. Main topic, the thing I am asking you to apologise for is describing my GM as, and I quote, "Problem Exists Between Chair And Book", not for implying the non-insult to him.

...I hope that clears up confusion.I think it does. Also seems to match what I was going for.

These are not "minor points" but I'm tired of huge posts so I'm collapsing things.

And, yes, I do realise I am storming away a bit from what you desired, but I honestly think that it might be, for finding the threshold, easier to present something somewhat invasive, and then dial back from there. People are much more eager to respond to percieved flaws and things that disturb them, than they are to state "yeah, this is still fine" :smallwink:... You might be right. But I had trouble getting more than "NOPE" out of that. Still combined with Lorsa's response (thank-you Lorsa) I might just try pitch more varied ideas and see how that works.

I'm not going to that right now, but maybe next post.

While I want the rules and the world to be in sync, it's always going to be the world that gets primacy in that comparison, not the rules. As I've said before, the "world" of the game is the territory, the actual place -- the rules are just the map of that place. A good map can help you get around the place, but when the map shows wide open road ahead, and there's a cliff in front of you... I'd suggest setting the map aside.The thing is... until like yesterday when I was thinking about this I would have agreed with you. But then I realized something... that may turn out to be a dead end and I will throw it out, but for now I am rather confident in it. Let me explain.

The issue (extending your metaphor) is that we will never see that cliff, nor walk over it. Because we will never (baring a magical "enter the book" situation) interact directly with that world. We only have the mechanics and narration to interact with that world. We want the mechanics to map that land accurately but if it gets something wrong it can be hard to tell. I mean an iceberg in the desert it a bit of a give away but if the babbling curves west and then south... well it is going down hill that entire time so maybe?

Because that's the one thing the player has actual control over, as opposed to having to filter through the GM and/or the dice to interact with all the parts of "the world" outside the character.Solid, although ironically these mechanics (especially the more narrative ones) are some of the most likely to give the player control beyond their character. Still yes, very good reason.

Because the character's "internals" are part of the decision "segment" of the interaction loop, not the task/action/resolution/whatever you want to call it part.I don't quite get this one. A lot of external things effect the decision. My physical ability to run a distance effects my decision about how I go there. On the other hand internals that can (heavy) effect a decision still don't make it. In the seduction example people rarely choose who they are attracted too, but they still decide how to act on those feelings. Also internal things can effect the resolution. A patent person's ability to simply wait is probably greater than someone who is "rush, rush, rush".

So I see a very soft line and no reason not to let things cross it. I mean charisma is a very internal thing but lots of systems use it or something like it as a base non-RP/tactical stat.

Because if you were to model combat or climbing or crafting with a coin toss, then to be at the same relative level of abstraction, you'd need 100s rolls and endless nested tables for a single character's mind.I think your ratio is a little bit off.* Besides that I don't think anyone wants to model the whole thing. That would be getting into AI territory and I don't think anyone wants that. Now there isn't any agreement on exactly what people want but I have never seen a system (which is not to say that one does not exist) that goes beyond (in terms of lost of player control) a couple of key compulsions that come up in particular situations and either can be over ridden or only have a chance of kicking in. And even there you generally get to choose how it plays out, just not that it does.

* And in the case of combat, where you have to predict your opponent and hence model one human mind with another, it is backwards. Of course we usually don't model that for similar reasons to the above. ... Well I suppose you don't model the entire mind in that case... but still these things are not a binary choice to thousands.

Also I have started measuring the time I spend on my posts in the number of times I am swordsaged. This one is: 2 by my last preview.

jayem

2016-12-17, 04:15 PM

Probably better off without an example at this point, just using variables/placeholders.
Because if you were to model combat or climbing or crafting with a coin toss, then to be at the same relative level of abstraction, you'd need 100s rolls and endless nested tables for a single character's mind.

I think there's a bit of an unintentional (but systematic) apple and orangeS comparison there.
If the model is crude enough that (to upgrade) a single dice throw (with let us say 6 levels) represents CRAFTING, then that's a very crude box, with Leonardo/Turing/Jobs&Lucas all being indistinguishable in terms of any test [pun intended]. Frankly the characters mind could be represented with something loosely based on the 4F's at that point with more than matching abstraction, and for that matter if that was the game you wanted to play you'd probably get interesting results (you could possibly even graft a Role Play overlay on the top).

If not, so you're comparing a single crafting event, (so with 6 levels at 6 skills only 100,000 people are in your box). Then really it would only be fair to compare to a single decision, and with a similar black box and statistical nature (I.E. only interested in the consequences, and only relative probability distribution*). With 6 skills a slightly widened 4F's (fight, flight, eat, work with, romance, study, amuse?) is probably the matching abstraction here. Both having a set of tables, both presumably having a list of objects and the skill to create them, or the reaction and strength it evokes (and with dynamic objects that interact back some means of changing the state)).
Of course for it to be a RPGame, we want (the players) to be involved in making the characters decision for them and not just simulate. ***
Also just as we expect to be the player to and be able to fudge the crafty skills so even when nominally identically rated people do something they put their own unique spin (if you were roleplaying Lucas & Austen, Austen you may chose to roll for Austen make a satirical-romantic film, and Lucas write a sci-fi book, but at some point you'd be losing character and it would be bad roleplaying**) and are tolerant of some failures of the model or willing to allow various parties (including the GM) to take into account various factors of the character. We also expect the players to be able to fudge the decision skills so ... **

* Note that the crafting doesn't (yet) reflect any of the external and internal factors that would make a difference.
** Note that many external crafts are also heavily based on the internals of the mind (who's the GM to say how well I can control a pencil), (and many decisions on the externals, cref advertising, military training, some viruses/drugs)
*** Even when [instead of being a true RPG] the GM (& die rolling) is made by Maxis

jayem

2016-12-17, 04:54 PM

Actually Maxis's Sims might be quite a good example of the disconnect that (IMO) seems to be happening.

The 'no influences' seem to be thinking that people want to create something that would act like an uncontrolled sim. It will make the decision as to which toilet it wants to use, etc... It 'simulates' the person (to a rather crude abstraction, but enough to get various personalities and relationships coming out). That at least is how they are coming across, it may be that isn't what they meant.

Whereas the 'influences' are
a) totally baffled as to why you think we think we want this*

And want (for the games where they want it, VtM would be the obvious style) something more like the sim under constant player control (with some variations that are more like the sims as is, where things pop up unwanted if neglected, and others that are even more towards the no rules variant, again depending on the setting).
and then are
b) totally baffled how you think we need to look up the manual to know going to the loo might relieve our bladder strain

Following on from that, and possibly partially explained by that
c) totally baffled by why we get asked 'but what if I selected the alcoholic trait but my character is a teetotaler' as though it's our problem.
as it forgets that players, have chosen their characters stats to match their characters character, that the players are still involved and can overrule it (and if they aren't that probably means the person is above 2S.D's from normal behavior in that respect, and it shouldn't be selected if you didn't mean that). Which makes more sense if expecting simulative behavior.

[ETA]
d) totally baffled as to why we'd want this always (although the point on the pressure it puts on those with different tastes should also be noted, and of course there's multiple ways to implement something, but only one way to not-implement, which skews the balance even more).

*ok, it would be cool to watch the better and more involved it was (hey even Conway's Life is), but not in the context of R P or G.

Floret

2016-12-17, 07:47 PM

While I want the rules and the world to be in sync, it's always going to be the world that gets primacy in that comparison, not the rules. As I've said before, the "world" of the game is the territory, the actual place -- the rules are just the map of that place. A good map can help you get around the place, but when the map shows wide open road ahead, and there's a cliff in front of you... I'd suggest setting the map aside.

While I do agree that with your premise this would be the outcome, I don't agree with the premise that the world IS the actual territory.
Given the rules and the world as things, one is clearly real, experiencable by the players directly, and the other imaginary, experienced through joint imagination assisted by the GM and the rules. The rules are, by a good bit, more real than the world, and will influence how you see the world because you are experiencing the world THROUGH them.
In the situation of the map showing a wide open road and reality a cliff, then tossing the map away is probably the worst reaction after just treating it like an open road. Correcting the map would be a far better step, and given rules aren't dealing with singular cases, help out that this disconnect doesn't happen again. Or to others coming to the same spot. If a map is lackluster, work on it, instead of throwing it out.

Because that's the one thing the player has actual control over, as opposed to having to filter through the GM and/or the dice to interact with all the parts of "the world" outside the character.

Because the character's "internals" are part of the decision "segment" of the interaction loop, not the task/action/resolution/whatever you want to call it part.

Because if you were to model combat or climbing or crafting with a coin toss, then to be at the same relative level of abstraction, you'd need 100s rolls and endless nested tables for a single character's mind.

1) To be honest, that sounds like terrible GMing before everything else. Do you have to roll on EVERYTHING you do?
2) Deciding which things to try and taking steps in that direction is something the player will always have control over (If not if that try succeeds, the try still happened and was controlled by the player, and that is external of the character, blurring that line. (Which has still to be defined, btw)
On abstraction levels:
a) I am unsure that anyone actually want the two to be on the same level of abstraction. Noone cares if combat and climbing are on the same level of abstraction in the current rules, and they damn well aren't in most rules I've seen.
b) I am unsure this vast difference is actually true.
c) Noone wants the rules and dice to literally run the character. Noone is trying to create AI. What we want differs from model to model, but neither is trying to simulate the character independant of player input, just at the most put their emotional state or personality in rules to have it influence other things mechanically.

For starters, it's a problem for the same reason that other sorts of mechanics (narrative, etc) have become a problem -- the space of available games that are neither D&D or derivative thereof (classes, levels, intense gear focus, etc, etc) nor built around these "new school rules" is increasingly small.

1) Old rulesystems didn't go away. They are still perfectly playable. Just play the old stuff.
2) Go find a group that wants to play what you want. Seriously, just because other people want something else won't get rid of everyone who wants the things you want. Just get those people together, instead of forcing people that want to play other things to play by your choice. Even if the "forcing" is through eliminating their games (potentially by trying to stop them being made).
3) Can you see how egotistical this attitude is, or at least might sound? Your fun is not more important than my fun, or anyone elses. If you put out multiple options, and more people want the rules as I want them than yours, that is their choice. Just because you'd like to play something else gives you NO right to demand that other people do it, too. I mean, the same goes the other way: If a group of people is presented with the two options and chooses yours, I am not gonna throw a fit about things being unfair to me - people just want something different, and I gotta respect that. Presenting them with the options didn't take anything away from me, at least nothing that was mine to keep.

Not you, either.

When one's posts are repeatedly, immediately, followed by the posts of a poster that one has put on ignore for repeatedly insulting one, repeatedly and blatantly misrepresenting one's positions, and demonstrating beyond any reasonable doubt they are more interested in "winning" arguments than bothering with even a cursory understanding of one's position... one has to wonder if that other poster is unable to comprehend what it means to be on an ignore list.

Thanks for the peace of mind, but you seem to have not quite understood the point of my comment.
Also... really? You are complaining about what another person does, while not even seeing their comments? How do you even know what they are doing? Or if that accusation of "not taking a hint" is in any way warranted? And if you don't know, why make it? It will just sour the discussion and is not productive in any way.

ComradeBear

2016-12-17, 08:06 PM

Thanks for the peace of mind, but you seem to have not quite understood the point of my comment.
Also... really? You are complaining about what another person does, while not even seeing their comments? How do you even know what they are doing? Or if that accusation of "not taking a hint" is in any way warranted? And if you don't know, why make it? It will just sour the discussion and is not productive in any way.

As I said in an post that rapidly got buried, he's referring to me.

And I agree with your points, and will point out that there's a reason why I don't engage when he does this. I'm not interested in a flame war.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-17, 09:37 PM

Do mean in and out of character? Is that the important line here?

At least to me, a "punishment" implies action taken by one party against another party in deliberate retaliation for something that the first party does not approve of in some way, to dissuade the second party or third parties from engaging in that activity in the future, or for the sake of perceived justice.

* As "the universe' has neither intent, nor desire, nor deliberation, it cannot engage in "punishment".
* There exists no inherent balance -- one action being rewarded does not inherently mean that any/all other actions are being punished.

I have an idea, what if we completely take the mechanical control out of the equation for a moment. Use a system like this:

Each character has a pool of moral points.
When a character does something that makes them happy, increase their moral points.
When a character does something that makes them sad, decrease their moral points.

It is an odd system, all it really does is apply a number to how happy your character is at any given time. So you take a day off, the character becomes happier (unless that doesn't make them happy, but lets just say it does) in accordance to how much happier it would actually make them. A regular day of work may keep things stable and working hard takes away some points (again, something the character doesn't enjoy as much).

But the player (or players or GM or whatever) decides how much to adjust it by. Hence allowing for an arbitrary amounts of control by the player to express their character. How well does that work for you? (Here, "you" is anyone who wants to reply.)

PS: Yes I realize the system doesn't do anything, it is a thought experiment I hope will lead somewhere.

How about a character who starts each day at 0, and is always at 0, but has a few things they do that distract from that fact?

Cluedrew

2016-12-17, 09:57 PM

To jayem: I don't follow. I don't know what 4F refers to (and a couple of other terms). If you want a more meaningful reply I think you are going to have to clarify a bit.

While I do agree that with your premise this would be the outcome, I don't agree with the premise that the world IS the actual territory.Hey... maybe I'm not crazy.

Also... really? You are complaining about what another person does, while not even seeing their comments? How do you even know what they are doing? Or if that accusation of "not taking a hint" is in any way warranted? And if you don't know, why make it? It will just sour the discussion and is not productive in any way.
I'm not interested in a flame war.Speaking of which: can we close this topic? That would be great.

OK I have been thinking about a couple of other systems that I would like to get opinions on. Comment on whatever ones you want.

Trait modifiers: You pick some defined personality traits that provide some bonuses and penalties in defined situations. When these situations come up you apply the modifier. {#1} The traits are descriptive, but have no explicate situations to which the they apply. Players decide when they do either positively or negatively. {#2}

Compulsions: The rules give some compulsions that your character can have. The compulsions have particular triggers, when they occur the compulsion happens (or has a chance of happening). {#3} The compulsions make be ignored by paying a meta-game resource (say story points) {#4} or a in world currency (moral points). {#5} The compulsions are activated by the player for story points {#6} or moral points. {#7}

I could go on but I am quite happy to not have another multi-page post. The meaning starts to get lost among the words after a certain point.

1

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-17, 10:26 PM

Speaking of which: can we close this topic? That would be great.

Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 2: Ignoring person 1.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 2: Why is this guy still flaming away?
Person 1: OMG I'm not interested in a flame war!
Person 2: ... :smallconfused:

OK I have been thinking about a couple of other systems that I would like to get opinions on. Comment on whatever ones you want.

Trait modifiers: You pick some defined personality traits that provide some bonuses and penalties in defined situations. When these situations come up you apply the modifier. {#1} The traits are descriptive, but have no explicate situations to which the they apply. Players decide when they do either positively or negatively. {#2}

Compulsions: The rules give some compulsions that your character can have. The compulsions have particular triggers, when they occur the compulsion happens (or has a chance of happening). {#3} The compulsions make be ignored by paying a meta-game resource (say story points) {#4} or a in world currency (moral points). {#5} The compulsions are activated by the player for story points {#6} or moral points. {#7}

I could go on but I am quite happy to not have another multi-page post. The meaning starts to get lost among the words after a certain point.

Trait modifiers as you describe them sound a lot like the Gifts and Weaknesses in the RPG Yggdrasill, where they modify the rolls for good or ill, once a game session when the situation applies. Gifts are invoked by the player and approved by the GM, Weaknesses are invoked by the GM. Personally I think the limit of once per session in that system creates a couple problems: first, one player might go an entire session with no opportunities to use it, while another player goes through one of those sessions and has multiple opportunities come up, and every player has to wonder if a more fitting opportunity might not come up in the next scene or the scene after; and second, once per session severely limits the impact of what appear to be significant aspects of the character, reducing them to momentary character gimmicks.

Compulsions -- only if they're voluntary on a per-character basis.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-17, 10:29 PM

1) To be honest, that sounds like terrible GMing before everything else. Do you have to roll on EVERYTHING you do?

Wait, what?

How did you get that idea from what I wrote?

Floret

2016-12-18, 05:52 AM

At least to me, a "punishment" implies action taken by one party against another party in deliberate retaliation for something that the first party does not approve of in some way, to dissuade the second party or third parties from engaging in that activity in the future, or for the sake of perceived justice.

* As "the universe' has neither intent, nor desire, nor deliberation, it cannot engage in "punishment".
* There exists no inherent balance -- one action being rewarded does not inherently mean that any/all other actions are being punished.

Pretty much, though like with everything, it is perfectly possible to go "worth it" and just don't care about the punishment, which is how most RP-driven decisions are made in the face of making the character mechanically weaker.
And, as stated previously, "The universe" is run by the GM, a person with intent, desire, and deliberation. It does not act on its own, this is not a world simulator, this is an RPG.

How about a character who starts each day at 0, and is always at 0, but has a few things they do that distract from that fact?

Not my model, but if I'd wanna model that, I'd probably create a "flaw"/"Handicap"/"Disadvantage"/whatever that resets the morale pool to 0 every day (Or allows a decay on morale points to 0 instead of the "regular" default, maybe even increases the time it takes). The "things to distract from that fact" would actually raise morale, but through the flaws effects only very temporarily.

OK I have been thinking about a couple of other systems that I would like to get opinions on. Comment on whatever ones you want.

Trait modifiers: You pick some defined personality traits that provide some bonuses and penalties in defined situations. When these situations come up you apply the modifier. {#1} The traits are descriptive, but have no explicate situations to which the they apply. Players decide when they do either positively or negatively. {#2}

Compulsions: The rules give some compulsions that your character can have. The compulsions have particular triggers, when they occur the compulsion happens (or has a chance of happening). {#3} The compulsions make be ignored by paying a meta-game resource (say story points) {#4} or a in world currency (moral points). {#5} The compulsions are activated by the player for story points {#6} or moral points. {#7}

#1 was somewhat my first idea.
#2 I would move slightly to GM/Group consensus, or at least to the GM having the right to suggest things.

#3 is something I am very used to, as The Dark Eye 4.1st edition (Don't ask), my first RPG, had these, and still has them in 5th. You get build points for taking them.
#4/#5 I would maybe go and say either rolling (The compulsion itself as a pseudostat or Willpower were the method of TDE 4.1st and 5th respectively) to prevent it from triggering, OR spent currency. Both taken together kinda weaken them a bit too much imho.

#6/#7 I don't quite like. There is a problem here of a player deciding "this triggers now" and the GM being somewhat forced to adapt their plot, situation, whatever, to supply the player with a situation where it makes sense. Or, if the player can only trigger this if the GM brings up something similar: Why not get the GM rights to activate is as well, or to advise them to suggest it in such situations?
Also, abuse problem. Players giving themselves resources at player discretion is always a bit iffy. (Sure, they need not, but at a certain point temptation becomes great enough, and these sorts of things reach that point for many people)
Thirdly, it would require Game designers quite a bit of work to figure out the list - or alternatively resort back to giving a model, and then letting players and GMs fill the "trigger slots" of a self-made compulsion. That might work, actually. If you vary the "trigger slots" by compulsion one could even prevent everything being equal. Adapt build point gains/costs for them or whatever else you come up with.

Wait, what?

How did you get that idea from what I wrote?

From the "The player has direct control only ever about the internals of their character". If the player truly has no control over anything else, everything action the character takes needs to be filtered through dice if the statement has to be true. So, if you actually can take plenty actions without dice being involved? The player actually has control over quite a bit of character "externals". (Unless you define the term gigantically different than I would). Which would make the distinction you gave somewhat invalid, and leave me still not understanding why this split, and where to draw the line.
(Notwithstanding games like FATE where players can actually influence the world around them by the FATEpoints, and quite a bit out of
Also, really curious: Do you have an answer to any of my other points from that post? Because I'd really like to hear your answer on those. Might help me understand where you're coming from.

Lorsa

2016-12-18, 06:35 AM

I am going to make this post in reply to things said by Floret on the previous page.

My next post will hopefully be of a more generic type and deal with social mechanics issues related to roleplaying, which will hopefully be interesting to Segev.

I'm afraid that CLuedrew has to wait a little.

Also, as it refers to the personal conflict: I am from Sweden so I am naturally prone to be very conflict-avoiding. These kind of stuff makes me very uncomfortable. I will offer my diplomatic skills if they are desired, to help mediate and resolve the conflict. Otherwise, since I do not know the full history, I will take a neutral stance in the matter. If anyone has problems with my neutrality, well, I AM from Sweden... neutrality is in my blood.

Also, Floret, could I ask you to please use double ENTER between paragraphs? Just a line change isn't really enough, especially when read on a smartphone, so a full line between paragraphs would make your posts much easier to read for me.

So your problem with RP rules is that they require some GM arbitration to be fair enough, which might make people salty, but your solution instead is to rely totally on GM arbitration?
Sorry for phrasing it so over-the top but that is essentially what this combination of arguments boils down to.
Also I don't quite agree with your points. Yes, rules should have some leeway and not model in too great detail. But "just let the GM fill in the blanks/fudge it, that is how the game is MEANT to be played!" I find to be a rather strange and upsetting argument. Because 1) It is again arguing about "how things are SUPPOSED to be", aka. everything else is having Badwrongfun, and 2) ...who decided that? I, as a GM, surely will make some judgement and arbitration - but I heavily dislike houserules, for example. And I don't think "having and wanting clear rules and guidelines that cover a lot of things" is me refusing to "do my job" or whatever. Being GM isn't a job in the first place.
As well as the premise... sorry, no, I don't buy that it is impossible for rules to cover everything. Everything IN DETAIL? Sure. But not impossible to cover everything. Rules-lite systems do things like that all the time.

Your over-the-top phrasing wasn't completely unfounded, and I think it rightfully pointed out a discrepancy in my thinking.

However, there is a difference in what the GM is an arbiter of. When, and now we are discussing whatever subset of RP mechanics this applies to, the GM has to make a judgement call about a player character's personal feelings and inner workings, or how their personality might or might not affect a situation, this is different than applying a penalty for lack of sleep for example. Most people have an easier time to accept a GM's ruling on the latter, as they tie back to the "consequences" Max_killjoy have been talking about all along. Yes, my character was up all night, so yes, I agree that it should give some penalty.

When the GM says "you get a penalty because of your personality", it is much easier for the player to feel that no, their personality is not of such type that it should give the penalty here. In such a situation, I do not feel very comfortable simply over-ruling the player. But if I don't, I open up for some large game balance issues. To me, it is basically a no-win situation. If you have a group that clearly accepts the GMs rulings on what their personality is and how it should matter mechanically, then it is a no issue. I am not saying certain rules should never exist.

If we now return to the "GM doing their job" and how things "should" be; I just want to make it clear that whenever it seems like I imply that people are having "badwrongfun", I don't mean it. People should have fun however they like.

The reason for "should" to be used in this situation, is that I believe a GM has to do these things at some point for any given rule system. Maybe I am wrong in my assumption, but it seems to be the case for me.

As you said, no system can cover everything in detail. If it can't, then the GM has to fill in the blanks. How else would it work? (honest question)

I very much doubt there is any system that covers everything. You say rules-lite systems do that. Does that include bowel movements, sugar lows, hormone-induced mood fluctuations and muscle-ache from working out too much?

I believe this comment was a result of the dreaded taco example. My point was, and still is, that if the game system is poorly constructed and offers one-sided benefits to one thing (which happens to be mentioned in the rules), but not to another thing which, according to in-game logic, should also have some mechanical benefit/drawback, THEN the GM has to step in to solve it.

To give an example, I am pretty sure the falling damage rules in D&D only specify damage based on the length of the fall. It doesn't take into account what, exactly, you are falling towards. A ball of hay is very different to a rock which is different to mud which is different to water. Since the rules fail to cover all these situations, there are two conclusions to reach:

1) The GM should treat all situations equally and give equal damage to a 5 meter fall towards rock as towards water.
2) The GM should 'fill in the blanks' and alter the falling damage based on the material.

I would suggest option 2. You may be of another mind, but this is the reason why I said that I think GMs "should" take the rules only as guidelines, since they, by their very nature, can't accurately portray all situations with game mechanics. Feel free to point out any errors in my reasoning.

My argument would be: 1) Isn't actually RP rules at all, they are not modelling character, they are social rules, about how to get characters to go along with things. 2) would actually be RP rules, and... I dunno, the problems you list really only apply to certain ways of doing these mechanics. And, sure, player traits might come up more or less often, but players with agency can generally steer the game a bit in appropriate situations, and if the token isn't THAT centrally important, it would not unbalance the game if one players did not come up as often as anothers. As with many things, this depends heavily on execution. 3) is kinda the same in green to me, to be honest. As for your objections... the whole thing is, these RP rules aren't meant to give benefits for character drawbacks, as far as I understood them. They are meant as an equalizer when a player takes a mechanically suboptimal decision in favor of a RP one. In the example "get held up for 5 minutes or not" none of the sides in the original actually has any mechanics involved. Such rules would not be required to solve any imbalance that isn't there (yet).
To your last point... not really, in my view. Sure, might be too little gain for you. For me? I'd really like such a system (With the goals I set for it, only solving the problem Segev has incidentally, if at all), and I find FATE (that does sth similar) to be doing that quite excellent already.

1) The seduction-by-person example was brought up as a better one to the taco example. It doesn't HAVE to be about social rules and could very well be RP rules. For example, there doesn't have to be any actual seduction going on. It could be a bottle of booze for an alcoholic or a lottery ticket for a gambler. Alternatively, it could simply be a pretty woman who may distract a character despite not trying to actively seduce them. So, I do think they are RP rules. They could ALSO be part of the social rules, but still, it doesn't only have to do with that.

2) If the token isn't that important, then it is probably not doing its job well enough? The whole point was to incentivize a certain behavior, therefore the incentive has to be useful and desirable. Player agency may steer character into certain situations, but then we get into the issue with some players being rewarded a lot more than others simply because they are better at (passively or actively) controlling the narrative. So then character personality becomes a game balance issue (yes, there is an argument line that says it already is, but there could be scale differences).

3) If the rules reward mechanically suboptimal decisions taken for RP reasons, isn't that more or less the same as giving benefits for drawbacks? I mean, the mechanically suboptimal stuff that comes out of the decision IS a drawback, isn't it?

No? I mean, why would it eliminate it? If you have a guideline for how to feel, be it written down character description, hard-baked into the rules character descriptors or even just your own mental image of "who the character is" - that is something that shall aid you in feeling it yourself. If the end point was feeling it yourself beforehands, why should that change just because some other source tells you what that feeling might be?

Aha! This is really a very interesting question, because it touch on the very core of where I think much of the "RP rules" resistance is coming from.

I will start with a detour, and talk a little bit about when the GM tells the players how their characters feel.

Imagine a situation like this:

The GM describes the character's standing in front of a monster and, as the GM imagined this to be a very frightening experience, they conclude by saying "and your characters feel very afraid" or "you are very scared".

Alternatively, there is a situation like this:

The GM describes the character meeting a handsome NPC at the bar and, as the GM imagined this to be the basis of a romance, they conclude by saying "and your character falls instantly in love" or "you are very turned on".

Whenever GMs have attempted to do this to me, as a player, I have immediately reacted negatively. Who is this GM to tell me what my character is, or isn't, feeling? How can they decide what scares me? Furthermore, them simply saying "you are afraid" does absolutely nothing to make me FEEL afraid. Nothing.

Better would be to describe the situation in such a way that it invokes feelings of fear in me, the player. Given a certain level of immersion, that shouldn't be too hard. I've been scared in games as a player and certainly able to scare my players.

The fringe case is obviously magical compulsions. Those are best described for what they are though "you are affected by the Dragon's fear aura" or "the Vampire has successfully charmed you" and then let the players play out those effects, if they feel they can.

A certain set of RP mechanics work in much the same way, except now it's not the GM telling me how my character feels, it's the system. And it has equally little effect in actually making me feel it. Someone pointing a finger at you and saying "you are afraid" simply doesn't work. Doesn't matter if it's the GM or the system. It is, at least in my experience, usually much better to describe something that actually helps to generate those feelings in me, the player. Then I can truly connect with the character.

So, to sum it up, an external source telling me how I feel does absolutely nothing to help me feel it. Therefore, when there is a discrepancy between RP game mechanics imposed feelings and my internal feelings, I will always go with my own. However, that then leads to behavior which isn't rewarded by the RP mechanics, so suddenly the very system which were supposed to "help my roleplaying" now does the opposite.

I mean, if you work like Segev, and don't fully trust your own internal feelings about your character and really WANT an external help to guide you, obviously this will be useful. However, I really don't see how it can help you feel the emotions yourself. At best, it works as a stand-in when feeling emotions wasn't your goal to begin with.

Yaknow, I don't REMEMBER making a point that this replies to... but then again, I don't remember if I have eaten supper some days. Anyways.

As for the argument: That is an incredibly valid point, and I had not considered that. (Maybe the best argument against RP rules I have read in this thread, in so far as it is the first one I actually intellectually comprehend its workings.)
Now for the fun part: I, one of the proponents for these rules, work like think process I. (Roman numerals to hopefully lessen confusion when compared to the arabic of the models). And would, aside from allowing my players an out after the mechanics have been described if they differ too greatly from what they expected (They describe an action, I set a difficulty that they hadn't thought that high, I will allow them to change it) also try and stay on that.
I will suggest one thing: That it maybe doesn't NEED to change thinking processes. And it doesn't even have to really change when the mechanics come into play. At least with model 3 and 1, I imagine it would be perfectly possible to still keep thought process I while having the rules. Model 1 really only comes into effect at the end of the session, or after a decision is made at least, with Model 3 simply after the action has been described, in the mechanics affecting it, personality traits come to bear. Heck, in FATE they can come in even after the roll has been made to still sway it.
I do think with model 2 the shift might be more likely. But: As these rules should provide not "multiple choice" but should dynamically represent the options of the player, I can see something like Process I working here.
As in:
1. Situation description
2. Suggesting an action
3. Hearing what mechanics would be involved
4. Possibly suggesting another action
5. Hearing the mechanics involved
Repeat 4/5 until you run out of ideas or move on to
6. Make the final decision
7. Resolve. (I call it process I.V. Or process III? Is it different enough for that?)

Just a thought. Me working for rules that don't, from my perspective, run the risk of changing my Process I into Process II might explain very well though why I didn't see much of the criticism. Actually, I work (As GM, at least, though I suspect as player, too) mostly like process I.V... scratch that, III looks cleaner. I take back my point of working like think process I, though I think it is closer to I than to II in practice.

Your compliments makes me blush. However, I am glad you appreciate my thoughts.

There was something related to this someplace else where the token doesn't need to be awarded right away but rather at a later time when the in-character RP action actually lead to some "bad" consequences, and that if so then the thought process wouldn't need to change.

This idea is true, and I had not fully considered that you could run it like that.

However, it becomes a bit problematic. How far into the future does this extend? Many times the undesired consequences don't show up until much later. Could even be ten in-game years and fifty sessions later. It would almost be impossible to keep track of all this for a poor GM.

Also, it is rarely just "one choice: one outcome". Choices build on each other until finally the outcome is the sum of a large set of individually small choices. Which means I can actually make an accurate reference to the Butterfly Effect.

It can often be very hard to pin-point exactly which decision lead to this "bad thing", and remember to award a token when the decision was made 10 sessions ago.

jayem

2016-12-18, 08:44 AM

To jayem: I don't follow. I don't know what 4F refers to (and a couple of other terms). If you want a more meaningful reply I think you are going to have to clarify a bit.

Basically I was saying, the comparison ("Because if you were to model combat... with a coin toss, then to be at the same relative level of abstraction, you'd need 100s rolls and endless nested tables for a single character's mind.") was 'unfair', and was either holding internals to a much higher standard, or comparing the paperwork for one action against the paperwork for multiple decisions. (Hence the apple and oranges)

The 4F's is a extremely simplified model of (animal) behavior where internal states (i.e. interactions, current goals/objects) are basically limited to fighting/fleeing/feeding/reproducing.

The first bit pointed out just how simplified the crafting model we were comparing too actually was. Even with a slightly more nuanced system pointing out that every character with 'great creativity' in different fields was nominally being treated identically (for that matter with anyone who got an A in GCSE (school leaving exams with grades A-G*)). It asserted that a simple 'mind' model would be comparable.

The second bit was much the same, but taking an even more nuanced system. Pointing out it's still not really taking account of many things. Like a 'black box' we don't know what happens inside the world to make the crafting fail (was the wood poor, or was I just having an off day) and we don't expect it to take it into account.

The third bit was pointing out that we actually get around the 'failures' in the crafting (while still getting some benefit from the system, in appropriate games) and that much the same also applies to 'failures' of the behaviors (again in appropriate games).

The fourth (which I then expanded) that you could in fact see some of the proposed mind mechanic's in the Maxis/EA games particularly the Sims. With just 6 attributes and 6 counters, you get passable behaviour if that was what was wanted. But that even going outside Role Playing Games to whatever supergenre includes the sims, no one actually just wants that.

And then five that actually, the boundary between internal state and external state is very porous. And that a whole slew of human activity relies on the fact that we can be over-ridden.

*this bit could be fixed by more levels, but then you're adding paper work

OK I have been thinking about a couple of other systems that I would like to get opinions on. Comment on whatever ones you want.

Trait modifiers: You pick some defined personality traits that provide some bonuses and penalties in defined situations. When these situations come up you apply the modifier. {#1} The traits are descriptive, but have no explicate situations to which the they apply. Players decide when they do either positively or negatively. {#2}

Compulsions: The rules give some compulsions that your character can have. The compulsions have particular triggers, when they occur the compulsion happens (or has a chance of happening). {#3} The compulsions make be ignored by paying a meta-game resource (say story points) {#4} or a in world currency (moral points). {#5} The compulsions are activated by the player for story points {#6} or moral points. {#7}

I could go on but I am quite happy to not have another multi-page post. The meaning starts to get lost among the words after a certain point.

1
Practically both of them sound good to me for the right games.

Regarding traits I think you do need both 1&2
I'd go for having some obvious cases for a typical character be 'suggested' (I.E 1), with then other cases (and characters) being handled using the defined cases as examples to compare the current situation to (I.E 2). Either the GM can recognize the situation or the player can try and claim. The other having the option of fully appealing it or suggesting a compromise. The rewards should not be set so high that it's worth a debate most of the time, and it should be expected that opportunities should occur frequently enough to average out misjudgments.

Compulsions for extreme behavior/characters or situations should be rare (in most games). My GCSE A grade in the sciences may get me a trait (perhaps effectively a +1 to intelligence in specifically mathsy situations, and would contribute to the base weighting), it does not make me a maths-genius (I'd say for most your looking at at least 2 Standard.Deviations's from average-i.e. less than 2.5% of people either way).
As to how implemented 4,5,6,7 I'd say they depend to some extent on the game. I personally like morale (humanity/stress/dark side points) more where they fit as it keeps things to do with the character.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-18, 08:47 AM

From the "The player has direct control only ever about the internals of their character". If the player truly has no control over anything else, everything action the character takes needs to be filtered through dice if the statement has to be true. So, if you actually can take plenty actions without dice being involved? The player actually has control over quite a bit of character "externals". (Unless you define the term gigantically different than I would). Which would make the distinction you gave somewhat invalid, and leave me still not understanding why this split, and where to draw the line.

My statement was that interaction with the external "world" outside the character was always filtered through the dice and/or GM. At a bare minimum, the GM has to agree that the declared action takes place and determine whether the "world" responds in the way the player, and thus the PC, intends. The GM and/or the dice are effectively standing in for physics, other persons, etc.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-18, 09:42 AM

Aha! This is really a very interesting question, because it touch on the very core of where I think much of the "RP rules" resistance is coming from.

I will start with a detour, and talk a little bit about when the GM tells the players how their characters feel.

Imagine a situation like this:

The GM describes the character's standing in front of a monster and, as the GM imagined this to be a very frightening experience, they conclude by saying "and your characters feel very afraid" or "you are very scared".

Alternatively, there is a situation like this:

The GM describes the character meeting a handsome NPC at the bar and, as the GM imagined this to be the basis of a romance, they conclude by saying "and your character falls instantly in love" or "you are very turned on".

Whenever GMs have attempted to do this to me, as a player, I have immediately reacted negatively. Who is this GM to tell me what my character is, or isn't, feeling? How can they decide what scares me? Furthermore, them simply saying "you are afraid" does absolutely nothing to make me FEEL afraid. Nothing.

Better would be to describe the situation in such a way that it invokes feelings of fear in me, the player. Given a certain level of immersion, that shouldn't be too hard. I've been scared in games as a player and certainly able to scare my players.

The fringe case is obviously magical compulsions. Those are best described for what they are though "you are affected by the Dragon's fear aura" or "the Vampire has successfully charmed you" and then let the players play out those effects, if they feel they can.

A certain set of RP mechanics work in much the same way, except now it's not the GM telling me how my character feels, it's the system. And it has equally little effect in actually making me feel it. Someone pointing a finger at you and saying "you are afraid" simply doesn't work. Doesn't matter if it's the GM or the system. It is, at least in my experience, usually much better to describe something that actually helps to generate those feelings in me, the player. Then I can truly connect with the character.

So, to sum it up, an external source telling me how I feel does absolutely nothing to help me feel it. Therefore, when there is a discrepancy between RP game mechanics imposed feelings and my internal feelings, I will always go with my own. However, that then leads to behavior which isn't rewarded by the RP mechanics, so suddenly the very system which were supposed to "help my roleplaying" now does the opposite.

I mean, if you work like Segev, and don't fully trust your own internal feelings about your character and really WANT an external help to guide you, obviously this will be useful. However, I really don't see how it can help you feel the emotions yourself. At best, it works as a stand-in when feeling emotions wasn't your goal to begin with.

Exactly.

Which is why I've said that it's just adding another mechanical effect, and does nothing to connect the player to the character emotionally. It's just more accounting, more bookkeeping... it's just emotional hit points or emotional "Endurance" (see, HERO system).

Your compliments makes me blush. However, I am glad you appreciate my thoughts.

There was something related to this someplace else where the token doesn't need to be awarded right away but rather at a later time when the in-character RP action actually lead to some "bad" consequences, and that if so then the thought process wouldn't need to change.

This idea is true, and I had not fully considered that you could run it like that.

However, it becomes a bit problematic. How far into the future does this extend? Many times the undesired consequences don't show up until much later. Could even be ten in-game years and fifty sessions later. It would almost be impossible to keep track of all this for a poor GM.

Also, it is rarely just "one choice: one outcome". Choices build on each other until finally the outcome is the sum of a large set of individually small choices. Which means I can actually make an accurate reference to the Butterfly Effect.

It can often be very hard to pin-point exactly which decision lead to this "bad thing", and remember to award a token when the decision was made 10 sessions ago.

Good point.

Lorsa

2016-12-18, 02:32 PM

To Max_Killjoy:

I am sorry if it seems as though I never reply to you. Since you basically seem to agree with most of the things I say, I am not really sure what to reply. I do hope it is evident from my posts that I've still read most of the things you write.

Segev:

On perseverance.

I do agree that perseverance is only really a thing when there has been actual obstacles to overcome. My first thought though was that "does having to spend a morale point actually make you feel that?". Then I thought about it some more, and maybe the point was never to make you, the player, feel as though you persevered, but rather that the character did so. Alternatively, you might view morale points as something akin to health points, so that if you had to expend a lot of them to get past a challenge, it gives you some measure of satisfaction that you "made it through" something really tough.

Wouldn't it be better though, if you had to give up something that you truly value as a player (even though it is for your character)? For example, let's say you have three goals for Armus.

1. Become the Ministry of War
2. Learn the Secrets of the Cabal
3. Kill your Father's murderer

So, at the time of the speech, Armus someone approaches Armus with an offer to set up a secret meeting RIGHT NOW, where he is promised to learn the Cabal Secrets, or meet his Father's killer or something such. Now this should hopefully be tempting to you, the player, as it will help full fill one of your goals, thus constitute a "win", but on the other hand, there's the risk it's just a set up to make Armus miss the speech.

Thus, if you decide to say NO to the temptation of the potential Cabal Secrets in favor of making the speech, you really did accomplish a goal through perseverance. Wouldn't that make you feel better as a player? Wouldn't that work better to agonize you than having to spend X morale points?

These are not mere rhetorical question. I actually do want to know. Is morale points expenditure enough to model the perseverance you want to feel?

Cluedrew

2016-12-18, 05:41 PM

Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 2: Ignoring person 1.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 1: Inflammatory comment.
Person 2: Why is this guy still flaming away?
Person 1: OMG I'm not interested in a flame war!
Person 2: ... :smallconfused:
Might I ask where this comment fits into that narrative? If I may not ignore this.

Trait modifiers as you describe them sound a lot like the Gifts and Weaknesses in the RPG Yggdrasill, where they modify the rolls for good or ill, once a game session when the situation applies. Gifts are invoked by the player and approved by the GM, Weaknesses are invoked by the GM. Personally I think the limit of once per session in that system creates a couple problems: [...]

Compulsions -- only if they're voluntary on a per-character basis.I know little of Yggdrasill but I have my own issues with play session based effects. For instance the power is inversely proportional to the length of play session... I'm not even sure how much that varies but it bothers me for some reason. Also what do you mean by "voluntary on a per-character basis"? Do you mean that no character is required to have any?

And, as stated previously, "The universe" is run by the GM, a person with intent, desire, and deliberation. It does not act on its own, this is not a world simulator, this is an RPG.I agree with most of what has been said but I would like to point out that "RPG as a world simulator" is actually one of the... patterns that role-playing games go for. And it is one that most have some root in because things working like they do in real life is a good way to create base expectations.

']#1 was somewhat my first idea.
#2 I would move slightly to GM/Group consensus, or at least to the GM having the right to suggest things.

#3 is something I am very used to, as The Dark Eye 4.1st edition (Don't ask), my first RPG, had these, and still has them in 5th. You get build points for taking them.
#4/#5 I would maybe go and say either rolling (The compulsion itself as a pseudostat or Willpower were the method of TDE 4.1st and 5th respectively) to prevent it from triggering, OR spent currency. Both taken together kinda weaken them a bit too much imho.

#6/#7 I don't quite like. There is a problem here of a player deciding "this triggers now" and the GM being somewhat forced to adapt their plot, situation, whatever, to supply the player with a situation where it makes sense. Or, if the player can only trigger this if the GM brings up something similar: Why not get the GM rights to activate is as well, or to advise them to suggest it in such situations?
Also, abuse problem. Players giving themselves resources at player discretion is always a bit iffy. (Sure, they need not, but at a certain point temptation becomes great enough, and these sorts of things reach that point for many people)
Thirdly, it would require Game designers quite a bit of work to figure out the list - or alternatively resort back to giving a model, and then letting players and GMs fill the "trigger slots" of a self-made compulsion. That might work, actually. If you vary the "trigger slots" by compulsion one could even prevent everything being equal. Adapt build point gains/costs for them or whatever else you come up with.#1 Oh I am not claiming any of these are original.
#2 Let's say there is group/GM veto but the player is the one who gets to say "this triggers". How about that?
#3 Now I'm just curious. But you seem to be comfortable with the idea, although it seems to be less popular over all.
#4/#5 Perhaps I should have made it a bit clear that each option is unique. I just didn't want to re-write the entire description each time.
#6/#7 Another one I didn't quite cover. When an appropriate event occurs the player can declare they are about to do something stupid, get a point and do the stupid thing (group/GM veto to stop abuse again). Actually nothing bad has to happen, but consequences are encouraged. And filling the trigger slots yourself was closer to the idea for this. Rather let the player decide whether it applies or not, these options were supposed to be high in player control.

Basically I was saying, the comparison ("Because if you were to model combat... with a coin toss, then to be at the same relative level of abstraction, you'd need 100s rolls and endless nested tables for a single character's mind.") was 'unfair', and was either holding internals to a much higher standard, or comparing the paperwork for one action against the paperwork for multiple decisions. (Hence the apple and oranges)Now that I understand. And on the whole I agree, although considering Max_Killjoy's other posts I would mostly say the former. That is he seems to be holding internals to a higher standard. Now in the context of a role-playing game that is actually a reasonable (perhaps even beneficial) thing to do, but still seems to be what is happening.

Regarding traits I think you do need both 1&2
I'd go for having some obvious cases for a typical character be 'suggested' (I.E 1), with then other cases (and characters) being handled using the defined cases as examples to compare the current situation to (I.E 2). Either the GM can recognize the situation or the player can try and claim. The other having the option of fully appealing it or suggesting a compromise. The rewards should not be set so high that it's worth a debate most of the time, and it should be expected that opportunities should occur frequently enough to average out misjudgments.I don't actually think you can "combine" 1 & 2. Or at least not the underlying idea behind them. The important difference between the two is that #1 was supposed to represent the activation conditions being mechanically enforce, while #2 had the players activating them at will (with some veto to prevent abuse). I suppose you could if you apply them to different cases. I do like some of the other guidelines on frequency and compromise however.

To Max_Killjoy:

I am sorry if it seems as though I never reply to you.Hey, someone else using bolded names and "To" openers. I thought I was the only one who did that. I also believe that it is good to some times stop posting arguments and say some things to the people who say good things. Although you occasional get some ironic arguments where some give a counter argument to my support of their point. Communication can be hard.

Then I thought about it some more, and maybe the point was never to make you, the player, feel as though you persevered, but rather that the character did so.For me that is a big one, although I think Segev has some different opinions on the matter than I do. I am not and never will be the character in the game. Unless I am playing myself, which would be boring. I do say "I" sometimes when describing my character's actions, but really that is just a short hand. I simply the one telling their story. Telling more in creating, not in reciting, the story doesn't exist until I have played it. And although I can say anything, mechanics put limits on it and acting within those mechanics make the adventures that push against those mechanics have that much more weight.

Segev

2016-12-18, 09:30 PM

I don't quite think this is true... or a bad thing... Let me, as so often these days, come back to FATE. Now to invoke an aspect, the GM has to offer up a Fatepoint, and actually tell which aspect is being triggered. The player may now form an opinion on if they want that aspect to trigger or if they are gonna make damn sure it doesn't by expending a Fatepoint. Now FATE does give the players more control over the setting outside of the characters than usual, but my point is: The player having a rough idea of what a complication is gonna be like, need not be a gamebreaking thing. And on the other hand: "exact terms" aren't really necessary for such mechanics.You bring up, later in this post I'm quoting, associated vs. dissociated mechanics. This is one of those areas where the mechanics are dissociated: the fate point only gets offered when the GM is invoking the aspect to create a complication. At least, if I understand it correctly. If the Aspect is irrelevant in terms of actually causing problems, but just comes up for flavor reasons, no Fate Points are given.

I mention this not so much to argue, but to point out why I am dissatisfied with this sort of mechanic. Well, one reason. The other being that I've generally found the complication to be more costly than a fate point or hero point would actually let you recover from, when played in practice.

As Segev pointed out, those two are connected, since social skills are always about dealing with personalities, temptations and other things and using and manipulating those to accomplish your goals. Reading people is a central skill for any socially inclined person, precisely to gather information on how to act to achieve any given goal. So if one wants detailed and interesting social mechanics, as well as RP mechanics, you need to connect them.

Also, I find that no one mechanical system should be entirely seperate from the rest of the game. Ideally, they will all tie together to create a consistent experience, and something developed wholly separate will always feel tagged on. Therefor, I find it important to design with these sorts of rules in consideration from the beginning or at least early on.Quite. In particular, note how my answer to something somebody (I think Lorsa) brings up later relies on tying the "social/RP" mechanics back to physical action mechanics. When gain morale points/lose morale points helps you determine how "happy" your PC is, but doesn't tie into anything else, why should you care? The system (rough though it is) I outlined tied that "happiness" back to performance of other tasks: spend morale points to do better at something; have negative morale points and do worse at everything.

Might I just say this sounds great? (Especially the "Bonus for getting people to goad others in") And it helps me tie together some mechanics from entirely different games in ways I had never thought about. Great basis for building things on, a system that is able to handle this in an interesting way.

I think these rules move a bit away from actually being Model 2 though, what you originally set out to do afai think. They sound like Model 3, which is probably why I like the sound of them so much.Thanks! I admit that I don't entirely remember the distinction between the two models, but I am more concerned with it modeling the character's feelings in a meaningful way than anything else.

Here, it's not "because racing up the mountain will be a complication, you can have morale points." It's, "The thrill of being first up will make you feel better. And better still the more real competition you overcome in the process."

2) The ultimate solution suggested is to remove pressure entirely, by having each choice be equal in scope, but different in the details. If the examples didn't nail that, it is probably because the designing of these rules isn't finished yet.
3) But why not make a system for them? Collect a group of those people and have the perfect game for them. Segev seems to be one, and I'm not sure I would count myself out entirely, either.
With the rest, I feel you are misrepresenting what the rules set out to do. Rather than tell or change what someone is doing, they are supposed to open up and/or legitimise more decisions then with a "conventional" system. (Again, noone is saying you have to switch.)(2) here is largely my point, yes. The idea being that there already exist pressures which distort, and that a way of alleviating that without removing enjoyable aspects of the game is to introduce counterbalancing pressures.

Note that the pressures introduced don't have to make them all equivalent choices; they just have to make the relative weights more accurately simulated.

At least to me, a "punishment" implies action taken by one party against another party in deliberate retaliation for something that the first party does not approve of in some way, to dissuade the second party or third parties from engaging in that activity in the future, or for the sake of perceived justice.

* As "the universe' has neither intent, nor desire, nor deliberation, it cannot engage in "punishment".
* There exists no inherent balance -- one action being rewarded does not inherently mean that any/all other actions are being punished.Perhaps. But the philosophical, semantic debate obscures here the meaning of what I have been saying.

Would you say that, regardless of whether it is a "punishment" or not, the fact that sticking your hand into a fire causes pain and, eventually, damage which may become irreparable, is generally undesirable and creates a pressure on people not to stick their hands in fire?

There are those who would characterize these consequences as "punishment" for a the choice to stick one's hand in fire. That is the characterization I am using here. The idea that the negative consequences result in a pressure to avoid them. When the negative consequences for one choice have a disproportionate impact on the player vs. the character compared to the negative consequences for another, it creates a distorted pressure to choose, since the player suffers consequences one way, but not the other.

Imagine a situation like this:

The GM describes the character's standing in front of a monster and, as the GM imagined this to be a very frightening experience, they conclude by saying "and your characters feel very afraid" or "you are very scared".

Alternatively, there is a situation like this:

The GM describes the character meeting a handsome NPC at the bar and, as the GM imagined this to be the basis of a romance, they conclude by saying "and your character falls instantly in love" or "you are very turned on".

Whenever GMs have attempted to do this to me, as a player, I have immediately reacted negatively. Who is this GM to tell me what my character is, or isn't, feeling? How can they decide what scares me? Furthermore, them simply saying "you are afraid" does absolutely nothing to make me FEEL afraid. Nothing.

Better would be to describe the situation in such a way that it invokes feelings of fear in me, the player. Given a certain level of immersion, that shouldn't be too hard. I've been scared in games as a player and certainly able to scare my players.Indeed, if you're trying to bring the player into the emotion, a skilled description playing on the player's fears and desires helps. But, just as it is undesirable to me to require a GM who wishes to have an NPC seductress be able, himself, to seduce the NPC's target's player IRL, it is undesirable to require that any creature which has intimidating, frightening, alluring, or likable qualities to have a GM who is a master manipulator of his players.

Such tools can be powerful and useful, but I neither wish to require that a warrior's player be able to successfully demonstrate his swordfighting prowess IRL, nor that a socialite's player be as silver-tongued as his character. It's nice, certainly. And a player who tries is great. But even if said player botches it IRL, his PC probably shouldn't be dependent on this.

As to how I would suggest approaching it, I would say that the frightening creature makes some sort of "I'm scary" roll, and either the fear automatically imposes penalties (which is the D&D approach), or it demands that the player expend morale points to be able to take certain actions (e.g. "stay, fight, taunt"), with the number of morale points required being determined by the success of the roll against some DC set by the PC's stats.

For the sexy nymph (or whatever), a similar "I'm so sexy you want me" roll is made, against factors discussed before, and this either builds a "you want her" trait in the character, which can be exploited, or it directly creates a morale reward offering for doing things for her, and a penalty for certain other things (e.g. "causing her harm").

The reason the player doesn't get to say, "No, my character wouldn't be scared at all," is because he can build for being as fearless as the mechanics allow, but (barring rules to say otherwise) everyone can be scared by something sufficiently frightening. Similarly, a player who wants to say, "My character can totally lift that iron golem over his head," is free to build his PC as strong as the mechanics will allow, but there are limits to everybody's strength (unless the rules say otherwise).

A certain set of RP mechanics work in much the same way, except now it's not the GM telling me how my character feels, it's the system. And it has equally little effect in actually making me feel it. Someone pointing a finger at you and saying "you are afraid" simply doesn't work. Doesn't matter if it's the GM or the system. It is, at least in my experience, usually much better to describe something that actually helps to generate those feelings in me, the player. Then I can truly connect with the character.Absolutely. The mechanics are there to help you determine what your character is feeling when you cannot successfully share it. Whether that's a failure of your imagination, the GM's storytelling ability, or simply the fact that you are safe and warm and well-fed amongst friends and your character...isn't...is irrelevant.

In other words, none of this is to obviate the utility of good emotional immersion techniques, executed by players and the GM. At worst, however, it's an aid to let you know how your PC feels about it even when those OOC storytelling/atmosphere efforts fail. At best, it's a natural way of filling that in without having to guess whether the character feels exactly how you do. (What if you're arachnophobic, but your character isn't? Wouldn't it be nice to have that reassurance that, despite the GM's exquisitely creepy description of the eight-legged monsters reaching out of the shadows just at the corner of your vision, your character is only mildly disturbed, despite you begging the GM to stop because it's making you want to run screaming from the game room?)

So, to sum it up, an external source telling me how I feel does absolutely nothing to help me feel it. Therefore, when there is a discrepancy between RP game mechanics imposed feelings and my internal feelings, I will always go with my own. However, that then leads to behavior which isn't rewarded by the RP mechanics, so suddenly the very system which were supposed to "help my roleplaying" now does the opposite.I'm not sure I agree.

Let's use an organized play hypothetical example. You're in a "Cthulian horror" module this weekend, and sadly, the GM just isn't very good at making you scared. You just see rubber-suit monsters in your head and view them as things to beat up. Sure, they're mechanically dangerous and you have to work at it, but even if it's too tough for you to handle, you (and thus, as you put it, your character) are not scared. Just annoyed at the unfairness of it.

The next week, your friends who haven't played this module need one more person to fill it out, and so you agree to sit in on it. You plan to keep your mouth shut, since you don't want to be "that guy who read the module and won because of it." This GM, though, a different guy than last week, is masterful at atmosphere. He has you legitimately terrified (in the way people pay money to be by horror movies). Now, your character is totally scared, because (as you said you connect your emotions to his) you are. Even though they're exactly the same monsters in exactly the same scenario, the presentation by this GM - the fluff - has completely altered how you perceive what your character "would" do, due to his fear.

If, in both circumstances, you had mechanics telling you that your PC was creeped the heck out, the mechanics would weight your decisions a little better in the first case, and would bolster your choices in the second case.

I mean, if you work like Segev, and don't fully trust your own internal feelings about your character and really WANT an external help to guide you, obviously this will be useful. However, I really don't see how it can help you feel the emotions yourself. At best, it works as a stand-in when feeling emotions wasn't your goal to begin with.Accurate. What it does is let you "feel" the weight of the choices, even if you can't feel the emotions themselves.

There was something related to this someplace else where the token doesn't need to be awarded right away but rather at a later time when the in-character RP action actually lead to some "bad" consequences, and that if so then the thought process wouldn't need to change.

This idea is true, and I had not fully considered that you could run it like that.

However, it becomes a bit problematic. How far into the future does this extend? Many times the undesired consequences don't show up until much later. Could even be ten in-game years and fifty sessions later. It would almost be impossible to keep track of all this for a poor GM.

Also, it is rarely just "one choice: one outcome". Choices build on each other until finally the outcome is the sum of a large set of individually small choices. Which means I can actually make an accurate reference to the Butterfly Effect.

It can often be very hard to pin-point exactly which decision lead to this "bad thing", and remember to award a token when the decision was made 10 sessions ago.This is why I advocate simulationist rewards, not narrativist ones. It doesn't matter if there's a complication. The fact that this made your PC feel good/bad is what results in the morale point gain/cost.

It is up to the GM and/or the characters (player and non-) to manipulate this, just as is the case with other mechanics. You don't only give hp back when a cure spell is cast if it's narratively relevant; you give hp because a cure spell was cast. Likewise, you don't give morale points out because this taco created a gas crisis during a speech. You give morale points because this taco makes Armus that darned happy. You'd also give him morale points if he had The Best Taco Ever when there was nothing else on the line. It's the GM's choice to complicate the situation by making him have to choose to eat it when it could cause complications. Just as it's the GM's choice to make resting after every fight cost time-sensitive things...by including time-sensitive things for that choice to cost them.

On perseverance.

I do agree that perseverance is only really a thing when there has been actual obstacles to overcome. My first thought though was that "does having to spend a morale point actually make you feel that?". Then I thought about it some more, and maybe the point was never to make you, the player, feel as though you persevered, but rather that the character did so. Alternatively, you might view morale points as something akin to health points, so that if you had to expend a lot of them to get past a challenge, it gives you some measure of satisfaction that you "made it through" something really tough.Bolding added to the part that is what I'm getting at.

To attempt to elaborate with an example, let's look at hp. Armus now has to climb the scalding hot cliffs of not-quite-lava to get to the Chalice of War Ministry, which (for utterly contrived reasons) will give him that Ministry if he can just get to it.

If the mechanics are set up such that the GM just tells Armus's player how excruciatingly painful it is, and describes in detail how his hands blister, his skin cracks and dries out just being near the cliffs, and tells Armus's player how badly Armus is suffering with each and every handhold he takes, but Armus's player makes the decision that he's playing Armus as a very determined man who will NOT give up, and says, "He endures it and climbs up anyway, flinching (but not in a way that makes him fail) but persevering," people (including Armus's player, potentially) will be a bit unsatisfied. It sounds like he's playing a Gary Stu. It isn't really an accomplishment; the alternative was "not getting the chalice." For no gain, since the pain costs nothing.

If the mechanics, instead, have the GM describe the same thing...but also assign, say, 3d6 fire damage with each handhold he takes, and 1d6 per action he pauses while holding the cliffs, with penalties for fatigue to a climb check which as to reach a certain threshold before he can say he reached the top... now the achievement of persevering (even if Armus's player describes it identically) is meaningful. He paid hp for every attempt, and risked real consequences (e.g. death by burning).

The morale points add something similar, even including the real consequences of becoming so despondent and depressed that you just can't succeed or bring yourself to try (heavy enough penalties might not really mean you can't roll the dice, but the efforts are so feeble from one who, IC, is known to be capable of more that he's essentially given up; at least, that's one way to fluff it).

Wouldn't it be better though, if you had to give up something that you truly value as a player (even though it is for your character)? For example, let's say you have three goals for Armus.

1. Become the Ministry of War
2. Learn the Secrets of the Cabal
3. Kill your Father's murderer

So, at the time of the speech, Armus someone approaches Armus with an offer to set up a secret meeting RIGHT NOW, where he is promised to learn the Cabal Secrets, or meet his Father's killer or something such. Now this should hopefully be tempting to you, the player, as it will help full fill one of your goals, thus constitute a "win", but on the other hand, there's the risk it's just a set up to make Armus miss the speech.

Thus, if you decide to say NO to the temptation of the potential Cabal Secrets in favor of making the speech, you really did accomplish a goal through perseverance. Wouldn't that make you feel better as a player? Wouldn't that work better to agonize you than having to spend X morale points?

These are not mere rhetorical question. I actually do want to know. Is morale points expenditure enough to model the perseverance you want to feel?Sure. But that does narrow the kinds of choices Armus is even allowed to be faced with. And, frankly, if "kill my father's murderer" is going to only cost me the ability to have more fun down the line with a more successful Armus, I'm back in the "so, I'm being punished for making an RP decision" zone. And if it's "kill my father's murderer, or become minister of war, when the former will only grant Armus satisfaction but won't actually yield me anything beneficial, but the latter gets me the power I've been seeking," it's essentially the taco decision all over again.

For me that is a big one, although I think Segev has some different opinions on the matter than I do. I am not and never will be the character in the game. Unless I am playing myself, which would be boring. I do say "I" sometimes when describing my character's actions, but really that is just a short hand. I simply the one telling their story. Telling more in creating, not in reciting, the story doesn't exist until I have played it. And although I can say anything, mechanics put limits on it and acting within those mechanics make the adventures that push against those mechanics have that much more weight.(This is responding to a comment that the mechanics are there to help you say "yes, the character really did persevere," more than to make the player feel like he did.)

Actually, that sums it up nicely. I mean, yes, there is a LITTLE bit of "I, the player, persevered in the face of these mechanical penalties which made this actually cost me something/made it actually a struggle," but the main thing is that it makes the cost to the character as real as the benefit of having done it. Since mechanics say there's a benefit for having done it, mechanics should have a say in how much it cost to achieve. To have a non-mechanical, fluff-only "cost" feels...cheap.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-18, 10:03 PM

While I do agree that with your premise this would be the outcome, I don't agree with the premise that the world IS the actual territory.
Given the rules and the world as things, one is clearly real, experiencable by the players directly, and the other imaginary, experienced through joint imagination assisted by the GM and the rules. The rules are, by a good bit, more real than the world, and will influence how you see the world because you are experiencing the world THROUGH them.

In the situation of the map showing a wide open road and reality a cliff, then tossing the map away is probably the worst reaction after just treating it like an open road. Correcting the map would be a far better step, and given rules aren't dealing with singular cases, help out that this disconnect doesn't happen again. Or to others coming to the same spot. If a map is lackluster, work on it, instead of throwing it out.

I have to fundamentally disagree -- to the point that I stand by throwing out the map when the disconnect is big enough -- one can no longer trust the map.

The rules are just the means to an end -- and that end is the experience of that other world. Without that other world, a group might as well be getting together to play rummy or Monopoly.

On abstraction levels:
a) I am unsure that anyone actually want the two to be on the same level of abstraction. Noone cares if combat and climbing are on the same level of abstraction in the current rules, and they damn well aren't in most rules I've seen.
b) I am unsure this vast difference is actually true.
c) No one wants the rules and dice to literally run the character. Noone is trying to create AI. What we want differs from model to model, but neither is trying to simulate the character independant of player input, just at the most put their emotional state or personality in rules to have it influence other things mechanically.

Which I find totally unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.

1) Old rulesystems didn't go away. They are still perfectly playable. Just play the old stuff.
2) Go find a group that wants to play what you want. Seriously, just because other people want something else won't get rid of everyone who wants the things you want. Just get those people together, instead of forcing people that want to play other things to play by your choice. Even if the "forcing" is through eliminating their games (potentially by trying to stop them being made).
3) Can you see how egotistical this attitude is, or at least might sound? Your fun is not more important than my fun, or anyone elses. If you put out multiple options, and more people want the rules as I want them than yours, that is their choice. Just because you'd like to play something else gives you NO right to demand that other people do it, too. I mean, the same goes the other way: If a group of people is presented with the two options and chooses yours, I am not gonna throw a fit about things being unfair to me - people just want something different, and I gotta respect that. Presenting them with the options didn't take anything away from me, at least nothing that was mine to keep.

That sounds great until all the published rules are either D&D-link grinders, or narrative nonsense, or full of rules trying to control the "inner experience" of the character.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-18, 10:16 PM

Might I ask where this comment fits into that narrative? If I may not ignore this.

It fits after that timeline, with me commenting that it would be great if the whole thing went away...
...but I keep getting the sense that someone is making snide, deceptive responses to my posts, perhaps because they're stung by being deprived of the opportunity to "win".

I know little of Yggdrasill but I have my own issues with play session based effects. For instance the power is inversely proportional to the length of play session... I'm not even sure how much that varies but it bothers me for some reason.

Exactly -- this is another aspect of the "high variability" concern I expressed.

Also what do you mean by "voluntary on a per-character basis"? Do you mean that no character is required to have any?

Yes -- I mean I do not approve of systems wherein every character would have to take one or more compulsions.

I agree with most of what has been said but I would like to point out that "RPG as a world simulator" is actually one of the... patterns that role-playing games go for. And it is one that most have some root in because things working like they do in real life is a good way to create base expectations.

At some point the players (including the GM) have to come to some sort of mutual understanding as to the "shared other world" that the game is taking place in, down to the basic physics. If a setting doesn't spell out how it is fundamentally different from the real physical world we all share day to day, then it's easiest, quickest, and safest to proceed on the understanding that it works as our world does. Every difference from our world not only needs to be explained, but all the differences need to be in sync with one another and with the non-different parts of the world. If characters can leap 5 times higher/farther than human beings in the real world, we need to know how that works, and that "how" has all sorts of other potential implications for the game-reality that need to be worked out and brought into sync and so on.

Lorsa

2016-12-19, 07:53 AM

To Cluedrew:

I can spot a good idea when I see and then steal it for myself. I think I might have used something similar at some point in the past, but your method seems very useful.

OK I have been thinking about a couple of other systems that I would like to get opinions on. Comment on whatever ones you want.

Trait modifiers: You pick some defined personality traits that provide some bonuses and penalties in defined situations. When these situations come up you apply the modifier. {#1} The traits are descriptive, but have no explicate situations to which the they apply. Players decide when they do either positively or negatively. {#2}

Compulsions: The rules give some compulsions that your character can have. The compulsions have particular triggers, when they occur the compulsion happens (or has a chance of happening). {#3} The compulsions make be ignored by paying a meta-game resource (say story points) {#4} or a in world currency (moral points). {#5} The compulsions are activated by the player for story points {#6} or moral points. {#7}

I could go on but I am quite happy to not have another multi-page post. The meaning starts to get lost among the words after a certain point.

Let's go through at least parts of the list in detail (because I can't do non-detailed at this point):

{#1} This one is, for game mechanical purposes, identical to basically any other non-personality trait or feat or whatever. A defined situation gives you a defined modifier. If we forgo the personality part, it becomes a pure game balance issue. It should be no harder to use than, say, "Point blank shot".

However, since they are personality traits, they may come with some baggage. For example, is a player forced to portray this personality during play? What if you choose personality trait "Hot Headed" which gives a "+2 Initiative", but the player has his character always act in an emotionally calm fashion and rarely gets riled up? In that case, the trait simply becomes "+2 Initiative".

So, unless players are forced to also roleplay their characters with personality befitting the chosen traits, the fact that they are "personality" traits becomes largely irrelevant. One might as well choose to have the normal "non-personality" traits instead.

If the players ARE forced to roleplay their characters, who decide if they do so successfully or not? And what happens when they fail? Do they simply loose the trait (game balance problem), or do they get to replace it? In the end, it is impossible to avoid that this either becomes "judge me on my roleplaying skills" or "the fact that it says 'personality' is irrelevant".

{#2} This has the same problems as above with roleplaying being something you can "fail" at. Something to be judged. Additionally, these traits have game balance issues. Of course, if you don't care about game balance, it is basically a non-issue, but most people DO care about balance (at least to some level).

If the player holding the trait gets to decide arbitrarily when they are applied, it has some definite abuse-able workings. If the GM has to agree, balance issues can be minimized, but since they deal with a character's personality, players may feel cheated when they can't bring it up in situations where their inner consistence says it should be applicable.

Such as "I am really angry here, so I should get my +2 Initiative!" vs. the GM "I don't really see how your character could be that riled up by this situation, so no".

{#3} Well, compulsions do exist, and if the triggers are clear enough, there shouldn't be much problem with the application. Certain systems already come with compulsions, such as White Wolf's Vampire, where a character may go into Frenzy at certain triggers. When the compulsion is thematically appropriate, I see nothing inherently wrong with it.

The only issue is if the player can roleplay their compulsion properly. What does a character do under the compulsion? It is described in detail or a more vague "you want to kill this person"? Will control of the character be handed over to the GM in case the player feels they can't accurately decide how the compulsion is acted out?

{#4} This system obviously need the meta-game currency in place first. What else can it do? How is it earned? What is the purpose of it? It is very hard to judge this idea unless I first hear what you think these Story Tokens should work.

{#5} Since I have an easier time to accept in-world currency over meta currency, I personally would have an easier time to accept this system. However, it is very hard to judge unless I know the approximate value of a moral token, how it is earned and what else it does (and how many are needed to avoid the compulsion).

Also, compulsions are compulsions, they are very hard to avoid. Most likely you'd need to expend morale points / time interval in order to avoid it, as long as you are within range of whatever triggers your compulsion. It's rarely "one expenditure, one compulsion avoided", if we're aiming for some simulationist type of system.

{#6} My general view about this has been described earlier. If the triggering of a compulsion doesn't really affect anything either positively or negatively, it is just a cheap way of gathering Story Tokens. If the compulsion does have negative effects, it will most likely affect the entire group, not only the player. So it becomes a case of "one player causes a problem for the group in order to acquire a Story Token". Not really ideal in my opinion. Therefore, the entire party should get a Story Token. This then gets a bit problematic as I can see a case of people hoarding them for the group in a semi-chaotic compulsion-triggered scene.

{#7} This has verisimilitude problems. I am not sure anyone actually feels better by triggering their compulsion. They feel better by acting on their compulsion once it is triggered. Partly I also have some intrinsic issues with players voluntarily triggering really negative stuff in order to get some points. I can't really explain why at this point, I'll have to think about it. Also, since this is meant to reflect the inner workings of a character (therefore the use of Morale instead of Story tokens), it can't really give tokens to the other players when one player choose to active their compulsion, so it has some of the same issues as {#6}.

Does this give you some of the answers you are looking for?

Floret

2016-12-19, 01:22 PM

Quick note: I will try to keep this as short as possible, but given I missed about two days of discussion... let's focus on the "as possible". Sorry for the scrollbar.

Also, Floret, could I ask you to please use double ENTER between paragraphs? Just a line change isn't really enough, especially when read on a smartphone, so a full line between paragraphs would make your posts much easier to read for me.

Sorry, I had not considered smartphones. My desire to make the post shorter went at too great a cost, it seems.

Your over-the-top phrasing wasn't completely unfounded, and I think it rightfully pointed out a discrepancy in my thinking.

However, there is a difference in what the GM is an arbiter of. When, and now we are discussing whatever subset of RP mechanics this applies to, the GM has to make a judgement call about a player character's personal feelings and inner workings, or how their personality might or might not affect a situation, this is different than applying a penalty for lack of sleep for example. Most people have an easier time to accept a GM's ruling on the latter, as they tie back to the "consequences" Max_killjoy have been talking about all along. Yes, my character was up all night, so yes, I agree that it should give some penalty.

When the GM says "you get a penalty because of your personality", it is much easier for the player to feel that no, their personality is not of such type that it should give the penalty here. In such a situation, I do not feel very comfortable simply over-ruling the player. But if I don't, I open up for some large game balance issues. To me, it is basically a no-win situation. If you have a group that clearly accepts the GMs rulings on what their personality is and how it should matter mechanically, then it is a no issue. I am not saying certain rules should never exist.

Hm. I can't imagine that all players actually would be more bothered by this. Dunno, maybe I have weird players. Granted, they are also (tying in to a later point) fine with me describing a situation INCLUDING their character's feelings on certain matter, something you describe as somewhat undesirable. (I don't do it the first session, but after I have gotten a feeling of that character... and, especially in my 5 Rings group, the players actively ask how their characters would feel about certain things when the social morality of the setting is in play and they don't feel like they have enough of a grasp on that.

If a player truly feels like a trait doesn't apply and would get mad by overruling - then, given sensible players, I'd have no issue with accepting that, though I will always want an explanation that satisfies me. And if only to get a better picture of the character to use for later sessions. I don't think it opens up that many issues. Not if there is agreed upon consensus for what the traits do - as with FATE aspects, that get discussed and created at the table, so everyone has the (roughly) same concept of what it stands for. The other option would be hard-coded rules, though that leaves more work to the gamedesigner and less freedom to the player.

As you said, no system can cover everything in detail. If it can't, then the GM has to fill in the blanks. How else would it work? (honest question)

I very much doubt there is any system that covers everything. You say rules-lite systems do that. Does that include bowel movements, sugar lows, hormone-induced mood fluctuations and muscle-ache from working out too much?

To give an example, I am pretty sure the falling damage rules in D&D only specify damage based on the length of the fall. It doesn't take into account what, exactly, you are falling towards. A ball of hay is very different to a rock which is different to mud which is different to water. Since the rules fail to cover all these situations, there are two conclusions to reach:

1) The GM should treat all situations equally and give equal damage to a 5 meter fall towards rock as towards water.
2) The GM should 'fill in the blanks' and alter the falling damage based on the material.

I would suggest option 2. You may be of another mind, but this is the reason why I said that I think GMs "should" take the rules only as guidelines, since they, by their very nature, can't accurately portray all situations with game mechanics. Feel free to point out any errors in my reasoning.

I mean, rules-lite systems can, by omission. I don't think any given game needs rules pertaining to everything. If Bowel movements, sugar lows and all that jazz are not important for the game - the rules can just deal with being a rough enough approximation.
There is a system which name escapes me that has two skills: "Shoot" and "Everything else". By technicality, it simulates every single thing anyone could ever attempt. So, yes, a rules-light system can cover everything by painting with broad enough strokes. As soon as you include detailed rules for some things, but completely leave out others, at that point you actually get the need for detailed rules for everything (important to the game). If the players then want to use the rules for a different sort of game, they should probably look at the rules and how to rework them to better fit.
(As one might imagine, I am not that big on setting-agnostic rulesystems. FATE gets a pass, because it outright tells you to modify it, and what screws to turn to do just that.)

So for that example: If the system has detailed enough rules for the damage to be scalable in enough steps, (or some other factors) the rules should include the difference. A DM should "fill in the blanks", but more on a house-rule/next edition basis than a "decision by the moment" basis.
If the system has only two sorts of wounds, for example "bruised" and "trauma", where two "bruised" add up to "trauma", then, yeah, why make the difference. Water can be incredibly hard to fall on. Unless the setting specifies "Soft water is real in this world", where I'd want the rules to reflect that fact in the first place.

I vehemently disagree with the notion that GMs have to fill in for the mistakes and/or laziness of the Game designers. They can, yes, but treating this as an "how things should be" in my eyes just works to excuse shoddy game design. Yeah, it can make sub-par design work, but the ideal case is still the rules being able to handle themselves.

1) The seduction-by-person example was brought up as a better one to the taco example. It doesn't HAVE to be about social rules and could very well be RP rules. For example, there doesn't have to be any actual seduction going on. It could be a bottle of booze for an alcoholic or a lottery ticket for a gambler. Alternatively, it could simply be a pretty woman who may distract a character despite not trying to actively seduce them. So, I do think they are RP rules. They could ALSO be part of the social rules, but still, it doesn't only have to do with that.

2) If the token isn't that important, then it is probably not doing its job well enough? The whole point was to incentivize a certain behavior, therefore the incentive has to be useful and desirable. Player agency may steer character into certain situations, but then we get into the issue with some players being rewarded a lot more than others simply because they are better at (passively or actively) controlling the narrative. So then character personality becomes a game balance issue (yes, there is an argument line that says it already is, but there could be scale differences).

3) If the rules reward mechanically suboptimal decisions taken for RP reasons, isn't that more or less the same as giving benefits for drawbacks? I mean, the mechanically suboptimal stuff that comes out of the decision IS a drawback, isn't it?

1) A mechanic that gives every player, regardless of character, the same incentive for the same action, isn't RP, because the role being played has no influence whatsoever. They become RP rules at the point where a character is treated differently by them because of their personality. Otherwise they are simply rules to make player's go along with temptations of any sort.

2) I don't feel like I have much to say on that. I pretty much agree, but I wasn't arguing for that sort of rule in the first place. (Or rather, not in actual favor of it)

3) Dunno. I wouldn't phrase "equalising out" the negative consequences, making it effectively nil, as a benefit. But, from the perspective of the rules not being there, you might. I think this will get down to semantics.

I mean, if you work like Segev, and don't fully trust your own internal feelings about your character and really WANT an external help to guide you, obviously this will be useful. However, I really don't see how it can help you feel the emotions yourself. At best, it works as a stand-in when feeling emotions wasn't your goal to begin with.

On "GM tells you how your character feels" I have said my point already. Basically "Sure, why not, if, barring mechanics preventing it, I get a right to veto the statement."

There was something related to this someplace else where the token doesn't need to be awarded right away but rather at a later time when the in-character RP action actually lead to some "bad" consequences, and that if so then the thought process wouldn't need to change.

This idea is true, and I had not fully considered that you could run it like that.

However, it becomes a bit problematic. How far into the future does this extend? Many times the undesired consequences don't show up until much later. Could even be ten in-game years and fifty sessions later. It would almost be impossible to keep track of all this for a poor GM.

Also, it is rarely just "one choice: one outcome". Choices build on each other until finally the outcome is the sum of a large set of individually small choices. Which means I can actually make an accurate reference to the Butterfly Effect.

It can often be very hard to pin-point exactly which decision lead to this "bad thing", and remember to award a token when the decision was made 10 sessions ago.

I dunno. If I run FATE, I just tell the players on the spot that there WILL be a complication, and for what Aspect. As I said, I have no problem with that. If you do have a problem with that, for whatever reason, such a system is probably not for you. I don't think I can say anthing of value beyond that.

Wouldn't it be better though, if you had to give up something that you truly value as a player (even though it is for your character)? For example, let's say you have three goals for Armus. [...]

These are not mere rhetorical question. I actually do want to know. Is morale points expenditure enough to model the perseverance you want to feel?

I think Segev replied to this far better than I could, but I want to say this: Comparing the example you give to the ones before is, in my view, comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, this would be more interesting - but also require much more GM-work, more setup, and so on. This is a situation, that has to be somewhat carefully engineered by GM fiat, especially to produce a tradeoff situation. I don't feel it comparable for a situation where simply being your own worst enemy, due to preestablished personality traits or just being a human being with needs, is serving as an obstacle.
It would also not be feasible, I think, to have such a tradeoff for every point where a character wants to reach a goal. Sometimes the difficulty has to come from somewhere else, and I find it coming from the person themselves to be a very interesting possibility.

I agree with most of what has been said but I would like to point out that "RPG as a world simulator" is actually one of the... patterns that role-playing games go for. And it is one that most have some root in because things working like they do in real life is a good way to create base expectations.

Fair point. I still stand by the rest what I said - and I think a perfect simulator would come at drawbacks I am unsure any RPer will want to make. There have to be tradeoffs from the simulation if you want a narrative, agency and all that sort of jazz.

#1 Oh I am not claiming any of these are original.
#2 Let's say there is group/GM veto but the player is the one who gets to say "this triggers". How about that?
#3 Now I'm just curious. But you seem to be comfortable with the idea, although it seems to be less popular over all.
#4/#5 Perhaps I should have made it a bit clear that each option is unique. I just didn't want to re-write the entire description each time.
#6/#7 Another one I didn't quite cover. When an appropriate event occurs the player can declare they are about to do something stupid, get a point and do the stupid thing (group/GM veto to stop abuse again). Actually nothing bad has to happen, but consequences are encouraged. And filling the trigger slots yourself was closer to the idea for this. Rather let the player decide whether it applies or not, these options were supposed to be high in player control.

#1 Oh that was not meant as accusatory, just pointing it out :smallwink:
#2 Might work. I'd rather see this going both ways - group/GM with some power to "trigger", combined with a player veto being a possibility as well. But then again I don't really care much if some mechanic is "invasive".
#3 Oh, just a general disdain for the system (the 4.1st edition), if not for that particular mechanic. The traits produce interesting effects - one of my players runs a character with both "irascible" and "superstitious" as traits. It can produce interesting situations. Once, on a percieved insult by a village elder, failing his willpower roll, he just decked him. In front of a crowd. (The player decided both to roll and to throw the punch. Again, maybe my players are weird, but they like this sort of thing.)
#4/#5 No problem, and I didn't understand it as both at the same time - I just wanted to point out that this should be avoided.
#6/#7 Alright. Sounds doable. For the right system, sure.

For me that is a big one, although I think Segev has some different opinions on the matter than I do. I am not and never will be the character in the game. Unless I am playing myself, which would be boring. I do say "I" sometimes when describing my character's actions, but really that is just a short hand. I simply the one telling their story. Telling more in creating, not in reciting, the story doesn't exist until I have played it. And although I can say anything, mechanics put limits on it and acting within those mechanics make the adventures that push against those mechanics have that much more weight.

I second this. Wholeheartedly.

You bring up, later in this post I'm quoting, associated vs. dissociated mechanics. This is one of those areas where the mechanics are dissociated: the fate point only gets offered when the GM is invoking the aspect to create a complication. At least, if I understand it correctly. If the Aspect is irrelevant in terms of actually causing problems, but just comes up for flavor reasons, no Fate Points are given.

I mention this not so much to argue, but to point out why I am dissatisfied with this sort of mechanic. Well, one reason. The other being that I've generally found the complication to be more costly than a fate point or hero point would actually let you recover from, when played in practice.

Oh, sure, FATEs Fatepoints are, in and of themselves, dissociated (Notwithstanding that you could design a setting in a way to make them associated).
And I can totally understand that this is a problem for some people. It isn't for me, but I won't force my tastes on anyone.

For the complication being more costly I find that to be a GM-problem more than a system problem. I have certainly never had it. Better guidelines might solve it as well, or make the possibility of it occuring less great, though.

Thanks! I admit that I don't entirely remember the distinction between the two models, but I am more concerned with it modeling the character's feelings in a meaningful way than anything else.

Here, it's not "because racing up the mountain will be a complication, you can have morale points." It's, "The thrill of being first up will make you feel better. And better still the more real competition you overcome in the process."

As the person who tried to explicate and extract the three models from the discussion: As I saw it, the distinction was mostly in intent of the system.
2) trying to give you a tradeoff for making the suboptimal decision, thereby "easing the sting" of making bad in-character decisions
3) just trying to put personality and such into rules because, hey, why not.

So it seems that by your last statement you agree more with 3)?
That seems interesting, because I had you down as the most ardent supporter of 2) and took its workings from your posts. Huh.

Such tools can be powerful and useful, but I neither wish to require that a warrior's player be able to successfully demonstrate his swordfighting prowess IRL, nor that a socialite's player be as silver-tongued as his character. It's nice, certainly. And a player who tries is great. But even if said player botches it IRL, his PC probably shouldn't be dependent on this.

[examples]

The reason the player doesn't get to say, "No, my character wouldn't be scared at all," is because he can build for being as fearless as the mechanics allow, but (barring rules to say otherwise) everyone can be scared by something sufficiently frightening. Similarly, a player who wants to say, "My character can totally lift that iron golem over his head," is free to build his PC as strong as the mechanics will allow, but there are limits to everybody's strength (unless the rules say otherwise).

Absolutely. The mechanics are there to help you determine what your character is feeling when you cannot successfully share it. Whether that's a failure of your imagination, the GM's storytelling ability, or simply the fact that you are safe and warm and well-fed amongst friends and your character...isn't...is irrelevant.

Just pointing out agreement in reasoning again. (Why I am writing this: I feel it both productive and uplifting to hear that I am not alone, and also helps people trying to get a clearer picture of my opinions to know which ones I share.)

My statement was that interaction with the external "world" outside the character was always filtered through the dice and/or GM. At a bare minimum, the GM has to agree that the declared action takes place and determine whether the "world" responds in the way the player, and thus the PC, intends. The GM and/or the dice are effectively standing in for physics, other persons, etc.

I dunno. Barring the action being impossible, caused by a disconnect between player imagination and GM intention while describing, I feel the action should always take place when the player says it does, no GM confirmation required. Reaction on that, sure, but noone has control over how anyone or thing reacts to their actions.
So I don't think any interaction with the world is actually filtered through dice or GM. Players can do plenty things by just stating they do. At least in all games I have seen. If there is no specific reaction to or mechanic assossiated with an action (Like, making breakfast, taking a sip from the beer, talking with another player character), it just happens.

I have to fundamentally disagree -- to the point that I stand by throwing out the map when the disconnect is big enough -- one can no longer trust the map.

The rules are just the means to an end -- and that end is the experience of that other world. Without that other world, a group might as well be getting together to play rummy or Monopoly.

I find myself having just as much fun because of the mechanics than because of experiencing the world and what is happening. The "end" for me, is both. The world to experience, or rather for me the story and character interaction with the world (I don't really care much about the exploration aspect, and rather want to know more than the character does than risk not knowing stuff the character would.) are just as important as rules that are fun to interact with and fun to use.
And if you throw out the map willy-nilly, you can just play free-form in the first place or choose rules better fit. And may they be houserules.

Which I find totally unnecessary and potentially counter-productive.

You do. I don't. So we play different games. Problem solved.

That sounds great until all the published rules are either D&D-link grinders, or narrative nonsense, or full of rules trying to control the "inner experience" of the character.

At the point where that happens, which I am incredibly sure is "never", I can, truthfully say... Sucks to be you. If you want something noone else wants, forcing other players to play with you despite their wishes cannot be the answer.
And, you seem to have missed point 1) "all the published rules" INCLUDES everything published now. Nothing that is here at the moment, that you are currently enjoying, will go away. There are just more systems being created.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-19, 02:17 PM

I dunno. Barring the action being impossible, caused by a disconnect between player imagination and GM intention while describing, I feel the action should always take place when the player says it does, no GM confirmation required. Reaction on that, sure, but noone has control over how anyone or thing reacts to their actions.

So I don't think any interaction with the world is actually filtered through dice or GM. Players can do plenty things by just stating they do. At least in all games I have seen. If there is no specific reaction to or mechanic assossiated with an action (Like, making breakfast, taking a sip from the beer, talking with another player character), it just happens.

And in those instances of simple "uncontested" actions, I don't expect the GM to actually object or reject.

However, if the quality of that breakfast was important, I'd expect a cooking "resolution" of some sort, and if drinking the entire beer in one chug without choking in front of a bunch of rough-and-burly warriors was important, I'd expect some sort of "resolution".

And the GM has to at least technically sign off on there being ingredients and whatnot for the breakfast prep, for that example, even if it's just a rubber stamp.

I find myself having just as much fun because of the mechanics than because of experiencing the world and what is happening. The "end" for me, is both. The world to experience, or rather for me the story and character interaction with the world (I don't really care much about the exploration aspect, and rather want to know more than the character does than risk not knowing stuff the character would.) are just as important as rules that are fun to interact with and fun to use.

For me, the rules can only do their job as transparently as possible, or fail by getting in the way or disconnecting from the setting/atmosphere or otherwise making themselves an obstacle.

At the point where that happens, which I am incredibly sure is "never", I can, truthfully say... Sucks to be you. If you want something noone else wants, forcing other players to play with you despite their wishes cannot be the answer.

And, you seem to have missed point 1) "all the published rules" INCLUDES everything published now. Nothing that is here at the moment, that you are currently enjoying, will go away. There are just more systems being created.

It's already happening, all I need to do is look on FLGS shelves or on RPG Drivethru or wherever to see it.

"Published previously" doesn't mean much if other players can't get the books and are never exposed to the system. It doesn't mean much if all the new settings that come out use systems I'd have to tear down and rebuild, or I have to do weeks of adaptation to run the setting with a system that doesn't drive me crazy.

When the only groups around here are running some D&D-like system, or Mouse Guard, or FATE, or that thing Wil Wheaton did...

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-19, 03:17 PM

When the only groups around here are running some D&D-like system, or Mouse Guard, or FATE, or that thing Wil Wheaton did...

I'm curious, actually. What game(s) do you even like?

Segev

2016-12-19, 03:41 PM

Sorry, I had not considered smartphones. My desire to make the post shorter went at too great a cost, it seems.As a quick suggestion, spoiler blocks might help. It might even have been you that I first saw using them that way, and I occasionally have been emulating. If so, it was a good idea and I encourage it when you want to shorten the "wall of text" feel.

1) A mechanic that gives every player, regardless of character, the same incentive for the same action, isn't RP, because the role being played has no influence whatsoever. They become RP rules at the point where a character is treated differently by them because of their personality. Otherwise they are simply rules to make player's go along with temptations of any sort.
I'm not positive that anybody is pushing for this, in principle. I could be mistaken, though.

I know that I would have the varying influence based on target character's personality traits be built into how the morale points are awarded or costs calculated, whether directly or by altering the "baseline" that a social manipulator has to roll to start applying them.

3) Dunno. I wouldn't phrase "equalising out" the negative consequences, making it effectively nil, as a benefit. But, from the perspective of the rules not being there, you might. I think this will get down to semantics.
For me, at least, it's less important to "equalize" the consequences than it is to make how much the CHARACTER values both consequences, relative to each other, be reflected in the strength of rewards/costs the PLAYER experiences in the mechanics of the game.

If Armus doesn't like tacos, isn't hungry, or both, it's not important to make the mechanics say "but he'll lose morale points for not eating the best taco in the world before his big speech." It wouldn't be in character for Armus to eat the taco anyway. It goes from being a "tempting food in front of a hungry man" scenario to being "untempting food in front of a man who doesn't care for it" scenario.

I think Segev replied to this far better than I could, but I want to say this: Comparing the example you give to the ones before is, in my view, comparing apples to oranges.

Yes, this would be more interesting - but also require much more GM-work, more setup, and so on. This is a situation, that has to be somewhat carefully engineered by GM fiat, especially to produce a tradeoff situation. I don't feel it comparable for a situation where simply being your own worst enemy, due to preestablished personality traits or just being a human being with needs, is serving as an obstacle.

It would also not be feasible, I think, to have such a tradeoff for every point where a character wants to reach a goal. Sometimes the difficulty has to come from somewhere else, and I find it coming from the person themselves to be a very interesting possibility.
Right. It's great when you can do this, but it is only a subset of potential "trial of will" situations.

To borrow from the Bible (using it solely as a narrative source, not to discuss its religious real-world implications), there is a point in it wherein Jesus has been fasting for 40 days, and is weak with physical hunger. The Devil appears before him and, amongst other temptations, places stones before him. "Transmute these stones to bread. You have the power," he says. All it would cost was His obedience to God. Christ, as a perfect Being, is the only One who wouldn't have suffered for His choice, there.

In game terms, "victory" is "being the Savior of Man," and there's no reason his player would feel the pangs of hunger as temptingly as did the Christ.

Sure, Satan could have offered other things, things with more mechanical teeth. (In fact, he did; he offered Christ rulership of the world as a God-king.) But this "stones to bread" temptation was proffered, if I remember correctly, as one of the hardest for Christ to resist, whereas it would've been the easiest for a player of, say, a "Favored Soul" to resist.

So there's value, I think, to having such things wield their own mechanical incentive.

For the complication being more costly I find that to be a GM-problem more than a system problem. I have certainly never had it. Better guidelines might solve it as well, or make the possibility of it occuring less great, though.Perhaps. It has always seemed to me that the GMs I've gamed with have used them with the appropriate scale for what the system itself suggests. Which is why I get frustrated with these "rewards." But perhaps I am just also reading the systems too aggressively.

As the person who tried to explicate and extract the three models from the discussion: As I saw it, the distinction was mostly in intent of the system.
2) trying to give you a tradeoff for making the suboptimal decision, thereby "easing the sting" of making bad in-character decisions
3) just trying to put personality and such into rules because, hey, why not.

So it seems that by your last statement you agree more with 3)?
That seems interesting, because I had you down as the most ardent supporter of 2) and took its workings from your posts. Huh.Somewhere in between.

I have goals based in (2), but I want to realize is via (3), if that makes sense. I believe that there is not just "hey, why not?" to putting in the personality, but that the trade-offs of (2) should only even be trade-offs if the personality makes them such.

I am not for creating artificial choices in the mechanics just to make mechanically meaningful choices forced into it. I am rooted in the notion that, as a role-playing game, there are conflicts of "man against himself" (to borrow from something else you had noted) which should have mechanical relevance, lest they become "mechanics against nothing" and yield obviously optimal choices which make the RP fall out of the G.

So, on the one hand, yes, I want to make sub-optimal decisions less sub-optimal, mechanically. But on the other, I only want to do so when the reason they should be even in consideration is due to personality/comfort/PC preferences that the player cannot personally enjoy/share/feel. So, if (3)'s RP influence shouldn't matter, (2) is a non-factor. If that makes sense?

Just pointing out agreement in reasoning again. (Why I am writing this: I feel it both productive and uplifting to hear that I am not alone, and also helps people trying to get a clearer picture of my opinions to know which ones I share.)Yep. It's definitely nice to have affirmation.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-19, 03:50 PM

I'm curious, actually. What game(s) do you even like?

System wise?

Despite their obvious and not so obvious warts, HERO 4th/5th, and some of the oWoD games.

Segev

2016-12-19, 04:02 PM

System wise?

Despite their obvious and not so obvious warts, HERO 4th/5th, and some of the oWoD games.

Of the oWoD games, my favorites are Mage and Changeling. *cough* Changeling is perhaps a contributing reason why the Fair Folk are my favorite Exalted splat. >_> <_<

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-19, 05:05 PM

For me, the rules can only do their job as transparently as possible, or fail by getting in the way or disconnecting from the setting/atmosphere or otherwise making themselves an obstacle.

That's fine for you and might be your metric for if a system will be one you enjoy. But I don't think that's a good metric for if a system has succeeded or failed generally.

Though the rules will always disengage you from the "story" part of the goings-on when they come into play. (By which I mean the fictional stuff going on)

Rolling the dice is a disengagement from that story/narrative/fictional positioning level of the game.

It's already happening, all I need to do is look on FLGS shelves or on RPG Drivethru or wherever to see it.

"Published previously" doesn't mean much if other players can't get the books and are never exposed to the system. It doesn't mean much if all the new settings that come out use systems I'd have to tear down and rebuild, or I have to do weeks of adaptation to run the setting with a system that doesn't drive me crazy.

When the only groups around here are running some D&D-like system, or Mouse Guard, or FATE, or that thing Wil Wheaton did...

Then you need to go to non-physical means of playing TRPGs. I was living in an area with about 4 d&d groups, all of which were full. So I skipped my way over to Roll20 and got a group together that I'm still playing with 2 years later.

A quick and dirty search on roll20 found me 6 games recruiting in the middle of the holidays for either HERO system or WoD (I'm not well versed enough to know how to tell the difference between the new and the old.)

Also there are forums for both where one could probably get a game going. Likely online, but it's a game.

Having other systems be popular or having a drought of groups in your immediate vicinity doesn't mean your days of enjoyment are over. It means you need to be more creative in how you look. *shrug*

And yes, you might come back with "I play in person or not at all" at which point I can't really say anything other than that you're choosing to limit your options and so a share of the problem is your own. Don't know if that's what you'll say, but I'll chuck that in as a preemptive answer to that objection.

As for the rest of the thread, I'm in much the same boat as ComradeBear, Segev, and Floret.

I think RP Mechanics are just fine, and that it's 100% a preference thing. While the discussion has, for the most part, been healthy and productive it still makes me chuckle that this discussion has managed to go on for 20 pages about what amounts to a dissection of the merits of vanilla vs chocolate ice cream. But the TRPG version. And has managed to pull such long posts from both ends. Nothing wrong with that at all, it just makes me chuckle and say to myself, "Wow. Nerds are weird." And of course I mean it in the most affectionate way possible.

You guys are great. Keep it up while I resume lurking.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-19, 05:16 PM

Then you need to go to non-physical means of playing TRPGs. I was living in an area with about 4 d&d groups, all of which were full. So I skipped my way over to Roll20 and got a group together that I'm still playing with 2 years later.

A quick and dirty search on roll20 found me 6 games recruiting in the middle of the holidays for either HERO system or WoD (I'm not well versed enough to know how to tell the difference between the new and the old.)

Also there are forums for both where one could probably get a game going. Likely online, but it's a game.

Having other systems be popular or having a drought of groups in your immediate vicinity doesn't mean your days of enjoyment are over. It means you need to be more creative in how you look. *shrug*

And yes, you might come back with "I play in person or not at all" at which point I can't really say anything other than that you're choosing to limit your options and so a share of the problem is your own. Don't know if that's what you'll say, but I'll chuck that in as a preemptive answer to that objection.

Sadly all of my play by email, play by post, play by chat, etc experiences have imploded through the actions of others. I pretty much gave up on it.

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-19, 05:29 PM

Sadly all of my play by email, play by post, play by chat, etc experiences have imploded through the actions of others. I pretty much gave up on it.

That's unfortunate.
Granted, most games in general implode through the actions of others. You might be best off running a game yourself through those means and putting in the time to establish expectations early. Generally, I've seen success in making it clearly established that certain inappropriate behaviors will get you kicked, and to establish the kind of group dynamic that's being aimed for.

But, hey. I think of groups as being a lot like relationships. All of them will fail until the one that doesn't.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-19, 06:23 PM

That's unfortunate.
Granted, most games in general implode through the actions of others. You might be best off running a game yourself through those means and putting in the time to establish expectations early. Generally, I've seen success in making it clearly established that certain inappropriate behaviors will get you kicked, and to establish the kind of group dynamic that's being aimed for.

But, hey. I think of groups as being a lot like relationships. All of them will fail until the one that doesn't.

There's something else I decided wasn't worth the failure rate.

Floret

2016-12-19, 07:32 PM

And in those instances of simple "uncontested" actions, I don't expect the GM to actually object or reject.

However, if the quality of that breakfast was important, I'd expect a cooking "resolution" of some sort, and if drinking the entire beer in one chug without choking in front of a bunch of rough-and-burly warriors was important, I'd expect some sort of "resolution".

And the GM has to at least technically sign off on there being ingredients and whatnot for the breakfast prep, for that example, even if it's just a rubber stamp.

I don't view "could object" as "has to sign of". Example: if two of my players want to leave to spar, for fun, and just gonna take off and roll the dice for that, I'm not even gonna look. They will tell me who won (Not that it matters, except for the ego of the character who did), have some banter, and if I want the world will react - if I don't, it just goes pretty much unnoticed, or just uncommented by the NPCs.
Now, technically, I could, at every point, interject. But... as long as I don't see reason to, my players take action, against each other, even, without any need for me to get involved. And those are really rather physical and external actions. If one of my players says "no, I abstain from food today." I will ask "really? You know the penalties", but not for me "allowing" this to happen, but just so my players can make informed decisions.

I find my role much more comfortable as reacting and getting the players on the same page as to what an action might entail than to decide, in any way, that they don't DO certain things, if not restricted by the dice. So I still don't agree that the players have no direct control over the "externals" of their characters. Notwithstanding that drawing the line can be pretty darn hard.

For me, the rules can only do their job as transparently as possible, or fail by getting in the way or disconnecting from the setting/atmosphere or otherwise making themselves an obstacle.

For you, maybe. For me, I like interacting with the mechanics, and I like them to be fun and easy to use, ideally. With depth, not complexity, ideally.
Which is why I like FATE, for example, because invoking aspects is just really nice. And exploding dice. Exploding dice are great.
For example, I prefer dicepool systems as a resolution instrument. Not because I find them to be particularly connected to the world, but because I like rolling dice, and rolling many dice is fun.

As I said. For me, rather than just a means to an end, the rules are an actual end in and of themselves. That is half the reason I still play TRPGs, after all.

"Published previously" doesn't mean much if other players can't get the books and are never exposed to the system. It doesn't mean much if all the new settings that come out use systems I'd have to tear down and rebuild, or I have to do weeks of adaptation to run the setting with a system that doesn't drive me crazy.

When the only groups around here are running some D&D-like system, or Mouse Guard, or FATE, or that thing Wil Wheaton did...

Then you hand them your copy of the book, talk to them, ask around if anyone wants to play system X... For my 5 Rings group, I got the books (That are pretty much out of print, and never really were IN print in Germany in the first place), read them, liked them, and then went around and asked friends and acquaintances if they wanted to play. Or rather, told them about how great I found it, and then asked. One friend actually asked himself if there was still a spot.
I then sent every player the PdF. And they read the rules, and for about a year now we have a monthly game going. "Being exposed to a game" isn't something that just happens, it is a process that can be intentionally caused.

Meaning: If you have an interest in running a game, but noone is approaching you, and you wanna play, it is kinda up to you to make it happen. If you refuse to do that, then there being percentage-wise more systems that you dislike is not your problem. And telling people that they are wrong for developing these systems is not a solution.

Somewhere in between.

I have goals based in (2), but I want to realize is via (3), if that makes sense. I believe that there is not just "hey, why not?" to putting in the personality, but that the trade-offs of (2) should only even be trade-offs if the personality makes them such.

I am not for creating artificial choices in the mechanics just to make mechanically meaningful choices forced into it. I am rooted in the notion that, as a role-playing game, there are conflicts of "man against himself" (to borrow from something else you had noted) which should have mechanical relevance, lest they become "mechanics against nothing" and yield obviously optimal choices which make the RP fall out of the G.

So, on the one hand, yes, I want to make sub-optimal decisions less sub-optimal, mechanically. But on the other, I only want to do so when the reason they should be even in consideration is due to personality/comfort/PC preferences that the player cannot personally enjoy/share/feel. So, if (3)'s RP influence shouldn't matter, (2) is a non-factor. If that makes sense?

I think it does, though in effect might run into "I am doing (3) and somewhat coincidentally doing (2) somewhat". To truly do (2) (Which you seem to not want), I think one would have to start with it intentionally. As with most goals for game-design.

I also think despite somewhat differing goals we might actually have fun with the same mechanics, though it might be for different reasons^^

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-19, 08:02 PM

I don't view "could object" as "has to sign of". Example: if two of my players want to leave to spar, for fun, and just gonna take off and roll the dice for that, I'm not even gonna look. They will tell me who won (Not that it matters, except for the ego of the character who did), have some banter, and if I want the world will react - if I don't, it just goes pretty much unnoticed, or just uncommented by the NPCs.
Now, technically, I could, at every point, interject. But... as long as I don't see reason to, my players take action, against each other, even, without any need for me to get involved. And those are really rather physical and external actions. If one of my players says "no, I abstain from food today." I will ask "really? You know the penalties", but not for me "allowing" this to happen, but just so my players can make informed decisions.

I find my role much more comfortable as reacting and getting the players on the same page as to what an action might entail than to decide, in any way, that they don't DO certain things, if not restricted by the dice. So I still don't agree that the players have no direct control over the "externals" of their characters. Notwithstanding that drawing the line can be pretty darn hard.

But if you have a reason to object or refuse or ask them to reconsider, you do so? If you think that what they're attempting is not going to automatically succeed, or that it would be opposed by another character, or whatever, you adjudicate that mechanics (rolls, etc) come into play, yes?

If so, then we're not saying anything all that different on that subject.

For you, maybe. For me, I like interacting with the mechanics, and I like them to be fun and easy to use, ideally. With depth, not complexity, ideally.
Which is why I like FATE, for example, because invoking aspects is just really nice. And exploding dice. Exploding dice are great.
For example, I prefer dicepool systems as a resolution instrument. Not because I find them to be particularly connected to the world, but because I like rolling dice, and rolling many dice is fun.

As I said. For me, rather than just a means to an end, the rules are an actual end in and of themselves. That is half the reason I still play TRPGs, after all.

Exploding dice just muck with the math.

I view the rules of an RPG in much the same way that I view laws and regulations. They exist to serve a purpose, not for their own sake -- the law must be the servant of justice, or it is useless.

Then you hand them your copy of the book, talk to them, ask around if anyone wants to play system X... For my 5 Rings group, I got the books (That are pretty much out of print, and never really were IN print in Germany in the first place), read them, liked them, and then went around and asked friends and acquaintances if they wanted to play. Or rather, told them about how great I found it, and then asked. One friend actually asked himself if there was still a spot.
I then sent every player the PdF. And they read the rules, and for about a year now we have a monthly game going. "Being exposed to a game" isn't something that just happens, it is a process that can be intentionally caused.

So I'm just supposed to randomly hand my books to strangers and say "check this out?"

Meaning: If you have an interest in running a game, but noone is approaching you, and you wanna play, it is kinda up to you to make it happen. If you refuse to do that, then there being percentage-wise more systems that you dislike is not your problem. And telling people that they are wrong for developing these systems is not a solution.

It doesn't have to be a solution to be right.

I largely view a lot of these new system "features" as equivalent to the random add-on features on cellphones. Instead of improving the core functions of the phone... they tack on more doodads and random garbage with every model, mess around with the look of the UI instead of making it more efficient or secure, etc.

Koo Rehtorb

2016-12-20, 12:07 AM

It doesn't have to be a solution to be right.

I largely view a lot of these new system "features" as equivalent to the random add-on features on cellphones. Instead of improving the core functions of the phone... they tack on more doodads and random garbage with every model, mess around with the look of the UI instead of making it more efficient or secure, etc.

So your position is that these systems aren't just not to your taste, they're actively bad for fun and unhealthy for the hobby in general and people shouldn't be playing/making them? Would you say that people would be having a better time if they were playing games built to your preferences?

These are honest questions, I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent you.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-20, 07:04 AM

So your position is that these systems aren't just not to your taste, they're actively bad for fun and unhealthy for the hobby in general and people shouldn't be playing/making them? Would you say that people would be having a better time if they were playing games built to your preferences?

These are honest questions, I'm not intentionally trying to misrepresent you.

It's complicated.

On one hand, people seem to be drawn to these things, and enjoy them.

On the other hand, from a technical perspective, they seem to be distractions from improving the core functions.

(At least RPG rules aren't used as a honey trap to entice people into opening themselves to data mining and privacy violation...unlike a lot of phone "features", or Facebook, or... )

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-20, 10:19 AM

It's complicated.

On one hand, people seem to be drawn to these things, and enjoy them.

On the other hand, from a technical perspective, they seem to be distractions from improving the core functions.

There is a similarity here between this and your Phone example that I can actually comment on since I used to do some work in Marketing and im product development. Not for phones or games, but for some pretty similar things.

1. Products exists for two reasons:
1a. To make money.
1b. To provide benefit. (This is different from features.)

2. What a products Core Functions are is defined by the producers of the product and by no one else. There are very few things with a single core obvious purpose, and generally the more complicated or artful the product gets, the more potential Core Functions might exist. This is double true for things that sit between Art and Science (Games, UI, OS, etc) in a state I refer to as Alchemy. (Purely to put a word on it. I don't think I'm the only one who does this and I'm sure I stole it from somewhere.)

Essentially, this way of approaching games (of establishing a "this is what all RPGs are for/supposed to do" and measuring all games by that measuring stick) is flawed. Because what you assume the Core Functions or Core Purpose of the individual RPG to be might be wildly different from what it actually is.

Case in point: Western RPGs vs. JRPGs. Extra Credits did a whole thing on how Western and Japanese RPGs probably should be considered two different genres, especially considering how Place of Origin doesn't actually define these two genres in practice. (Japan has been producing a lot of Western RPGs lately. Dark Souls, for instance.) What defines them is their Core Functions.

JRPGs are about storytelling. They are linear, strive to be well written, and separate the player from the character by making the character their own person who the player happens to control, or even establishes whole teams that the player controls. No one would say that Final Fantasy is not an RPG. It absolutely is. But it follows these conventions all the same.

WRPGs are about individualism. They tend to present branching storylines and allow heavy customization of your character. The player is put into the specific role of whatever character they happen to want to make. (From previous posts, this sounds very much more in your preferred style of RPG.) Dark Souls more closely follows these conventions, despite being from Japan.

JRPGs and WRPGs are both RPGs but have wildly different functions.

Taking this, and applying it to TRPGs (both are game design, after all) we can easily get the point I'm getting at:

Apocalypse World and D&D are both TRPGs, but have wildly different functions.

These differing core functions may even differ by individual units in the same product line (leading to the need for flexibility). Essentially: my phone and your phone may have wildly different functions even if they're the same make and model. Simply because the things you need your phone to do, and the things I need my phone to do, are wildly different. What to you might he a superfluous doodad, might be an important part of my daily work life or home life.

Youtube is entertainment to some, and a career for others.
D&D is for serious, high-stakes play for some and purposefully stupid "club some goblins" weekend fun for others.
Both are correct.

TRPGs are for the things you describe.
They're also for all the other things people have talked about. Depends on the system and the group.

TL;DR
TRPGs don't have a singular purpose. They have many purposes depending on the game. (While still all being RPGs.)

Cluedrew

2016-12-20, 10:28 AM

Would you say that, regardless of whether it is a "punishment" or not, the fact that sticking your hand into a fire causes pain and, eventually, damage which may become irreparable, is generally undesirable and creates a pressure on people not to stick their hands in fire?(Just building off of what you said here and in the surrounding text.) And there are mechanics for damage in lots of games so sticking your hand in the fire will have negative consequences there. Which actually makes a difference. In a game without a damage system (a comedy system) I have seen one of the characters tear out their own eyes.

I homebrewed rules for blindness on the spot. The player did complain for a moment but I said "You did just tear out your own eyes, what did you expect?" and they agreed.

Ultimately the only real difference between "punishment" and "[negative] consequences" is intent. And I hope everything in the system I am playing is designed with intent. And if one still wants to avoid "punishments" one could rely purely on reinforcement, that is to say rewards for doing in character things instead of punishing out-of-character actions. And if you allow for a middle ground of not really playing a character, there is an actual difference.

(This is responding to a comment that the mechanics are there to help you say "yes, the character really did persevere," more than to make the player feel like he did.)

Actually, that sums it up nicely. I mean, yes, there is a LITTLE bit of "I, the player, persevered in the face of these mechanical penalties which made this actually cost me something/made it actually a struggle," but the main thing is that it makes the cost to the character as real as the benefit of having done it. Since mechanics say there's a benefit for having done it, mechanics should have a say in how much it cost to achieve. To have a non-mechanical, fluff-only "cost" feels...cheap.Great, you just bring up mechanics that make (or attempt to) the player feel what the character does. I'm not so interested in those so I was extrapolating from that. Which is better than guessing but hardly full-proof.

To Cluedrew:

I can spot a good idea when I see and then steal it for myself. I think I might have used something similar at some point in the past, but your method seems very useful.I inspired someone. {Victory Pose*} Although in this thread so much is going on the quotes are often necessary. Still I decided to cut out the rest of this quote for space, if anyone wants more detail on what I am replying to follow the arrow on this quote.

On Playing a Trait: {#1} Besides getting player buy-in (which I assume a degree of because they are playing the system and I don't want to account for problem players at this stage) playing a trait could be helped by stating out more consequences for the trait. So Hot Headed is not +2 Initiative, its +2 Initiative, -1 Steady, -1 Planning. Or maybe it just give a bonus to actions done impulsively or something like that.

On Balance: {#2} I'm not too worried about balance because I don't do competitive role-playing games so balance is not as important as relevance. Also this is a very early draft so it would probably have to be refined before being used in an actual game anyways. So as long as things are not wildly out of balance it should be fine.

On Applicability: {#2} Agreement is an issue in that you can't enforce it or encode it in the rules. At the same time with guidelines and communication in the group I believe it can work out. I mean if other people in the group disagree just have whoever controls the character explain why they think it applies here (they are the "experts" on the character) and if the explanation makes any sense, go with it. Leans towards expression and after enough repeats everyone else should start to get the feel for the logic behind the character.

On Playing a Compulsion: {#3} If a player can't role-play a compulsion properly, providing guidelines as part of the rules will probably do a lot more for them than free forming it. There are some abilities which you just need and, although I hope that they are common or easy to acquire, if your ability to role-play is the biggest factor in a role-playing game I'm actually OK with that. Now how exactly the system would communicate what the compulsion does... I'm not exactly sure. Besides the answer changing with the details of the system, a lot of it comes down to communication styles which has no right answer.

On Story Tokens: {#4, #6} In my head the meta-currency has always been some hybrid between FATE points from FATE and Hero points from Mutants & Masterminds. Which is to say they let you make small, but significant, changes to the scene and unlock some of the character's power (usually things they don't have full control over). I don't know there exact power, even if such a thing could be pinned down, and I don't think it really matters so much as the relative power of a good decision vs. the story tokens you get for making a bad ones. As for their purpose, it is usually to give the player a bit of control beyond what the character has.

On Effecting the Group: {#6, #7} Perhaps you could give the party tokens. Either everybody gets one or give the event a rating (this one is terrible, its worth 4 tokens) give those to the 1st through Nth most effective players. Hey maybe the player who activated it might not even get one. On the other hand you could just assume that everyone is going to have it happen on occasion and call out those who go overboard with it. Or make them smaller things that are not get the entire group in trouble. The last might defeat the purpose or it might not.

On Feeling Good: {#7} The general idea was that the "trigger" would come along by the narrative and the character could either resist for a neutral effect (here, none) or give in for a moral boost. Not that you would get points for adding the trigger to the scene. Hope that clarifies.

I'm curious, actually. What game(s) do you even like?This wasn't directed at me but I will say I am very avant-garde in this respect. My favourite system hasn't even been published yet. I have enjoyed pretty much every system I have ever played. There are a lot of systems I have not played.

You guys are great. Keep it up while I resume lurking.Thanks. And I'm enjoying this thread myself. For one thing all the negative comments have just been burred under waves of intellectual conversation. Not to mention the quality of the conversation itself.

For example, I prefer dicepool systems as a resolution instrument. Not because I find them to be particularly connected to the world, but because I like rolling dice, and rolling many dice is fun.

As I said. For me, rather than just a means to an end, the rules are an actual end in and of themselves. That is half the reason I still play TRPGs, after all.I hadn't even though of that part. It is a good point, systems should be more than accurate, they should be fun. I believe I have already said everything I have to on "rules as a map".

* My victory pose is not very dramatic.

To ImNotTrevor: You have become a very noisy lurker.

1

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-20, 10:39 AM

To ImNotTrevor: You have become a very noisy lurker.

It happens. Holidays have given me an opportunity to resume posting again after a long hiatus. I figured I wouldn't, but I ended up feeling the need to jump in again.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-20, 11:47 AM

There is a similarity here between this and your Phone example that I can actually comment on since I used to do some work in Marketing and im product development. Not for phones or games, but for some pretty similar things.

1. Products exists for two reasons:
1a. To make money.
1b. To provide benefit. (This is different from features.)

2. What a products Core Functions are is defined by the producers of the product and by no one else. There are very few things with a single core obvious purpose, and generally the more complicated or artful the product gets, the more potential Core Functions might exist. This is double true for things that sit between Art and Science (Games, UI, OS, etc) in a state I refer to as Alchemy. (Purely to put a word on it. I don't think I'm the only one who does this and I'm sure I stole it from somewhere.)

Essentially, this way of approaching games (of establishing a "this is what all RPGs are for/supposed to do" and measuring all games by that measuring stick) is flawed. Because what you assume the Core Functions or Core Purpose of the individual RPG to be might be wildly different from what it actually is.

Case in point: Western RPGs vs. JRPGs. Extra Credits did a whole thing on how Western and Japanese RPGs probably should be considered two different genres, especially considering how Place of Origin doesn't actually define these two genres in practice. (Japan has been producing a lot of Western RPGs lately. Dark Souls, for instance.) What defines them is their Core Functions.

JRPGs are about storytelling. They are linear, strive to be well written, and separate the player from the character by making the character their own person who the player happens to control, or even establishes whole teams that the player controls. No one would say that Final Fantasy is not an RPG. It absolutely is. But it follows these conventions all the same.

WRPGs are about individualism. They tend to present branching storylines and allow heavy customization of your character. The player is put into the specific role of whatever character they happen to want to make. (From previous posts, this sounds very much more in your preferred style of RPG.) Dark Souls more closely follows these conventions, despite being from Japan.

JRPGs and WRPGs are both RPGs but have wildly different functions.

Taking this, and applying it to TRPGs (both are game design, after all) we can easily get the point I'm getting at:

Apocalypse World and D&D are both TRPGs, but have wildly different functions.

These differing core functions may even differ by individual units in the same product line (leading to the need for flexibility). Essentially: my phone and your phone may have wildly different functions even if they're the same make and model. Simply because the things you need your phone to do, and the things I need my phone to do, are wildly different. What to you might he a superfluous doodad, might be an important part of my daily work life or home life.

Youtube is entertainment to some, and a career for others.
D&D is for serious, high-stakes play for some and purposefully stupid "club some goblins" weekend fun for others.
Both are correct.

TRPGs are for the things you describe.
They're also for all the other things people have talked about. Depends on the system and the group.

TL;DR
TRPGs don't have a singular purpose. They have many purposes depending on the game. (While still all being RPGs.)

I saw that Extra Credits video you mention. I have trouble seeing a game where you're handed a very specific character and a linear story as an "RPG". Sure, there's a role, and you're kinda playing it, but to me it's just not the same.

On the subject of the cellphone... to me, the purpose of a phone is to make calls, or more broadly to communicate. A specific manufacturer can say "the purpose of the X-Phone is to send ads to the users!" but that's just marketing crap, and really doesn't change that it's a phone.

Segev

2016-12-20, 11:53 AM

For me, I like interacting with the mechanics, and I like them to be fun and easy to use, ideally. With depth, not complexity, ideally.
Which is why I like FATE, for example, because invoking aspects is just really nice. And exploding dice. Exploding dice are great.
For example, I prefer dicepool systems as a resolution instrument. Not because I find them to be particularly connected to the world, but because I like rolling dice, and rolling many dice is fun.

As I said. For me, rather than just a means to an end, the rules are an actual end in and of themselves. That is half the reason I still play TRPGs, after all.The rules toys are part of what makes it a game, yes. Personally, I like the rules to be associated and transparent, but definitely crunchy enough to actually play with. You should always be able to say, "When I invoke this rule, it is representing this happening in the game/setting/narrative." Activating the rule that lets me fly means I'm spreading my wings and flapping, or using my psychic powers to levitate, or that I am an alien from Krypton, or...something.

Heck, I have this semi-silly idea of a ridiculously wealthy man who has an army of hyper-skilled ninja at his beck and call. All his powers are fluffed as those ninja doing stuff for him. "Telekinesis" is the ninja stealthily performing manipulations to move the objects at his direction. "Teleportation" is ninjas helping him with, essentially, stage magic. "Scrying" is skilled ninja performers either acting or using puppets to perform, in real time, a relayed scene being spied upon by other ninjas. Or maybe just ninjas using cameras and remote-broadcasting.

But the key is that the mechanics become associated either by the game's inherent design, or by the player tying them in. If they're not associated, it's frustrating to me.

Then you hand them your copy of the book, talk to them, ask around if anyone wants to play system X... For my 5 Rings group, I got the books (That are pretty much out of print, and never really were IN print in Germany in the first place), read them, liked them, and then went around and asked friends and acquaintances if they wanted to play. Or rather, told them about how great I found it, and then asked. One friend actually asked himself if there was still a spot.
I then sent every player the PdF. And they read the rules, and for about a year now we have a monthly game going. "Being exposed to a game" isn't something that just happens, it is a process that can be intentionally caused.

Meaning: If you have an interest in running a game, but noone is approaching you, and you wanna play, it is kinda up to you to make it happen. If you refuse to do that, then there being percentage-wise more systems that you dislike is not your problem. And telling people that they are wrong for developing these systems is not a solution.

So I'm just supposed to randomly hand my books to strangers and say "check this out?" That's an unfair characterization of what Floret wrote, Max_Killjoy. She is advocating that you proselytize your favored system to others. Talk it up. Find people who are or can be made interested in it. When people get excited about it, then offer to run a game. If you're comfortable loaning the books to them, go right ahead, but you can also invite them to go through the books while you're present, as part of setting up the game and helping them create characters.

I think it does, though in effect might run into "I am doing (3) and somewhat coincidentally doing (2) somewhat". To truly do (2) (Which you seem to not want), I think one would have to start with it intentionally. As with most goals for game-design.

I also think despite somewhat differing goals we might actually have fun with the same mechanics, though it might be for different reasons^^Maybe. Really, I don't see a point in (2) if it isn't rooted in (3). Why should Armus be tempted by that taco if he doesn't care about tacos? The whole reason there's the disconnect between the pressures the PC "should" be feeling and what the player actually feels is that the PC has IC reasons why he would care about something the mechanics give no weight.

So (3) isn't "just to have them," to me, but at the same time, (2) isn't "just to have the two choices both have weight."

The point, here, to me, is that the two choices SHOULD both have weight due to the character's personal drives, as dictated by his concept/situation/etc. So it's not that ANY choice should have weight. It's that there exist a category of choices that should, but to which the mechanics don't lend that weight. That category of choices is almost entirely encapsulated by (3)'s "RP mechanics for their own sake."

Exploding dice just muck with the math. Technically, they also remove the ceiling from what can be done. In a sense, those who play (sometimes without realizing it's a house rule) with the notion that a natural 20 on a skill roll is an auto-success have the ultimate exploding die. (And it is actually the rules in attack rolls and saves.)

In the Rifts game I'm in, using the Paladium system, the DM often chose to resolve questions of success on things she couldn't think of a skill for by having people roll a d20 and see if it came in UNDER a stat she chose as fitting. Because Paladium can get above 20 in stats, she would have people who had a 20 or higher roll a d30 (she has one) instead. Because this bugs me on a fundamental level - it makes having a 20 actively worse than having a 19 - I talked the group into trying an exploding die mechanic, instead. Now, everybody rolls a d20 for these rolls, but if it comes up 16 or higher, you roll again and add the new result (minus one, because we are okay with fiddly math to make sure that all possible numbers CAN come up) to the old one. This has worked pretty well for us, and better still, even if somebody has an obscenely high stat, it can still be exceeded without having to make a breakpoint where somebody would be better off with a stat one lower.

The point here being that exploding dice don't "just muck with the math." They do have a definite impact on the range of possible values. (Probable is a different story, but even there, how rare does a result have to be to be "too improbable to matter?" That's...a matter of debate.)

I view the rules of an RPG in much the same way that I view laws and regulations. They exist to serve a purpose, not for their own sake -- the law must be the servant of justice, or it is useless. Agreed. On both counts.

It doesn't have to be a solution to be right.

I largely view a lot of these new system "features" as equivalent to the random add-on features on cellphones. Instead of improving the core functions of the phone... they tack on more doodads and random garbage with every model, mess around with the look of the UI instead of making it more efficient or secure, etc.At least insofar as what I'm advocating, I view it as improving the core function of the system. That being to give mechanics that let you play a character better than you could if you had no mechanics at all to represent his capabilities.

(Just building off of what you said here and in the surrounding text.) And there are mechanics for damage in lots of games so sticking your hand in the fire will have negative consequences there. Which actually makes a difference. In a game without a damage system (a comedy system) I have seen one of the characters tear out their own eyes.

I homebrewed rules for blindness on the spot. The player did complain for a moment but I said "You did just tear out your own eyes, what did you expect?" and they agreed.To be fair, depending on the NATURE of the comedy game, I would probably have argued that I can see just fine through those eyes. See: cartoons whose eyes can see and blink and react when they're all that's left of the character other than a scorch mark on the ground.

Ultimately the only real difference between "punishment" and "[negative] consequences" is intent. And I hope everything in the system I am playing is designed with intent. And if one still wants to avoid "punishments" one could rely purely on reinforcement, that is to say rewards for doing in character things instead of punishing out-of-character actions. And if you allow for a middle ground of not really playing a character, there is an actual difference.Yes and no. One can feel punished by negative consequences even if the consequences had no "intent." Whether you're technically right or not is irrelevant; this is about how the one experiencing the consequences feels.

A little kid who ignores Mommy's warning not to put his hand on the stove gets burned. Mommy didn't punish him, but he feels punished. And he'll probably avoid doing that again.

A game system which has negative consequences for giving in to your mortal frailties (hunger, lust, boredom, whatever) without any opposing negative consequences (or positive rewards) for refraining will get players who choose to have their PCs give in to such frailties feel punished for having done so. They will thus not do so again.

Real people, however, despite feeling punished in the long run for it by similar negative real-world consequences, often give in to said frailties over and over again...because the immediate negative consequences for refraining (or positive consequences for giving in) are great enough to, in the short term, overwhelm their long-term planning-based will to refrain.

So when I speak of "feeling punished by the game for making an IC choice," that's what I'm talking about.

Ultimately, it isn't, to me, about punishing or rewarding players for doing what I want them to do. It's about recognizing that there's a category of consequences which is left out of the mechanics, and trying to introduce them because it will lead to richer gameplay and better ability to role play while still playing the associated game.

Chess is meant to model straight-forward tactical and strategic decision-making in a conflict. It is not meant to model individuals making decisions as people. (Though it might be fun to try to design a team-sport version of chess that made those "living chess pieces" games people sometimes gather to play more engaging for the pieces on the field. But that's another topic entirely.)

RPGs are meant to model characters in fictional settings doing fictional things with greater fidelity than we might expect from a free-form game of, say, cops & robbers. Improving the model so that all choices facing the character have appropriate weight in the mechanics can only improve it (provided the mechanics aren't clunky as heck or modeling it improperly).

Great, you just bring up mechanics that make (or attempt to) the player feel what the character does. I'm not so interested in those so I was extrapolating from that. Which is better than guessing but hardly full-proof.The "player connection to character" is important to me, yes, but the real purpose is to connect the game to the role play. So that you are playing an RPG, rather than having to choose between RP and G.

On Balance: {#2} I'm not too worried about balance because I don't do competitive role-playing games so balance is not as important as relevance. Also this is a very early draft so it would probably have to be refined before being used in an actual game anyways. So as long as things are not wildly out of balance it should be fine.Balance isn't about competition, necessarily. It can also be about the meta-pressures when building a character.

As a rock-stupid example, having a Feat in D&D which was called "Absolutely Gorgeous," which said that you're utterly beautiful (or painfully handsome) and gave you a +1 competence bonus to Diplomacy rolls would be something that anybody playing "just for RP" who wanted to play the fairest in the land should take, right? But it's mechanically terrible. It's "you're beautiful" fluff does literally nothing compared to, say, "Skill Focus: Diplomacy" or the "+2 to two skills" feats that include Diplomacy as one of the two skills. This feat is literally worth 100 gp, but less so than a similar item worth it because the item could be improved without first spending the same 100 gp all over again.

So balance is important even in a non-competitive game; it ensures you have no trap options, among other concerns.

On Playing a Compulsion: {#3} If a player can't role-play a compulsion properly, providing guidelines as part of the rules will probably do a lot more for them than free forming it. There are some abilities which you just need and, although I hope that they are common or easy to acquire, if your ability to role-play is the biggest factor in a role-playing game I'm actually OK with that. Now how exactly the system would communicate what the compulsion does... I'm not exactly sure. Besides the answer changing with the details of the system, a lot of it comes down to communication styles which has no right answer.This is why I prefer offering rewards for playing to what is, IC, a temptation (and a "compulsion" is just a near-undeniably strong temptation; if it's a legitimate psychological compulsion, it's a temptation whose pangs for being denied are psychologically agonizing). Or a punishment for resisting. In each case, specifically representing the soothing comfort/ribald enjoyment of giving in, or the devastating discomfort/miserable craving of resisting. Again, not to force players to play characters how I want them to, but to represent through mechanics how these choices make the character feel.

On Story Tokens: {#4, #6} In my head the meta-currency has always been some hybrid between FATE points from FATE and Hero points from Mutants & Masterminds. Which is to say they let you make small, but significant, changes to the scene and unlock some of the character's power (usually things they don't have full control over). I don't know there exact power, even if such a thing could be pinned down, and I don't think it really matters so much as the relative power of a good decision vs. the story tokens you get for making a bad ones. As for their purpose, it is usually to give the player a bit of control beyond what the character has.I find myself distrustful of these because they are too rare and precious as resources, typically. Too hard to get, costing too much, and running into a "bigger spider" problem if they're too powerful (and a "why bother?" problem if they aren't). I propose "morale points" the way I do to make them small enough that you can use them in dribs and drabs (rather than just on "big things") and still have some left over, and also so they can be handed out in little bits here and there without overwhelming everything, or in big alotments for big temptations.

On Feeling Good: {#7} The general idea was that the "trigger" would come along by the narrative and the character could either resist for a neutral effect (here, none) or give in for a moral boost. Not that you would get points for adding the trigger to the scene. Hope that clarifies.If I understand you rightly here, I do agree. It's not about "I'll offer you a cookie if you let me change the scene this way." It's about "this is the scene, and to represent how your character feels about it, I will point out that he gets these cookies for indulging his passion over there."

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-20, 12:46 PM

I saw that Extra Credits video you mention. I have trouble seeing a game where you're handed a very specific character and a linear story as an "RPG". Sure, there's a role, and you're kinda playing it, but to me it's just not the same.
It doesn't fit your personal perception of what a Role Playing Game should be. Which is fine. It also is still an RPG. Just not one you agree with the purpose of.

But some people want to play the role of Cloud. And so they do. And it is the RPG experience they expect and want.

On the subject of the cellphone... to me, the purpose of a phone is to make calls, or more broadly to communicate. A specific manufacturer can say "the purpose of the X-Phone is to send ads to the users!" but that's just marketing crap, and really doesn't change that it's a phone.

Let's not derail on this, but Smartphones are designed with more than communication in mind. Hence their additional features. I use mine to keep a schedule, for listening to ebooks, as my MP3 player on the road, as a supplement for a lack of navigation system in my car, and to take notes on clients needs/desires, as well as tracking information about them. My phone is also for calling clients and family. It has a lot of practical usefulness in my life. That may not be true for you, but that doesn't change the fact that the product is behaving as intended and doing the job it is meant to do. It is a phone. It is also a lot of other things.

Apply the same principals discussed here laterally across TRPGs.

Not every TRPG has the same purpose.
Not every TRPG fits what you want.
TRPGs are not defined by one core purpose, like many simple tools are.

It strikes me as being similar to declaring that only Sedans count as cars because anything else doesn't accomplish the purpose of a car. And more specifically that anything with features more complicated than an am/fm radio is ruining cars.

Sure, I'm not going into more examples, and those aren't the point. This just strikes me as a very unusual measuring stick to live one's life by. It sounds to me almost like you're judging things by their nearness to what you perceive as the Form of the thing. (That's right, getting into some Plato up in here!)

Floret

2016-12-20, 03:29 PM

But if you have a reason to object or refuse or ask them to reconsider, you do so? If you think that what they're attempting is not going to automatically succeed, or that it would be opposed by another character, or whatever, you adjudicate that mechanics (rolls, etc) come into play, yes?

If so, then we're not saying anything all that different on that subject.

Sure. And maybe we aren't. But I still don't feel like it manages to draw a strong line between "internals" and "externals". If I call for a roll to resist Fear-effects, the players internals are suddenly influenced by the mechanics and not purely up to the player. Fluffy background actions, when external, are not, despite GM and rule potential to intervene.
Maybe I just don't really care about having perfect control of something, and am willing to relinquish control for group storytelling etc.

Exploding dice just muck with the math.

I view the rules of an RPG in much the same way that I view laws and regulations. They exist to serve a purpose, not for their own sake -- the law must be the servant of justice, or it is useless.

Meh. So what if they do? They are fun. (Also, they don't "muck with the math", they just make it a bit more complicated. It is perfectly possible to calculate, and in fact I have done so (Or... to be fair had mathier people than I am do for me) while generating the dice system for my own RPG. A question more of Game design and the designer putting thought and effort in to make it work. If you just tag it on to an existing one - sure, they can break ****. If you design the system with them in it from the ground up, no such problem.)

And, well. I don't. Or rather, I find the "purpose" to not be restricted to "simulate the world" but also "have fun". And, as I said: I can have fun through rolling dice.

So I'm just supposed to randomly hand my books to strangers and say "check this out?"

That's an unfair characterization of what Floret wrote, Max_Killjoy. SHe is advocating that you proselytize your favored system to others. Talk it up. Find people who are or can be made interested in it. When people get excited about it, then offer to run a game. If you're comfortable loaning the books to them, go right ahead, but you can also invite them to go through the books while you're present, as part of setting up the game and helping them create characters.

Still "she". Or "they", if you feel like it. But please, never "he". :smallwink:

But otherwise, this. Or, if you have the books digitally, send a copy around, if you trust the people enough that they won't get you in legal trouble for doing it (aka. put sth with your name connected to it on a filesharing site)

It doesn't have to be a solution to be right.

I largely view a lot of these new system "features" as equivalent to the random add-on features on cellphones. Instead of improving the core functions of the phone... they tack on more doodads and random garbage with every model, mess around with the look of the UI instead of making it more efficient or secure, etc.

But it isn't "right". It is your view, but that doesn't make it "right". Why the **** would people making something they enjoy ever be objectively wrong, if it doesn't actively harm people? (And, no. Not every game ever being to your tastes is NOT actively harming you.)

As ImNotTrevor pointed out, the "core function" of an RPG is not defined by you. I, for one, disagree with you on the "core function" of RPGs. (Also, the core function of a smartphone is not identical to a phone. So "messing around" with the UI might make it easier to use - or at least be intended that way, if it succeeds or not.)

The rules toys are part of what makes it a game, yes. Personally, I like the rules to be associated and transparent, but definitely crunchy enough to actually play with. You should always be able to say, "When I invoke this rule, it is representing this happening in the game/setting/narrative." Activating the rule that lets me fly means I'm spreading my wings and flapping, or using my psychic powers to levitate, or that I am an alien from Krypton, or...something.

Dunno. I see association as an added bonus, but nothing inherently necessary.
Transparancy and ease of use is a very great thing to make rules more fun. Accessability is really nice to have - Depth, not complexity.

(For example, I dislike when a pool system that counts "successes" varies from what number onwards something counts as success (So sometimes 3+, sometimes 5+, and so on). Not because I don't think one can play this - one can, quite evidently. World of Darkness works like this, Shadowrun did until 4th edition.
But I just don't see what it adds. Or, I see what it adds, but don't find that to be productive to add - in effect, it adds another dial on which to effect difficulty of any given task. But I don't really think I NEED more dials for that. I can just make the dials I have more nuanced and easier to control. More dials to turn is a thing that, in my view, "mucks up the math". Or makes it way harder to do it, at the very least.)

Maybe. Really, I don't see a point in (2) if it isn't rooted in (3). Why should Armus be tempted by that taco if he doesn't care about tacos? The whole reason there's the disconnect between the pressures the PC "should" be feeling and what the player actually feels is that the PC has IC reasons why he would care about something the mechanics give no weight.

So (3) isn't "just to have them," to me, but at the same time, (2) isn't "just to have the two choices both have weight."

The point, here, to me, is that the two choices SHOULD both have weight due to the character's personal drives, as dictated by his concept/situation/etc. So it's not that ANY choice should have weight. It's that there exist a category of choices that should, but to which the mechanics don't lend that weight. That category of choices is almost entirely encapsulated by (3)'s "RP mechanics for their own sake."

Thanks for the clarifications!

RPGs are meant to model characters in fictional settings doing fictional things with greater fidelity than we might expect from a free-form game of, say, cops & robbers. Improving the model so that all choices facing the character have appropriate weight in the mechanics can only improve it (provided the mechanics aren't clunky as heck or modeling it improperly).

The "player connection to character" is important to me, yes, but the real purpose is to connect the game to the role play. So that you are playing an RPG, rather than having to choose between RP and G.

Again, I caution against any phrasing of "meant to". I do think your goal is an interesting and potentially worthwhile one, but I don't think the blanket statement preceding it is necessarily warranted.

I might borrow that phrasing. Or did you borrow mine with separating RP and G? Whatever way, I do find that purpose to be a thing worth exploring, even though it might not generally overlap completely with my intentions.

Balance isn't about competition, necessarily. It can also be about the meta-pressures when building a character. [...]

I found that for non-competitive ones many people are fine with "close enough" balance. I also have found that perfect balance is pretty much impossible in an TRPG - every group will put their gaming focus slightly differently, and a choice that is better for one group might be worse in another.
For different options affecting the same thing, however, one should consider balance more carefully, yes. I personally think this is a point where gamedesigners might as well just build solid ground systems and then apply them - having "good looking", "wonderful voice" and "trained diplomat" be mechanically identical, while fluffed differently could work just fine, and would be perfectly balanced in and of itself. (If it is perfectly simulating I, as explained, don't really care. More intricate mechanics will require more work balancing.)
(For extra fun: Even if the three affect the same stats in the same way, but require conditions for when they apply - how do you balance "has to be seen", "has to be heard" and "has to be in a setting where the training can apply (Not a bar of ruffians, for example)" against each other?)

One rather egregious, real example where this failed is in Shadowrun 5th edition. "Run Faster" introduced an advantage "Perfect time" giving you an extra free action per combat round. Great, useful. (Also it gave you bonus dice on performing.)
Now, later on, "Datapaths" (I think it's called?) introduced one that allows you to perform one specific type of free action (Switching Deck stats) twice per free action. (With a restriction, even) Problem is: Both of those have identical costs. "Perfect time" is just objectively flat-out better. It does all the other one does, but better, and LOTS more on top of it. For the same price.

So I think trap options are something to be avoided for sure. But I don't think that one can, or should, try to "perfectly" balance things pertaining to different aspects, as these things tend to vary in efficiency from game to game anyways. If L5R has every skill cost the same, be it "Tea Ceremony" or "Kenjutsu" (Aka. Attacking with a sword. In a game of Samurai.), then I am fine with that. Because depending on the game, the latter might just become utterly useless. Courtly intrigues have little use for swords, for example, and duels are fought with a different skill still.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-20, 04:04 PM

A game system which has negative consequences for giving in to your mortal frailties (hunger, lust, boredom, whatever) without any opposing negative consequences (or positive rewards) for refraining will get players who choose to have their PCs give in to such frailties feel punished for having done so. They will thus not do so again.

What game system has negative consequences for eating? Or for "not being bored", for that matter?

Actually, if anything, games that touch on this at all tend to have negative consequences for not eating -- and in general being bored tends to result from the same lack of activity that results in the player being bored and the character not getting any XP.

This whole thing seems to either have started as or drifted into something I really didn't think it was... falsely conflating "I need to eat sometime today" with the UTTERLY UNRELATED "I slept with that barmaid who hit on me, even though I know there are sexy assassins out to get us after that last job we pulled".

When a person does something in real life that leads to bad consequences, reality doesn't provide them with some special offsetting compensation. There are no scales being balanced, and no karma, either classic or inverted. I see no reason why a game should function any differently.

And to cut off the response this got last time, no, "feeling good" is not a compensation, especially not in the sense being discussed. It has no reality outside the person, its just a feeling and nothing more.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-20, 04:36 PM

Let's not derail on this, but Smartphones are designed with more than communication in mind. Hence their additional features. I use mine to keep a schedule, for listening to ebooks, as my MP3 player on the road, as a supplement for a lack of navigation system in my car, and to take notes on clients needs/desires, as well as tracking information about them. My phone is also for calling clients and family. It has a lot of practical usefulness in my life. That may not be true for you, but that doesn't change the fact that the product is behaving as intended and doing the job it is meant to do. It is a phone. It is also a lot of other things.

Apply the same principals discussed here laterally across TRPGs.

Not every TRPG has the same purpose.
Not every TRPG fits what you want.
TRPGs are not defined by one core purpose, like many simple tools are.

It strikes me as being similar to declaring that only Sedans count as cars because anything else doesn't accomplish the purpose of a car. And more specifically that anything with features more complicated than an am/fm radio is ruining cars.

Sure, I'm not going into more examples, and those aren't the point. This just strikes me as a very unusual measuring stick to live one's life by. It sounds to me almost like you're judging things by their nearness to what you perceive as the Form of the thing. (That's right, getting into some Plato up in here!)

Continuing to use the cellphone as an analogy... it's great and all that people are getting all these things they find useful, but meanwhile, I'm still sitting here with a phone that doesn't work so well as an actually phone half time time. It's nice and all that other RPGers are getting all these neat new toys in their games, but I'm still sitting here looking for a game that does what I need it to.

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-20, 05:01 PM

Continuing to use the cellphone as an analogy... it's great and all that people are getting all these things they find useful, but meanwhile, I'm still sitting here with a phone that doesn't work so well as an actually phone half time time. It's nice and all that other RPGers are getting all these neat new toys in their games, but I'm still sitting here looking for a game that does what I need it to.

Then it looks like Rule 1 of Game Designers has called to you:
When the system you want doesn't exist, it is now your job to create it.

And when you do create it, PM me because I wanna play it.

Segev

2016-12-20, 05:16 PM

Still "she". Or "they", if you feel like it. But please, never "he". :smallwink:Gah, sorry. I really do try to remember these things, but I just have avatars which I don't always see and a totally voiceless, sexless set of black letters on white background by which to go, so it really does come down to my oft-faulty memory. No offense intended, and I have corrected the (I think) one instance in the quoted post.

Dunno. I see association as an added bonus, but nothing inherently necessary.
Transparancy and ease of use is a very great thing to make rules more fun. Accessability is really nice to have - Depth, not complexity.It's not "necessary," but it does make it a lot better for me. The danger with dissociated rules is, as Max_Killjoy alludes to, having rules just for the sake of rules. What I look for in an RPG is a game that supports playing a character in the fantastical adventures of that game's genre and setting. And I like settings and narratives where the plot isn't a force driven by idiot balls, by preference. So I like it when I can say, "This rule is modeling that in-setting reality."

(For example, I dislike when a pool system that counts "successes" varies from what number onwards something counts as success (So sometimes 3+, sometimes 5+, and so on). Not because I don't think one can play this - one can, quite evidently. World of Darkness works like this, Shadowrun did until 4th edition.
But I just don't see what it adds. Or, I see what it adds, but don't find that to be productive to add - in effect, it adds another dial on which to effect difficulty of any given task. But I don't really think I NEED more dials for that. I can just make the dials I have more nuanced and easier to control. More dials to turn is a thing that, in my view, "mucks up the math". Or makes it way harder to do it, at the very least.)Eh, I can take or leave that. I do think that White Wolf goofed in not really being clear in their own minds what the difference between increasing the difficulty (target number for a success) vs the threshold (number of successes needed) in "what's going on in the game" terms. Yes, they try to explain it, but it seems inconsistently applied, and is, as ... I think you're noting here? ... a way in which dissociated rules can lead to rules-for-rules'-sake.

Again, I caution against any phrasing of "meant to". I do think your goal is an interesting and potentially worthwhile one, but I don't think the blanket statement preceding it is necessarily warranted.I suppose there's an implied "to me" in there that I should have included. Certainly, one can play RPGs - or at least use their mechanics - for a number of purposes. I seek RPGs where, as I said, the game is a means of modeling real things happening in the reality of the story. Where "reality" is appropriately fictional. ...you know what I mean. ^^;

I might borrow that phrasing. Or did you borrow mine with separating RP and G? Whatever way, I do find that purpose to be a thing worth exploring, even though it might not generally overlap completely with my intentions.Honestly, I don't know if I came up with that on my own or assimilated it from somebody else. It nevertheless conveys what I want to express, I think. If I originated it, I'm flattered you want to steal it. If not, I well, I think it useful so encourage its theft and spread anyway. :smallwink:

I found that for non-competitive ones many people are fine with "close enough" balance. I also have found that perfect balance is pretty much impossible in an TRPG - every group will put their gaming focus slightly differently, and a choice that is better for one group might be worse in another.
For different options affecting the same thing, however, one should consider balance more carefully, yes. I personally think this is a point where gamedesigners might as well just build solid ground systems and then apply them - having "good looking", "wonderful voice" and "trained diplomat" be mechanically identical, while fluffed differently could work just fine, and would be perfectly balanced in and of itself. (If it is perfectly simulating I, as explained, don't really care. More intricate mechanics will require more work balancing.)
(For extra fun: Even if the three affect the same stats in the same way, but require conditions for when they apply - how do you balance "has to be seen", "has to be heard" and "has to be in a setting where the training can apply (Not a bar of ruffians, for example)" against each other?)

One rather egregious, real example where this failed is in Shadowrun 5th edition. "Run Faster" introduced an advantage "Perfect time" giving you an extra free action per combat round. Great, useful. (Also it gave you bonus dice on performing.)
Now, later on, "Datapaths" (I think it's called?) introduced one that allows you to perform one specific type of free action (Switching Deck stats) twice per free action. (With a restriction, even) Problem is: Both of those have identical costs. "Perfect time" is just objectively flat-out better. It does all the other one does, but better, and LOTS more on top of it. For the same price.

So I think trap options are something to be avoided for sure. But I don't think that one can, or should, try to "perfectly" balance things pertaining to different aspects, as these things tend to vary in efficiency from game to game anyways. If L5R has every skill cost the same, be it "Tea Ceremony" or "Kenjutsu" (Aka. Attacking with a sword. In a game of Samurai.), then I am fine with that. Because depending on the game, the latter might just become utterly useless. Courtly intrigues have little use for swords, for example, and duels are fought with a different skill still.Yeah. I'm not going for perfection, here. I'm looking to close egregious gaps.

What game system has negative consequences for eating? Or for "not being bored", for that matter?

Actually, if anything, games that touch on this at all tend to have negative consequences for not eating -- and in general being bored tends to result from the same lack of activity that results in the player being bored and the character not getting any XP.

This whole thing seems to either have started as or drifted into something I really didn't think it was... falsely conflating "I need to eat sometime today" with the UTTERLY UNRELATED "I slept with that barmaid who hit on me, even though I know there are sexy assassins out to get us after that last job we pulled".

When a person does something in real life that leads to bad consequences, reality doesn't provide them with some special offsetting compensation. There are no scales being balanced, and no karma, either classic or inverted. I see no reason why a game should function any differently.

And to cut off the response this got last time, no, "feeling good" is not a compensation, especially not in the sense being discussed. It has no reality outside the person, its just a feeling and nothing more.Hrm. We do seem to have come full circle, and part of it centers on, I believe, you reading me entirely backwards in what you quote me as saying. Let me try again.

Let's start by asking this question: You know, after your last job, that there are sexy assassins after your PC and the rest of the party. You've otherwise played a guy who likes his womanizing. (Well, assuming you'd ever play such a character.) How long after that job will it be before you're willing to let your PC stop living a celibate lifestyle and return to the sexy good times he enjoyed before hand? How thorough a vetting is thorough enough for his first few post-mission paramours? Knowing, of course, that the GM has NPCs out there who are willing to use sexy assassins on him.

Working backwards on your points, "feeling good" is, if not a compensation, then a temptation. Seriously, this is undeniable. People have, do, and will continue on into the future to do things that are not good for their long-term goals in the interests of immediate gratifications. While it's perfectly valid to want to play the guy who overcomes those urges and resists those vices, I find value in mechanics which can tell the player just how tempting the opportunity for immediate gratification was, and how much the character had to grit his teeth to ignore or overcome it. I find value in being able to say that my character really did have a meaningful sacrifice, even if only in the short term, for the long-term benefits the gameplay will yield for the "hard choice." I like it when the "hard choice" is not merely an informed attribute.

Finally, where you misunderstood me: I said I like it when there is a consequence for refusing to give in. For, when you're hungry to the point of it being a consuming craving (but not to the point of it having literal deleterious effects on your body's health, i.e. no starvation rules apply yet), the need to turn down that delicious steak is, in fact, a wrenching decision. Or, when your PC's girlfriend tells him off for being so insensitive because she doesn't know he's AwesomeDude and that he keeps leaving their dates to go save lives. But she's a cop and would be ethically obligated to tell the Chief that her boyfriend is this vigilante they've been after if he told her.

Sure, you can say "AwesomeDude is so awesome that he can stick out this emotional difficulty; he knows finding the MacGuffin of Power will make everything better, even if it pains him to leave his girlfriend's side." But that's an informed turmoil, in game terms. There's actual benefit to getting that MacGuffin, and at worst you'll have to roll some social rolls to get your girlfriend to feel better later on. It's not like you really, as his player, get to enjoy the time spent with her. Even though the MacGuffin probably isn't going anywhere if you spend an extra hour with her, there's a CHANCE it might. So why would you risk it? AwesomeDude probably feels far more tempted than you do. Except, he doesn't, because he apparently gets no more enjoyment out of it than you so, since you dictate his feelings ARE yours. And since you, at best, would feel a bit weirded out spending an hour in game flirting with the DM (who, for purposes of this example, is your big brother, let's say, just to make it extra creepy to consider flirting with him), you certainly wouldn't get the enjoyment that a boyfriend should from hanging out with his girlfriend.

The idea here is to model the reality of AwesomeDude's desire to spend time with his girlfriend, and the difficulty he has forcing himself to be responsible and go after the MacGuffin NOW. (Or, alternatively, to model WHY he chose to risk delaying.)

The consequences, with no social/RP rules, in the game do not reflect the consequences of the character being modeled. The idea is to model those emotional consequences.

Cluedrew

2016-12-20, 05:56 PM

It happens. Holidays have given me an opportunity to resume posting again after a long hiatus. I figured I wouldn't, but I ended up feeling the need to jump in again.I understand completely.

Heck, I have this semi-silly idea of a ridiculously wealthy man who has an army of hyper-skilled ninja at his beck and call. All his powers are fluffed as those ninja doing stuff for him. "Telekinesis" is the ninja stealthily performing manipulations to move the objects at his direction. "Teleportation" is ninjas helping him with, essentially, stage magic. "Scrying" is skilled ninja performers either acting or using puppets to perform, in real time, a relayed scene being spied upon by other ninjas. Or maybe just ninjas using cameras and remote-broadcasting.

But the key is that the mechanics become associated either by the game's inherent design, or by the player tying them in. If they're not associated, it's frustrating to me.First off, that is an awesome character idea. Secondly I think "mechanics for there own sake" is comparing mechanics to free-form. I said this before... but that might have been 5 pages ago now so I will say it again, so many of the complaints about rules can actually be fixed by switching to free-form. Balance, system mastery, resolution speed, granularity and trap options all become non-issues if you switch to free-form. In fact, I think everything except the room for "rules abuse" improves with free-form. So why isn't it the most popular role-playing "system" ever? Because the rules can be fun. You have actually said some related things but I think that is what is meant here.

To be fair, depending on the NATURE of the comedy game, I would probably have argued that I can see just fine through those eyes. See: cartoons whose eyes can see and blink and react when they're all that's left of the character other than a scorch mark on the ground.To be fair the character then made a pair of artificial eyes out of what they had on them. And if they had brought up the idea of seeing through their removed eyes I might have rolled with it, but it didn't even occur to me at the time.

Yes and no. One can feel punished by negative consequences even if the consequences had no "intent." Whether you're technically right or not is irrelevant; this is about how the one experiencing the consequences feels.True, may have been approaching it from the wrong angle. This is a place where your guy instinct is more important than what is actually happening.

Balance isn't about competition, necessarily. It can also be about the meta-pressures when building a character.Point of clarity, I meant that ... never mind Floret said what I meant and you already replied to her. Short version: I think balance can drift a bit further because you don't have to play on even ground, you just have to make meaningful contributions.

I find myself distrustful of [story tokens] because they are too rare and precious as resources, typically. Too hard to get, costing too much, and running into a "bigger spider" problem if they're too powerful (and a "why bother?" problem if they aren't). I propose "morale points" the way I do to make them small enough that you can use them in dribs and drabs (rather than just on "big things") and still have some left over, and also so they can be handed out in little bits here and there without overwhelming everything, or in big alotments for big temptations.That has stuck me as a possible problem with most of the story token systems. Honestly if I ever implemented on I would try to make a story token a smaller unit, even if it means spending several on some of their uses.

Also you seem to understand me about the cookies. No I am not including a quote for clarity, that is the joke.

It doesn't fit your personal perception of what a Role Playing Game should be.You want to get into pedantic personal perceptions, it drives me crazy when people use the term table-top role-playing games. Because most of the time they are talking about games that have no table-top elements what so ever. In fact outside of D&D I don't even know of any table-top role-playing games. I prefer to call them pen & paper role-playing games (even though I use pencil) to describe them. They fact you might put things down on the table is not enough. Unless you are braking out miniatures and preferably some dodads for scenery to me it is not a table top game of any kind.

End of line.

... I don't know why I suddenly felt the need to get that out there, but there it is.

When a person does something in real life that leads to bad consequences, reality doesn't provide them with some special offsetting compensation. There are no scales being balanced, and no karma, either classic or inverted. I see no reason why a game should function any differently.

And to cut off the response this got last time, no, "feeling good" is not a compensation, especially not in the sense being discussed. It has no reality outside the person, its just a feeling and nothing more.I could make an argument about "no reality outside the person" is still very real and how even things that aren't real can be important. But instead of going into detail there I will make a different argument.

Its more fun that way.

The very idea that a single person could obtain so much personal power (as opposed to organisational power) is absurd in real life. There does not exist and probably never will a person who can do 90%* of a "starting character" in most games. But I can see many a reason why a game should function differently. Because it is more fun that way.

Oh, and I agree with ImNotTrevor, let me know if you ever make your dream system.

* Percentage given for dramatic proposes only. I don't know what it would actually be but it is more than 0%.

Fun fact: I originally had one of Floret's posts quoted as well. But then I couldn't remember which part I was going to reply to... so much stuff happening in this thread. And I think I'm kind of tired.

2

jayem

2016-12-20, 06:48 PM

When a person does something in real life that leads to bad consequences, reality doesn't provide them with some special offsetting compensation. There are no scales being balanced, and no karma, either classic or inverted. I see no reason why a game should function any differently.

And to cut off the response this got last time, no, "feeling good" is not a compensation, especially not in the sense being discussed. It has no reality outside the person, its just a feeling and nothing more.

It is surprising how much 'feeling good' has a reality outside the mind at least, and in the observables. Cuts literally take half as long again to heal when an exam is present (creating stress) than in the holidays (when feeling good).

Adrenaline increases blood flow to the muscles and heart rate, but also creates a stronger fear response. Literally making you vastly stronger, in terms of crisis, but also being addictive.

Going the other way Caffeine withdrawal includes headaches, fatigue, anxiety, irritability, depressed mood and difficulty concentrating. There's a reason why it feels good to have a coffee. Alcohol is not without it's affects, both good and bad.

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-20, 11:06 PM

Yeah, the effect of mood on productivity, skill, health, and various other factors in "real life" has been observed and studied for decades now.

It's not even vaguely a new idea. People have been aware that happy workers are more productive workers since the time of Ford. (The car one.) Artificial happiness created by drugs has been a part of humanity since ancient days. None of these concepts are even a little bit new.

I'll also throw out that I don't personally agree that the benefit needs to be equal to the potential complication. You get a kickback, but it needn't necessarily be a net 0 interaction. Then again my players actually LIKE having things get more complicated.

Floret

2016-12-21, 08:01 AM

What game system has negative consequences for eating? Or for "not being bored", for that matter?

Actually, if anything, games that touch on this at all tend to have negative consequences for not eating -- and in general being bored tends to result from the same lack of activity that results in the player being bored and the character not getting any XP.

Thing is:
1) If a game system has them is irrelevant, we are talking about hypothetical games that COULD be at this point. Unless I have missed something big.
2) The consequence arises through giving in to the desire in the wrong moment. I, personally, in real life, have missed a lecture or two for eating breakfast. Because I THOUGHT I had enough time to do both, and decided to eat. I didn't have enough time. The consequence is being distracted, loosing out on things that actually "matter more", because there is a certain drive to eat, or not be bored. The complaint is, that this drive is not reflected in the rules and things like overestimating yourself, or underestimating the time certain things take will happen to an RPG character on a much less frequent basis than to a real person, and when they DO happen, they happen for no reason other than "I wanna RP", which is fine in and of itself, but there is a certain incentive in the other direction - mainly, why risk things that matter more, just because my character feels a light craving too small for the rules to reflect, and that I, the player, cannot feel?

Noone is actually talking about there being a condition "not bored" giving you a penalty. If anything, people want it to give a boon, to offset the risk described above.

This whole thing seems to either have started as or drifted into something I really didn't think it was... falsely conflating "I need to eat sometime today" with the UTTERLY UNRELATED "I slept with that barmaid who hit on me, even though I know there are sexy assassins out to get us after that last job we pulled".

But they aren't utterly unrelated. Temptation arises from desires and needs. And tasty food, even just water, can be very tempting. Just because you need to eat, doesn't mean you eat NOW - but, you know, you could, and it's obviously not gonna make you miss your lecture. Point being: even though they don't need to eat NOW, people eat NOW all the time, making the base need into a temptation. What makes a temptation in this view is not someone actively tempting you, but you feeling tempted.
To go back to my example of sleeping through an attack: There was no temptation done by a person. The temptation was simply getting enough sleep - a basic need. But it was oh so very tempting.

There is a sliding scale, but the two are NOT unrelated.

When a person does something in real life that leads to bad consequences, reality doesn't provide them with some special offsetting compensation. There are no scales being balanced, and no karma, either classic or inverted. I see no reason why a game should function any differently.

And to cut off the response this got last time, no, "feeling good" is not a compensation, especially not in the sense being discussed. It has no reality outside the person, its just a feeling and nothing more.

I'd have a point for why a game should function differently: Because it is a game. Because people want different things out of their games, rather than just a world simulator. Because people actively WANT the game world to function differently than ours.

And, as jayem mentioned: "Feeling good" is one heck of a thing, that has a measurable reality in the form of hormones being supplied to your brain, that can be manipulated with drugs, and that absolutely can directly affect the world through the person feeling it.
Feeling good makes you better at doing things. Makes you take less time for doing the things. Makes you more prone TO doing things. As someone who has gone through phases of depression, which gave me some insight into the extremes: There is nothing "just" about actually feeling good.

Gah, sorry. I really do try to remember these things, but I just have avatars which I don't always see and a totally voiceless, sexless set of black letters on white background by which to go, so it really does come down to my oft-faulty memory. No offense intended, and I have corrected the (I think) one instance in the quoted post.

It's alright. (I DO have a female avatar, dangnabbit!) And, yeah, it was the only instance. much appreciated. :smallsmile:

It's not "necessary," but it does make it a lot better for me. The danger with dissociated rules is, as Max_Killjoy alludes to, having rules just for the sake of rules. What I look for in an RPG is a game that supports playing a character in the fantastical adventures of that game's genre and setting. And I like settings and narratives where the plot isn't a force driven by idiot balls, by preference. So I like it when I can say, "This rule is modeling that in-setting reality."

Eh, I can take or leave that. I do think that White Wolf goofed in not really being clear in their own minds what the difference between increasing the difficulty (target number for a success) vs the threshold (number of successes needed) in "what's going on in the game" terms. Yes, they try to explain it, but it seems inconsistently applied, and is, as ... I think you're noting here? ... a way in which dissociated rules can lead to rules-for-rules'-sake.

I dunno. I have seen with FATE that dissociated rules are just fine with me, if they are actually fun to use - and with heavily simulationist systems (Dark Eye 4.1...) that they just get too unweildy for me to enjoy. So I found out, that I actively enjoy rules that paint with less fine brushes, prefer strong base systems that can be applied to many things as opposed to lots of small systems that might reflect the in-world reality better but are a lot harder to remember, for example.
Though, if they reflect the in-world reality too loosely, I am somewhat more to the side of running with it, and just altering the system.
If the rules given make the character that is described as "wild, running with the pack berserker" much more efficient just leaning back, blocking, buffing and letting the pets do the actual work - why not just play that, if it's fun for everyone? (Granted, this resulted in some respects from my attempts to make the beastmaster a bit more viable than RAW. But the RAW version just had the character attacking, and the beasts not doing anything, which also doesn't fit the description, and has the added downside of being so underpowered it gets un-fun to use. If I were to design a system, I'd do my best for such a disconnect not to happen, though.)

I don't think I am noting anything with dissociated rules... But I might be, if accidentally. Giving clearer terms as to which does what would solve the problem, too, I suppose, but end up with a more detailed, but more complex system. Since I don't care much for simulationist detail, I'd much prefer to just cut it out and run with "everything 4+ is a success". (Which, coincidentally, opens up the possibilty of using different dice sizes, at least without adding much confusion. D4, D6 and D12 all have 4s on them, after all... :smallamused:) Definitely a preference thing.

[...] I think "mechanics for there own sake" is comparing mechanics to free-form. I said this before... but that might have been 5 pages ago now so I will say it again, so many of the complaints about rules can actually be fixed by switching to free-form. Balance, system mastery, resolution speed, granularity and trap options all become non-issues if you switch to free-form. In fact, I think everything except the room for "rules abuse" improves with free-form. So why isn't it the most popular role-playing "system" ever? Because the rules can be fun. You have actually said some related things but I think that is what is meant here.

(Seeing as this is commenting on a comment to myself) Well... you know what, yeah. I was gonna contradict, but I was comparing mechanics to free-form. As per what I get out of TRPGs being different from what I get out of my (largely free-form) Larps.
TRPGs give me something different, and that is inherently tied to there being rules that determine what happens - which is why I like rolling dice and look for the dice mechanics that I find most fun to use (Dice pools, exploding), which is why I like social rules to completely untie player skill from character skill, and so on.
So in front of that background, I do want rules "as their own end", a fun way to interact (With the people around the table and the fictional world), as opposed to just being there to enhance and aid along the fictional world.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-21, 10:15 AM

Secondly I think "mechanics for there own sake" is comparing mechanics to free-form. I said this before... but that might have been 5 pages ago now so I will say it again, so many of the complaints about rules can actually be fixed by switching to free-form. Balance, system mastery, resolution speed, granularity and trap options all become non-issues if you switch to free-form. In fact, I think everything except the room for "rules abuse" improves with free-form. So why isn't it the most popular role-playing "system" ever? Because the rules can be fun. You have actually said some related things but I think that is what is meant here.

"Mechanics for their own sake" is comparing two different categories of mechanics, not mechanics to having-no-mechanics. There are rules that exist for the sake of accomplishing something functional, and rules that exist just for the sake of having rules.

I don't see free-form improving any of the things you list off, other than "trap options", but that's an issue of "bad rules can cause trap options", not "rules cause trap options", and you don't get bad rules when you have no rules. In particular:

Balance -- there's no balance with free-form, other than "we kinda all agree that's fair".

Resolution speed -- I find there's just as much "negotiating" (to use a kind word) with free-form as there is with other sorts of systems, and getting everyone to agree on their imagined outcome takes just as long as rolling the dice unless it's one of those onerously complicated systems

Segev

2016-12-21, 03:38 PM

The consequence arises through giving in to the desire in the wrong moment. I, personally, in real life, have missed a lecture or two for eating breakfast. Because I THOUGHT I had enough time to do both, and decided to eat. I didn't have enough time. The consequence is being distracted, loosing out on things that actually "matter more", because there is a certain drive to eat, or not be bored. The complaint is, that this drive is not reflected in the rules and things like overestimating yourself, or underestimating the time certain things take will happen to an RPG character on a much less frequent basis than to a real person, and when they DO happen, they happen for no reason other than "I wanna RP", which is fine in and of itself, but there is a certain incentive in the other direction - mainly, why risk things that matter more, just because my character feels a light craving too small for the rules to reflect, and that I, the player, cannot feel?

Noone is actually talking about there being a condition "not bored" giving you a penalty. If anything, people want it to give a boon, to offset the risk described above.Very much this. I have used my own conflicting drives here a few times, but just to re-mention them: Each morning this week, I could have (and arguably should have) gotten up about an hour to two hours before I did so that I could exercise and get into work an hour or so earlier than I have been. I meant to. In one case, I failed to exercise 'cause I slept in too much.

But bed was so much more comfortable than accursed exercise. I just didn't want to, in the moments where I would have to actually make the transition out of bed and to my exercise area, do so. Even though I know that, theoretically, if I keep exercising I'll get healthier and maybe make some progress towards a better physique. (Let's not even get started on the fact that I have a mountain dew on my desk right now.)

And, as jayem mentioned: "Feeling good" is one heck of a thing, that has a measurable reality in the form of hormones being supplied to your brain, that can be manipulated with drugs, and that absolutely can directly affect the world through the person feeling it.
Feeling good makes you better at doing things. Makes you take less time for doing the things. Makes you more prone TO doing things. As someone who has gone through phases of depression, which gave me some insight into the extremes: There is nothing "just" about actually feeling good.Condolences about the depression, and congratulations for overcoming it.

Yeah. "Feeling good" is often its own motivator. As is "not being in pain." While I won't justify such things morally, and there is question as to just HOW effective it is, there's a reason that slave-drivers often have whips and other implements of pain-dealing. "I don't want to get a whip-crack on my back" is a potential motivator for somebody to work, even if they are receiving no other reward for it.

And how many little kids can you motivate by promising them candy once they've, say, picked up all their toys? Not all, sure, and absolutely some will take short cuts hoping it's "enough" or to fool you. But it IS motivating.

If the game system doesn't reflect these motivations, then one might wonder why one should feel like having one's character engage in the activity being encouraged when it doesn't benefit the character directly. Especially if some alternative activity might.

If the penalty for, say, your underpaid day laborer pocketing choice fruits as he picks them is a whipping and having to give them up, and you don't view the whipping as something worth avoiding (because it has no mechanical impact), there's no cost to you to go ahead and try to steal. If he gets caught, no mechanical difference than if you didn't try. If he doesn't, bonus!

It's alright. (I DO have a female avatar, dangnabbit!)Sorry; it's a stick figure, in unisex-looking Asian-inspired armor. The hair length is not a trustworthy tertiary sexual characteristic given the Asian themes, so I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. ^^;

Not that it necessarily would've mattered; I didn't remember what your avatar was until I went back and looked, so it wouldn't have pushed my thoughts that way anyway. (This isn't a problem with your avatar, just my memory.)

And, yeah, it was the only instance. much appreciated. :smallsmile:No problem. It isn't my intention to get such things wrong; I like being (factually) right, darn it.

I don't think I am noting anything with dissociated rules... But I might be, if accidentally. Giving clearer terms as to which does what would solve the problem, too, I suppose, but end up with a more detailed, but more complex system. Since I don't care much for simulationist detail, I'd much prefer to just cut it out and run with "everything 4+ is a success". (Which, coincidentally, opens up the possibilty of using different dice sizes, at least without adding much confusion. D4, D6 and D12 all have 4s on them, after all... :smallamused:) Definitely a preference thing.It's really only a problem to me when the dissociation gets in the way of the simulation.

"Mechanics for their own sake" is comparing two different categories of mechanics, not mechanics to having-no-mechanics. There are rules that exist for the sake of accomplishing something functional, and rules that exist just for the sake of having rules.

I don't see free-form improving any of the things you list off, other than "trap options", but that's an issue of "bad rules can cause trap options", not "rules cause trap options", and you don't get bad rules when you have no rules. In particular:

Balance -- there's no balance with free-form, other than "we kinda all agree that's fair".

Resolution speed -- I find there's just as much "negotiating" (to use a kind word) with free-form as there is with other sorts of systems, and getting everyone to agree on their imagined outcome takes just as long as rolling the dice unless it's one of those onerously complicated systems
I suppose, in terms of this discussion, I see the lack of "RP mechanics" as trying to have half the game be free-form, and the other half be mechanically driven. It'd be as if there were well-defined rules for parrying and how effective it was, but dodging was also an option, but the only rules for that are "decide whether you succeed or fail at dodging an attack based on what you think your character's dodging ability is, as compared to the skill of the attacker."

Well, gosh, I'm going to dodge, and wouldn't you just know it, my character is good enough to dodge each particular attack as it comes in!

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-21, 04:05 PM

I suppose, in terms of this discussion, I see the lack of "RP mechanics" as trying to have half the game be free-form, and the other half be mechanically driven. It'd be as if there were well-defined rules for parrying and how effective it was, but dodging was also an option, but the only rules for that are "decide whether you succeed or fail at dodging an attack based on what you think your character's dodging ability is, as compared to the skill of the attacker."

Well, gosh, I'm going to dodge, and wouldn't you just know it, my character is good enough to dodge each particular attack as it comes in!

First, most social interactions aren't "just like combat, only in your brain". I really dislike using the same succeed-fail, winner-loser, zero-sum, force or be forced, mechanics that apply to combat, for social interactions.

Second, for internal mental processes, in order to be anything like a satisfactory model, we're looking at the aforementioned "onerously complicated systems". The price in time and complexity needed for even a rough approximation of all the factors involved is burdensome and excessive.

Cluedrew

2016-12-21, 04:37 PM

If a game system has them is irrelevant, we are talking about hypothetical games that COULD be at this point. Unless I have missed something big.Well I'm also using this thread to bounce ideas around for a very-real, but very unfinished, system I am working on. Which is big to me but probably small to everyone else. And if you quote this to ask, I am planning there to be a post on Giant in the Playground if I ever finish it.

I dunno. I have seen with FATE that dissociated rules are just fine with me, if they are actually fun to use - and with heavily simulationist systems (Dark Eye 4.1...) that they just get too unweildy for me to enjoy. So I found out, that I actively enjoy rules that paint with less fine brushes, prefer strong base systems that can be applied to many things as opposed to lots of small systems that might reflect the in-world reality better but are a lot harder to remember, for example.This is also a matter of detail, as opposed merely one of association. You could have associated "narrative" mechanics. For instance Dynasty (which I seem to recall was created by someone on this forum... but I can't remember who, although if they read this and I am misrepresenting your game I am sorry it has been a while) is a game where you play as in immortal spirit that watches over the a clan that produces heroes (which you also play as the more regular PCs). Many narrative mechanics could be associated with some sort of intervention of the spirit. Hero resisted temptation? The spirit reinforced their inner strength. Spend a point to add a useful feature to the scene? The spirit calls in its power to effect the world.

[...] run with "everything 4+ is a success". (Which, coincidentally, opens up the possibilty of using different dice sizes, at least without adding much confusion. D4, D6 and D12 all have 4s on them, after all... :smallamused:)I actually know someone who was trying to make a horror themed RPG off of this mechanic. Very difficult challenges were rolled with a D4, trivial ones with a D20.

Sorry; it's a stick figure, in unisex-looking Asian-inspired armor. The hair length is not a trustworthy tertiary sexual characteristic given the Asian themes, so I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. ^^;If you want to check hover your mouse over the avatar. The avatar image's name will pop up. Although this only works for built in avatars Floret's is called SamuraiGirl. I mean this particular case is obviously over and done with, but maybe that trick will help you in the future.

I suppose, in terms of this discussion, I see the lack of "RP mechanics" as trying to have half the game be free-form, and the other half be mechanically driven.Quite aside from that it bugs me when I create a character around an idea about their personality. I can create their gear, hard skills and so on, but I cannot stat out the think I actually created the character around.

Free-form, not an issue, not only is nothing statted but the personality field of your "character sheet" was just below physical description and above powers. OK, I can't remember the exact layout of any of the character sheets (there was a new one for each game) so that might not have been the layout of any of the, but I think the point remains.

"Mechanics for their own sake" is comparing two different categories of mechanics, not mechanics to having-no-mechanics. There are rules that exist for the sake of accomplishing something functional, and rules that exist just for the sake of having rules.

(Seeing as this is commenting on a comment to myself) Well... you know what, yeah. I was gonna contradict, but I was comparing mechanics to free-form. As per what I get out of TRPGs being different from what I get out of my (largely free-form) Larps.
TRPGs give me something different, and that is inherently tied to there being rules that determine what happens - which is why I like rolling dice and look for the dice mechanics that I find most fun to use (Dice pools, exploding), which is why I like social rules to completely untie player skill from character skill, and so on.
So in front of that background, I do want rules "as their own end", a fun way to interact (With the people around the table and the fictional world), as opposed to just being there to enhance and aid along the fictional world.I am pretty sure (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21480790&postcount=173) you don't enjoy having people put words in your mouth, so be careful not to do the same yourself. I will admit I did similar myself, but I said "I think" for a reason.

... And then I just realized that I was discounting the possibility that you were just commenting on your own interpretation of the phase, in which case I apologize and ask for a bit more clarity next time. I am tired.
I don't see free-form improving any of the things you list off, other than "trap options", but that's an issue of "bad rules can cause trap options", not "rules cause trap options", and you don't get bad rules when you have no rules.I don't have any proof that it does, however it has in my experience solved all of them. Except for one, resolution speed. But not because of the reason you gave (negotiating was a complete non-issue for our group) but because we were doing it on a forum like this one. Still in terms of time spent it was pretty good.

Of all those things I said, I think 2 of them had to do with the main topic.

1

Segev

2016-12-21, 05:07 PM

First, most social interactions aren't "just like combat, only in your brain". I really dislike using the same succeed-fail, winner-loser, zero-sum, force or be forced, mechanics that apply to combat, for social interactions.And note that the mechanics I favor don't lean that way. Yes, you can potentially get to a point where it's "do it or be so depressed that you can't succeed at anything," but that's an extreme case. Instead, the mechanics are designed to put a cost to doing things that upset your character, and a benefit to doing things that please him.

Second, for internal mental processes, in order to be anything like a satisfactory model, we're looking at the aforementioned "onerously complicated systems". The price in time and complexity needed for even a rough approximation of all the factors involved is burdensome and excessive.Not really. No more than you have to do so for, again, physical combat (which tends to be the most complex set of mechanics in most modern game systems). We still don't bother modeling it down to the specific tendons that are severed, or the way a warhammer might give a light cut from barely catching the flesh of the upper arm and scratching it with a stray shard slivered off when it blocked a sword swing a half-minute ago.

The key to keeping complexity down is identifying what it is you want to model. What is the important thing to making decisions about whether something went one way, or another. The mechanics I've outlined, while perhaps needing a little more depth, are not going to need a Masters in psychology to write in their completion, nor to understand and use.

If you want to check hover your mouse over the avatar. The avatar image's name will pop up. Although this only works for built in avatars Floret's is called SamuraiGirl. I mean this particular case is obviously over and done with, but maybe that trick will help you in the future.Thanks. I did not know of this feature. I probably won't use it for checking, but it's still nice to know about.

Quite aside from that it bugs me when I create a character around an idea about their personality. I can create their gear, hard skills and so on, but I cannot stat out the think I actually created the character around.

Free-form, not an issue, not only is nothing statted but the personality field of your "character sheet" was just below physical description and above powers. OK, I can't remember the exact layout of any of the character sheets (there was a new one for each game) so that might not have been the layout of any of the, but I think the point remains.Well, if there are RP mechanics, then you can!

Though to be fair? The lack of RP mechanics just means your personality is still free-form.

Cluedrew

2016-12-21, 05:25 PM

First, most social interactions aren't "just like combat, only in your brain". I really dislike using the same succeed-fail, winner-loser, zero-sum, force or be forced, mechanics that apply to combat, for social interactions.One of the versions of Exulted tried to do this. And everyone I have seen comment on it has said it is worse for it. Personally, when I say "give personality mechanics like combat" I mean "in the way combat has mechanics to represent it" not "the mechanics should be like the ones for combat".

Thanks. I did not know of this feature. I probably won't use it for checking, but it's still nice to know about.You're welcome.

Though to be fair? The lack of RP mechanics just means your personality is still free-form.Yes, but when I'm not playing free-form... I am a believe in the guideline that the more rules a system has for something, the more time you will spend on it in a game. And (extending it) the more time you spend on it, the more the game is about it. And I want a game about the character as much as it is about fighting. As in the character of the character.

This is the shortest and fastest post I have done for this thread in a long time.

0

Dragonexx

2016-12-21, 05:45 PM

Segev

2016-12-21, 06:13 PM

What people like about combat is the strategic element, where you have a set of options use, and your choices matter. If you want to make a social system (or anything resembling a skill challenge [though don't use that name, it's too associated with failure] at all) then give it the same strategic element.

Yes! Absolutely!

I do think Exalted had some good ideas when it tried to do this. It failed, miserably, on the whole, but they tried and perhaps had the most well fleshed-out social mechanics in any contemporary system. They did make the mistake, amongst other things, of treating it TOO MUCH like combat in structure. And making compulsion the end result of successful "social attack."

But it is from the points of failure I identify there that I've developed some of the ideas I've shared in this thread. Mainly centering around making it reflective of incentive, rather than making it compulsory. Change the equation so that the player feels the temptations, on some level, in the mechanics, just as his PC would/does in "real" life.

Their "build/erode intimacies" system is actually pretty good, I think. Could use some tweaking, but its core is solid, and would be very good for influencing characters with a social system, and for building a complex, tactically rich set of social mechanics.

Floret

2016-12-21, 07:23 PM

Condolences about the depression, and congratulations for overcoming it.

Thanks^^ (Though it wasn't depression per se, but depressive phases as symptom of other stuff. Details, but maybe important ones.)

Sorry; it's a stick figure, in unisex-looking Asian-inspired armor. The hair length is not a trustworthy tertiary sexual characteristic given the Asian themes, so I wouldn't have known if you hadn't told me. ^^;

One of these days, I will break and put a gender marker on my profile. Today is not that day, however.
And, rest assured, had I thought intent behind you getting it wrong, my reaction would have been far different.

I suppose, in terms of this discussion, I see the lack of "RP mechanics" as trying to have half the game be free-form, and the other half be mechanically driven. It'd be as if there were well-defined rules for parrying and how effective it was, but dodging was also an option, but the only rules for that are "decide whether you succeed or fail at dodging an attack based on what you think your character's dodging ability is, as compared to the skill of the attacker."

Well, gosh, I'm going to dodge, and wouldn't you just know it, my character is good enough to dodge each particular attack as it comes in!

Apt comparison, I think. Though in the current case it works, since it's not the SAME subject being handled differently - the same issue as with balancing only really being a factor if two options deal with the same matter.
Since "RP" and "combat" are distinct in that way, people can get by by handling one as free-form without necessarily obvious issues of Balance. For some people, this is just not satisfactory, however.

First, most social interactions aren't "just like combat, only in your brain". I really dislike using the same succeed-fail, winner-loser, zero-sum, force or be forced, mechanics that apply to combat, for social interactions.

Second, for internal mental processes, in order to be anything like a satisfactory model, we're looking at the aforementioned "onerously complicated systems". The price in time and complexity needed for even a rough approximation of all the factors involved is burdensome and excessive.

But that is not what is being argued for. As pointed out, "Same depth as combat" doesn't in the slightest mean "same rules as combat". The people arguing for RP rules are the most solid objectioners to those "same rules/Winner takes all" things, actually. Though they are ready to give SOME influence to the dice over the characters internals.

That dependse solely on what you see as a satisfactory model. I, as a person who likes rules-light anyway, will be very much satisfied with a fun to use system that doesn't simulate too closely or even accurately, but that opens up options and lets social skills have weight.

I actually know someone who was trying to make a horror themed RPG off of this mechanic. Very difficult challenges were rolled with a D4, trivial ones with a D20.

I'm going for a pool system, where different sources give different dice sizes. (So, attributes D4, skills d6, for example.) The three sizes weren't chosen randomly, btw - they exactly model 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 chance of a success with 4+ counting.
The higher the die, the greater the chance of success, but the smaller that of explosion.

Segev

2016-12-21, 07:33 PM

Apt comparison, I think. Though in the current case it works, since it's not the SAME subject being handled differently - the same issue as with balancing only really being a factor if two options deal with the same matter.
Since "RP" and "combat" are distinct in that way, people can get by by handling one as free-form without necessarily obvious issues of Balance. For some people, this is just not satisfactory, however.

I was actually trying to analogize the current "RP mechanics" situation, where the lack of them leads to a choice between "Armus eats the taco" and "Armus doesn't risk flatulence ruining his speech" has a mechanical effect (negative, in this case: risking flatulence equating to choosing to parry) on the "eats the taco" side, and no mechanical effect (or, rather, a perfectly optimal mechanical effect: no risks at all, equating to choosing to dodge) on the "don't eat the taco" side.

Where, again, "flatulence" and "taco" can be anything related to risks taken from behaviors vs. the pleasures of those behaviors.

Dragonexx

2016-12-21, 08:44 PM

Then don't have the results be binary. That was a major failing of skill challenges. You rolled a bunch of dice, and the results were still limited to purely succeed or fail.

Combat can have many outcomes other than just you die/enemy dies. You can get captured, flee, do the same to the enemy have a mind controlled ally for a while, defuse the situation, steal their stuff and run, or various other things. I don't see why non-combat challenges shouldn't be the same way.

Segev

2016-12-22, 12:41 AM

Talakeal

2016-12-22, 08:17 PM

Floret

2016-12-22, 09:42 PM

Segev

2016-12-23, 12:48 AM

The main problem I am seeing with a system like Segev proposes is that it merely reverses the character type that the game "punishes". If you were to play an extremely disciplined or ascetic character you would be going around with a penalty for being demoralized all the time. This doesn't seem fun or realistic and it creates a bigger problem than it solves. Instead of characters who refrain from indulging based on the 1/1000 time it will disadvantage them, you instead have reckless hedonists who are constantly buffed by their lifestyle. Personally I know plenty of workaholics and they certainly don't seem to be pathetic wretches who have trouble completing tasks because their are so miserable.

Also, @Floret, your story about sleeping in vs. helping your allies seems crazy to me. In real life if you are under attack you are going to panic and get up to see what is going on, you aren't going to be tempted to sleep in. In this way playing a LARP is, imo, less realistic, because you can tell yourself "Its only a game" and go back to sleep rather than bolting out of bed in an adrenaline rush.

Workaholics tend to get burnout at some point, though. If all one does is work, one is gonna regret it sooner or later.
That point aside, I think this would be a measure of nuance and the way you set up the system. It is perfectly feasible that people gain morale and selfworth through things like doing sports (For me rather the shower afterwards, but the feeling of having done it can be quite nice), or even just finishing their tasks. As I grow older (Well, "older") I can even understand the pleasure of just having the dishes be done and those sorts of things.

So a system that only ever rewards hedonistic pleasures with morale points might, if it rewards them too much, indeed run into the problem you describe - but with some way of free-form on the phrasing and choosing of the things that give you morale, as well as some form of balancing to make sure the "morale gainlord" isn't the optimal build... The problems you describe might be quite easily avoided.
The examples just focus on the more immidiate pleasures because those are the ones that might get avoided most often in favour of "optimal" play.Floret captured most of my response here, which is why I quote her before responding, myself.

The central thing is that these conflicting desires should be balanced at a level appropriate to how tempting they are to the PC. There are three ways I can think of to play a Determinator with a system such as this:

1) Play him with values and goals that simply are numb in comparison to the long-term goal. He doesn't GET the rushes of reward, because he doesn't feel the pleasures of the short-term, but he also isn't tempted by them for much the same reason. He is the murder-hobo, or the cold and calculating man who pushes forward unrelentingly. (Segev, the necromancer PC I took my screen name from, falls into this category.)

2) Play him with maximized reserves of Morale. Design him to have as much as possible, and don't spend it on anything except resisting the temptations to be distracted. Do indulge in your downtime; it's how you recharge. But play with sharply defined priorities and use your morale to stay dedicated to the long-term. You're a determinator because you have sufficient reserves of willpower to keep going for long periods of hard choices and unpleasant trials.

3) Play him as somebody who does suffer the morale penalties. He burns out, because he pushes himself too hard. He is an emotional wreck a lot of the time. He's dragging himself across the goal line at the end of the race. And he's beating himself up when he collapses and burns out. If you want to play this kind of guy, it's perfectly feasible. I probably wouldn't enjoy it, myself.

Of course, the third type is healthier not played as a determinator. He plays more like a normal person, with concerns and susceptible to distractions and the like.

Does it?
I will give you that a Larp still isn't real, however much closer to it than TRPGs might be. Sure. People are not literally gonna die (Well, players. Characters might, and for my character, loosing friends might be a real option.). If that contributed to the fact that I stayed in - I cannot say, as I have thankfully never been either in an equivalent situation, or as big an egotistical asshat as my character.

To add to that: You, as a person, might panic and get up. I, as a player, might. But People don't all work the same. A person can learn to be "cool under fire" and stay level-headed in situations that would get the average person to go nuts. Especially people who have "been through some ****" (Which a majority of player characters have), might well be able to assess the situation much more calmly. A person who is actively (or even just passively) suicidal will not give a damn if they get killed or not - so why not just get some rest and let the dice fall as they may? I could come up with more examples, but those were the immidiately obvious ones to me, probably through applying to the character in question.

And the situation? We were in the room, completely unbeknown to everyone else. Literally noone even suspected that there was something going on at the place we slept. We were safe. So bolting out and helping? Would have actually just actively endangered us. One could hear quite well through the walls what was going on, and that our small group was not in immediate danger.

This is all just arguing with hypotheticals, of course. Sure, I was lying in a dark room of a ruined building, sure I heard the screams and shouts from outside, saw flashes of light through the broken windows and heard the (Percussion caps) gunshots. Quite a feeling, but even I, as a player, cannot truly claim I was in an absolutely equivalent situation to the one my character was. The closest I would ever want to find myself in, and I would wish upon anybody, but not equivalent, yes. That, at least, did not make the temptation go away.
But as I am, so are you arguing with hypotheticals. You (I hope for you?) never were in any such situation, so the claim that "you aren't going to be tempted", as a blanket statement, is at least as hypothetical as mine of "yaknow, depending on the person, one just might be".

Part of what I've been trying ot get at I just learned a term for, though I still need to take time to do some google-based research to see if it really bears fruit. Apparently psychologists have a concept called the "intention-action gap" and it is closely related to the issues I've been mentioning. Humans often know what they SHOULD do to achieve their long-term goals, but just knowing it still leaves a shocking number of us who don't actually DO those things.

e.g., I know that reducing my food intake (probably by cutting soda out entirely) and engaging in exercise of a more intense sort on a more regular basis will get me to my goal of being physically fit and attractive. (I really could be quite handsome if I worked at it.) But it's a fight to get myself to do any of these things. (I have been doing better with exercise lately! I need to increase it from the "beginner" stuff that's mostly just building stamina, next.)

jayem

2016-12-23, 03:38 AM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-23, 08:57 AM

Floret captured most of my response here, which is why I quote her before responding, myself.

The central thing is that these conflicting desires should be balanced at a level appropriate to how tempting they are to the PC. There are three ways I can think of to play a Determinator with a system such as this:

1) Play him with values and goals that simply are numb in comparison to the long-term goal. He doesn't GET the rushes of reward, because he doesn't feel the pleasures of the short-term, but he also isn't tempted by them for much the same reason. He is the murder-hobo, or the cold and calculating man who pushes forward unrelentingly. (Segev, the necromancer PC I took my screen name from, falls into this category.)

2) Play him with maximized reserves of Morale. Design him to have as much as possible, and don't spend it on anything except resisting the temptations to be distracted. Do indulge in your downtime; it's how you recharge. But play with sharply defined priorities and use your morale to stay dedicated to the long-term. You're a determinator because you have sufficient reserves of willpower to keep going for long periods of hard choices and unpleasant trials.

3) Play him as somebody who does suffer the morale penalties. He burns out, because he pushes himself too hard. He is an emotional wreck a lot of the time. He's dragging himself across the goal line at the end of the race. And he's beating himself up when he collapses and burns out. If you want to play this kind of guy, it's perfectly feasible. I probably wouldn't enjoy it, myself.

Of course, the third type is healthier not played as a determinator. He plays more like a normal person, with concerns and susceptible to distractions and the like.

All of which is built around a very specific and not universally accepted model of the human mind and human behavior.

It's like games that attempt to bake morality into the rules... it works only so long as all the players agree with or at least tolerate that moral model.

But if he's your character and you want him to be disciplined why did you chose "Enjoys a drink" and "Dedicated follower of fashion" as a character trait?
(unless you want him to be changing, in which case, you want him to be struggling, and the system needs to adapt that to have a long term reward).

Chose "Miserely" perhaps (maybe making the note that charitable gifts are exempt and should actually count positive). Maybe with "Gym bunny" he gets happier if he gets to do his exercise every day, but the days you are in a rush it causes a problem.

Of course the game may be biased one way or another (maybe the writers (right or wrong) thought a 'disciplined and ascetic' character didn't fit into a cluedo themed rpg)

Another risk, related to above -- the game designers start deciding what should and should not be a possible character personality.

Cluedrew

2016-12-23, 09:10 AM

I want to comment on the general topic everyone has been talking about, so I actually have nothing to quote.

As I see it, you should (baring the game having a narrower focus, which is possible) be able to build characters that use the moral system with different purposes. I am going to create three archetypes as an example: the fighter, the bard and the monk.

The fighter is your default, middle of the road character. Spends moral during the day when something important happens, but she earns it back most nights by unwinding with some drinks at the tavern. Occasionally, say after or before a big job, she will splurge some gold to get some extra points.

The bard is the "moral lord" character that runs high and spends fast. Every night he can he swings by the tavern and carouses into the night. Probably triggering a compulsion or two in the process. Of course the next morning he has to spend a point just to get out of bed on time but that still puts him up. Or has to be rescued by the party because the party got out of hand. (the group and the celebration respectively)

The monk almost ignores the system. The character is built with simple and weaker temptations, and joys such as "A good night's rest" so there is little she has to spend moral on. But on the other hand it is harder for her to earn moral points so she is not going to have very many passion fuelled bursts of power.

If you managed this properly you should have all three as viable options. The bard's version might take an extra minute to resolve (hopefully less most of the time, keep them from stealing to much spotlight) but should balance out against the other options.

On This Thread: We seem to be slowing down (might be a false alarm) so I thought I would get this out before it winds down too much and people don't actually see it. This thread has been awesome and I want to thank everybody who made it what it was.

OK, this I could of quoted, but I was thinking about what you said about your dice pools (cool idea, although I worry it will combine the worst aspects of making sure you have enough dice for D&D and making sure you have enough dice for ShadowRun) and... this is interesting.

d4: 0=3/4, 1=3/16, 2+=1/16, 3+=1/64
d6: 0=1/2, 1=5/12, 2+=1/12, 3+=1/72
d12: 0=1/3, 1=11/18 2+=1/18, 3+=1/216

I usually discount "exploding dice" in my calculations because they don't come up very often. But with a pool of d4's you can reasonably get a 2 deep explosion every half-dozen checks. Although I still think on average the large dice will still be better simply because of their consistency on the first point. Which is how most exploding dice systems seem to work out. But I haven't done any infinite sums on it.
1

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-23, 10:30 AM

I think it's worth noting that Stress/Recovery systems have already been implemented on the videogame end of game design. Most notably in Darkest Dungeon, which just has a super simplified system involving certain things giving you stress, and once that stress gets high enough you get problems. (Up to and including dying of a heart attack.) This stress is relieved by some in-combat events, or by spending money on vices back at home.

Rudimentary versions of such a thing already exist, so it shouldn't be unreasonable to port it across into a TRPG.

georgie_leech

2016-12-23, 12:36 PM

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-23, 12:58 PM

Worth noting that such "vices" included meditation, praying, and self-flagellation. :smallamused:

Those are all classical examples of vices. Especially that last one. I don't see the problem here. ;P

jayem

2016-12-23, 01:00 PM

Another risk, related to above -- the game designers start deciding what should and should not be a possible character personality.

Yes, definitely, and that probably is not good.
assuming 'should be' is coupled with 'should not be'.
and with a vague caveat for special things like Scion (but they *should* be exceptions and novelties).
and with a vague caveat for 'silly' combinations, and facing consequences

In an openy game I guess if you've got the choice of Thing, Not-(notably purely)thing, Anti-thing, for at least twenty things, (and the option of none of the above then you probably are adding options).

Talakeal

2016-12-23, 01:33 PM

But if he's your character and you want him to be disciplined why did you chose "Enjoys a drink" and "Dedicated follower of fashion" as a character trait?
(unless you want him to be changing, in which case, you want him to be struggling, and the system needs to adapt that to have a long term reward).

Chose "Miserely" perhaps (maybe making the note that charitable gifts are exempt and should actually count positive). Maybe with "Gym bunny" he gets happier if he gets to do his exercise every day, but the days you are in a rush it causes a problem.

Of course the game may be biased one way or another (maybe the writers (right or wrong) thought a 'disciplined and ascetic' character didn't fit into a cluedo themed rpg)

I thought that was the type of system Segev was trying to avoid.

If you can just choose whatever vices you want then we haven't actually solved the problem. The only difference is that instead of playing as an optimized murder hobo and feeling bad about it during the game you will simply choose "killing enemies" and "getting rich" and "succeeding at my goals" as character traits for the same outcome.

Cluedrew

2016-12-23, 02:42 PM

All of which is built around a very specific and not universally accepted model of the human mind and human behavior.

It's like games that attempt to bake morality into the rules... it works only so long as all the players agree with or at least tolerate that moral model.It's like games that attempt to bake combat into the rules... OK more seriously. Everything the game is going to have a model for everything it represents, pretty much by definition.

For instance lets say I try to block a hallway that is wider than me in a game with defined turns. My turn ends and the enemy rushes by me, my character has to just sit there until their next turn comes up. (For games with "threatened squares" and similar, they go around those too.) Which completely ignores the fact I should just be able to wait and shift my position as the enemy comes down the hall. Now there are still ways they could get past me (including defeating me in combat) but simply running at about the same speed I can will not do it. And yet in many systems it will, but that is something we at least tolerate.

So the fact the model is imperfect is not in and of itself a problem. I am glad combat is not a perfect representation, I'm not sure I could make it through combat without vomiting if I knew what was going on with the organs of the goblins we are cutting our way through. The question is... does the model and the rules built around it work? And on top of that "work" can mean different things in different systems. Even within a system the crafting rules might be created to a very different standard than the combat rules.

D&D does have Perform(Dance)[1] in the rules, but would I try to use it for a campaign about the latest reality TV dance off? No, no I would not. I don't know why I would even run that game but if I did I would not turn to D&D to do it.

So what do you want from role-playing rules? (This has progressed to the royal you, I think Max_Killjoy just wants role-playing rules to leave him alone.) After that has been figured out then you can say what will and will not help that goal.

[1] Actually I have no idea if it does, but I think everybody can fill in how it would work if it did exist.

Another risk, related to above -- the game designers start deciding what should and should not be a possible character personality.As long as they decide and don't just cut off half of what the game is supposed to do by accident, I'm OK with that. Related to the above, what is the system trying to accomplish? If it is trying to represent every possible personality yes that is something to look out for, but it they are only trying to tell stories about shell-shocked ex-soldiers[2] than the fact they can't represent a naïve 6-year old is a moot point.

[2] I don't think there is a system that focuses on that. But there could be.

If you can just choose whatever vices you want then we haven't actually solved the problem.Well if "murderhobbos" is the problem... yes. But if the problem is "the system doesn't support character personalities" or something along those lines it still might be enough.

What are you (or the system) trying to accomplish seems to be a re-occurring theme this post. But almost every set of role-playing mechanics we have examined does do one thing, and that is highlight the character as a person, as opposed to a pawn. Now you can still fall back[3] into "as pawn" from there, even with very hard role-playing rules that come up all the time, but it has given you a hint and I think that is worth something. Although the game should be more fun if you take the hint.

[3] Which is not to say that "as pawn" is bad, just that it seems to be the opposite of what these mechanics are trying to achieve.

0

jayem

2016-12-23, 03:11 PM

I thought that was the type of system Segev was trying to avoid.

If you can just choose whatever vices you want then we haven't actually solved the problem. The only difference is that instead of playing as an optimized murder hobo and feeling bad about it during the game you will simply choose "killing enemies" and "getting rich" and "succeeding at my goals" as character traits for the same outcome.

Fair point.

I think it would work towards [one way of] solving the [described] problem, in that mid game decisions would align with character (and it would prevent blatant cake and eat it characters, "One is a murderhobo, one knows"). And as such there's a key safe window (character creation) where you agree intent.

But although I've assumed everything would come with a gain and a cost, and that the default remains unchanged.
That may not be true for violence, where the current default is decidedly antisocial. And this is a significant part of most games.
Comfort, however. would be fixed fairly naturally, if moral is increased in good venues (with then special characters getting the moral increase even in the rough) then that's easy and not too intrusive.
Money the default is probably right, when it becomes 'getting rich', you're going beyond normal (and the comfort requirement takes it down). Maybe the advantage that lets you take second best happily to get rich, also makes it hard to spend on potions.

Syll

2016-12-23, 04:53 PM

Cluedrew

2016-12-23, 05:07 PM

You quoted post #18 from post #705, good job.

... Wait, this thread started on October 30th? Wow.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-23, 06:06 PM

I think you may have the idea of Virtues in Scion wrong. The first thing to understand is Scion is built around 'Heroic Tropes' being a thing, and there being a cosmic force (fate) which will literally bend reality to make what narrative causality says should happen, happen. As a Scion, you are partially made up of Ichor, literally 'Fate-stuff'. And part of that heritage are the Virtues, the way your pantheon and you as a person, are fatebound to act.

The mechanics, just to clarify, although I think you've understood are thus: If you have Courage 3, and you want to act in a way which would be cowardly, by the definition of heroic stories, you need to roll 3d10, and if any of them succeed, you are forced to act with courage. This isn't about forcing you as a player to make your character do something, it's about your character being forced by their own basic nature to do something. Your character may very well not want to act in the way they have to, but they are forced by Fate to do so.

You get advantages from this as well, significant advantages. Your Courage 3 will allow you to spend a point of willpower to roll 3 extra dice for an action. Say 3 extra dice when rolling damage to smite your enemy right in the face.

And personally, I love it. It's very metanarrative and enjoys the kind of trope lampshade-hanging that I personally really enjoy. "Struggling against" your virtues is entirely appropriate for a story arc.

OH, and THEN, there's Titanspawn and Dark Virtues. Having to roll virtues to NOT betray their group. Knowing that betraying their group is a foolish idea, and will cause them more trouble, but inexorably forced to do it by their nature.

But, if that kind of story doesn't interest you, then Virtues are not the best course of action. They're able to be excised from the game, or, like social skills in 3.5/PF, only applicable to NPCs

I'd never heard of Scion before, but your post has really piqued my interest. Now I'll have to look into it this, thanks.

Oddly, it was that post that got me to take a deeper look at Scion and confirm that it's absolutely not something I'd be interested in.

The whole idea of encouraging or enforcing "narrative causality", instead of doing everything possible to avoid the contrivances and cliches and tropes thereof... ugh.

Floret

2016-12-25, 06:18 PM

OK, this I could of quoted, but I was thinking about what you said about your dice pools (cool idea, although I worry it will combine the worst aspects of making sure you have enough dice for D&D and making sure you have enough dice for ShadowRun) and... this is interesting.

d4: 0=3/4, 1=3/16, 2+=1/16, 3+=1/64
d6: 0=1/2, 1=5/12, 2+=1/12, 3+=1/72
d12: 0=1/3, 1=11/18 2+=1/18, 3+=1/216

I usually discount "exploding dice" in my calculations because they don't come up very often. But with a pool of d4's you can reasonably get a 2 deep explosion every half-dozen checks. Although I still think on average the large dice will still be better simply because of their consistency on the first point. Which is how most exploding dice systems seem to work out. But I haven't done any infinite sums on it.

Well, sure, getting the dice for the dicepool might get complicated, but I do it for the math :smalltongue: But, really: It's alright. If you keep the dicepools more limited than Shadowrun does (Which, I try my very best. Both Degenesis:Rebirth and L5R had nice ways to limit them, and I am going over ideas in my head, but sadly nothing fixed yet aside from more than 12 per sort being literally impossible. The initial idea of being able to "upgrade" at a 2:1 rate was thrown out because chance of success on the first roll remained unchanged, yet likelyhood of explosion went down, making this strictly WORSE than just keeping them as-is).
And, who doesn't have a bunch of D6 on hand? ...granted, I play Shadowrun and used to go for Tabletop Wargames.
d12, on the other hand, are pretty rare to get a hold of in-system anyways.

But: You got the d12 math somewhat mixed up - chance of 0 successes clocks in at 1/4, not 1/3. The rest of the chain seems to check out though, after a "quick" (Well, quick for a Language student) examination. Really just a nitpick. (Which makes the progression of base success chance, without explosions, from 1/4 to 2/4 to 3/4 which is just nice.)
And, sure, the larger dice are generally better, but the process of "more certain first, but less explosions" was somewhat the point of the whole mechanic. It sadly isn't tested yet (Because I keep procrastinating some other vital details of the system) aside from copious amounts of math done on it and quite some "dry rolling", but I am very eager to test it.

If you care for the "average" amount of successes for infinite explosions, with k being the number of dice rolled: k/3 for d4, 3k/5 for d6. Since d12 are such a rarity in my system I kinda forgot to hand them over to the mathy person who did the calculations for me :smallwink:

I thought that was the type of system Segev was trying to avoid.

If you can just choose whatever vices you want then we haven't actually solved the problem. The only difference is that instead of playing as an optimized murder hobo and feeling bad about it during the game you will simply choose "killing enemies" and "getting rich" and "succeeding at my goals" as character traits for the same outcome.

Sure, that would create it - but for a system that just wants to represent personality it would work. Because it would still do that.
(And a person that wants just that from a game would probably not go for those traits. A person who does not want that from a game will be better off without the system, anyways.)
On the other hand one might put certain restrictions on the traits. Would have to be carefully chosen, but "Suceed at my goals doesn't count because generally everyone wants to do that, that's why those are goals" would I find be rather non-controversial.

I think it's worth noting that Stress/Recovery systems have already been implemented on the videogame end of game design. Most notably in Darkest Dungeon, which just has a super simplified system involving certain things giving you stress, and once that stress gets high enough you get problems. (Up to and including dying of a heart attack.) This stress is relieved by some in-combat events, or by spending money on vices back at home.

Rudimentary versions of such a thing already exist, so it shouldn't be unreasonable to port it across into a TRPG.

Funnily enough one system I was thinking about for my basic idea of "coding personality and such into rules can be fun" was just that - I think porting it would be worthwhile for a system wanting to go just as dark, or at least somewhat dark in tone, but I don't think its rather brutal consequences are a great fit for a more "light" setting.
Though, with extensive modding, even that can certainly be solved.

Lorsa

2016-12-27, 04:55 PM

I am sorry for having been missing from this thread for a while now. I was very busy at work, and then there is Christmas celebration and traveling to visit family. Hopefully the discussion hasn't been suffering from my absence. Unfortunately I do not have the time the fully catch up on everything that has been said, so my comments may be a bit off from the current turn of conversation. I did promise to write something about social mechanics though, so that's what I will do.

First however, I will make a quick remark to Segev.

It will be interesting to see what your morale system will look like once it's been developed a bit more. Yesterday during a session I found at least three separate times when I would've asked the players to spend morale points in order to go through with an action, had a system been in use.

I do see three types of generic groups though (as far as your system is concerned).

The first type is the one that appreciates the kind of stories where things such as hunger, boredom and generally human frailties are part of the obstacles that needs to be overcome - but are able to engage and solve them through free-form roleplaying. The second type is the one that also appreciates these things to be part of their stories, but requires or appreciates a system to help them. I think you have described yourself as belonging to this groiup? The third group then is the one that doesn't at all appreciate stories where hunger, boredom and other frailties are an issue.

Your morale system would be welcomed by the second group, despised by the third and most not appreciated by the first. So if you are targeting a larger group of players with a system, you need to evaluate how many belong in either group, as an absence of rules would work for two groups out of three, whereas their presence only be helpful for one.

Something to consider if you're targeting a larger player base.

On [b]social mechanics[/]:

I really would like to make an essay-length post now, but I fear it's too late and there is too little time before sleep beckons me.

However, I have always found the topic of social game mechanics to be intriguing. Too often I feel people are merely arguing, or discussing, the surface points. Therefore, it often becomes more of a back-and-forth of arguments which fails to reach the core issues, or the core values.

So, let's start from the very beginning (a very good place to start). Why do we even have rules in the first place?

Well, for most people, having some form of "neutral" arbiter if certain actions succeed or fail is simply more enjoyable than free-forming everything. There is tension and excitement in uncertainty. It's also quite evident from the amount of rule-books bought by people that this is an idea shared by many.

For some reason however, game mechanics that are meant to resolve social actions are much more prone to be disliked by people compared to those resolving physical or even mental actions. More often then not, social game mechanics turn out to be unsatisfactory. Why is this?

Before I continue with this question, I will question whether we actually need social game mechanics at all.

Someone mentioned having fights be resolved by actual stick sword-fighting instead of dice. Why don't we do that? To me, the answer is "it isn't very practical". Most physical actions engaged in a roleplaying game can't actually be performed easily, or at all, in real life. We can't fight dragons. It's impractical to find a large castle wall to climb it. It can be expensive to locate a real dungeon, set up traps there, and have your players explore it. It is much much easier to perform these actions in our imagination rather than actually doing them physically. I think it's very clear that we thus need rules for this. We can't do these actions for real, we need imagination and therefore rules.

Social actions are very different than this though. We actually can, quite easily, talked with each other around a roleplaying table. It is one of the few things we can easily do, unlike riding a horse, climbing a cliff or fighting a dragon. It is thus easier to make a case that you don't really need rules for this to the same extent you do physical actions.

However, the usual argument that follows is "but I want my character to be better at talking with people than I am!". I can not dismiss this completely. It is a fully valid power fantasy ideal, and I understand how it may be hard to find a GM which will simply apply a "filter" to everything you say and free-form your crude attempts at persuasion to be more successful than your real-life silver-tongued friend's.

Unfortunately I, and many others with me, still like to include social interaction acting in your games. I prefer to speak as my characters would. It helps me immerse myself, both in the world and the character. Simply describing every social interaction as "I talk to NPC X and ask him Y" would be unsatisfactory.

I am not trying to make a case that "acting is roleplaying", so please don't give me that strawman. It simply feels better for me, it aids in immersion and helps me feel more as though the people I talk to are "real".

I think a comparison with books is quite valid here. I don't think I have read any book that reduces all dialogue to "he said a romantic comment to his paramour" or the like. Dialogue is written down word for word, line for line, identical to what the characters actually say. Why is this? I think it isn't by some random chance, that books simply have missed that they could just skip it. I think it helps us, the readers, to feel that the characters are more "real". It does add something to the narrative. So too in a RPG (in my opinion).

So, to conclude this part of the discussion. You can either enjoy "real" dialogue, or "acting", in which case social mechanics need to take this into account, or it can be a completely unnecessary part of your experience, in which case social mechanics shouldn't be difficult to implement. Just decide on a level of abstraction, set your skills and target difficulties and that's that.

Assuming the social mechanics still need to allow for social interaction to be a part of the game, I see two ways one can do it.

1) Interaction first - roll second.

2) Roll first - interaction second.

The first type of game is one where you let players interact with the NPCs, and then only call in rolls when you are uncertain of how well their deception / persuasion / seduction / intimidation should work. This has the advantage that players feel as though what they say to have an effect on the outcome. It's sort of the same as allowing for player strategic decision in combat, even though the actual swing of the weapon is resolved by die (as opposed to having players roll their characters "tactic" skill and the GM telling them exactly what their characters do). The disadvantage with this type of system is that it can still allow for very socially-apt players to by-pass much of their characters' lack of skill.

The second type of game is one where you first roll to see what the outcome of the social interaction will be, and then have your players act it out. The advantage is, obviously, that it clearly rewards character skill only. The disadvantage is that it can be hard, even almost impossible, for a socially inept player to successfully "act out" an awesome persuasion attempt. Especially under pressure of the die rolls. For the first type of system, at least they can make an attempt and even if it isn't very good, can still turn out to be successful. At least for me with the second system, it can often be hard to "act out" an interaction where you already know the result. Suddenly you have a script to follow, and your skills might not be enough to really "live up to" the character's.

Unfortunately I need to stop here and continue some other day with another big issue with social mechanics; the fact that it actually is very hard to convince anyone of anything they don't already believe. But so far, is there anything in core assumptions regarding social mechanics and the three ways they can be implemented (act first, act second, act never) that I missed? Please correct me if my thinking is flawed, before I move on to the next "level" of problems.

Floret

2016-12-27, 07:22 PM

In the interest of Post length, I am experimenting with putting the quotes in Spoilertags, to not cut out anything. There is nothing in the tags other than the quotes. You have been warned.

So, let's start from the very beginning (a very good place to start). Why do we even have rules in the first place?

Well, for most people, having some form of "neutral" arbiter if certain actions succeed or fail is simply more enjoyable than free-forming everything. There is tension and excitement in uncertainty. It's also quite evident from the amount of rule-books bought by people that this is an idea shared by many.

For some reason however, game mechanics that are meant to resolve social actions are much more prone to be disliked by people compared to those resolving physical or even mental actions. More often then not, social game mechanics turn out to be unsatisfactory. Why is this?

Before I continue with this question, I will question whether we actually need social game mechanics at all.

Little argument here from me - and a very definitive answer of "no" to the question, though I do find it rather irrelevant, given the larger picture. Sure, we don't NEED rules, but we don't actually need rules for anything specific, as the existence and working of free-form presents. So it is from my perspective somewhat pointless to ask.

Although, one argument: "More often then not" I cannot quite support. I have yet to see a system that actively turned me off using its social mechanics. I find some systems better than others (FATE over Dark Eye, for example), but I haven't been actively turned off. Though this might be because of my tolerance, since some of the systems I have played include "Roll to convince/Roll to resist/Okay, he's convinced", basically "winner takes all" systems, and I am generally fine with that. (Though I do tend to play it more nuanced depending on HOW well the roll went.)

Someone mentioned having fights be resolved by actual stick sword-fighting instead of dice. Why don't we do that? To me, the answer is "it isn't very practical". Most physical actions engaged in a roleplaying game can't actually be performed easily, or at all, in real life. We can't fight dragons. It's impractical to find a large castle wall to climb it. It can be expensive to locate a real dungeon, set up traps there, and have your players explore it. It is much much easier to perform these actions in our imagination rather than actually doing them physically. I think it's very clear that we thus need rules for this. We can't do these actions for real, we need imagination and therefore rules.

Social actions are very different than this though. We actually can, quite easily, talked with each other around a roleplaying table. It is one of the few things we can easily do, unlike riding a horse, climbing a cliff or fighting a dragon. It is thus easier to make a case that you don't really need rules for this to the same extent you do physical actions.

However, the usual argument that follows is "but I want my character to be better at talking with people than I am!". I can not dismiss this completely. It is a fully valid power fantasy ideal, and I understand how it may be hard to find a GM which will simply apply a "filter" to everything you say and free-form your crude attempts at persuasion to be more successful than your real-life silver-tongued friend's.

There was a second argument (and a third) brought forward rather prominently in this thread:
Namely, that while we can talk with each other, that isn't really equivalent to what the characters are doing in-world. While actually scaling a wall is, well, actually scaling a wall, talking as your character around the table really isn't you character talking at the city gates to get past the guard. The situation you are in is, while it might seem the same at a surface level (Both are talking), not actually the same.

To go back to the now probably tired sweettalking: If one is using their attractiveness and charm to distract someone to make them more willing to do what you want because they can't think straight? Great! But... you're not gonna get your player to feel that attraction and arousal. So suddenly their character is affected by something they are not, which influences their characters thinking and talking - but... it doesn't, not in the same way, because the player isn't feeling it (I mean, I could go and MAKE my players feel it, but, uhm, no.)

What this was supposed to illustrate: Despite technically the same actions being performed (Opening your mouth and pressing out words), the circumstances this action is performed under are so fundamentally different in both cases, that the argument of "but we CAN do this like in the world without much effort" seems... ridiculous, on a certain level. If that approximation is enough for you - great! More power to you, everyone should play the way they want. But to the argument "It is one of the things we can easily do" I can just say... No. No, we really can't.

The third argument, funnily enough from the side being against social mechanics, but I can turn it around: It is a fundamentally different experience. Walking through a dungeon with a torch physically in your hand (Bad idea. Use a lantern.), sword in the other trying to spot the trapsj ust is'nt hearing the atmosphere and situation being described, maybe with background music put on by the GM, and rolling if you find them. (Though I have had BGM on a Larp for the final battle some time. Was quite interesting. I digress.) And just because you like one thing doesn't mean you'll like the others. Same goes for fighting, scaling walls and all that other jazz. I happen TO like both, but I like them for very different reasons - because they are different things.

And, same goes for social mechanics. Rolling dice to convince someone just... isn't talking your way through a guard, hoping your brain will catch up with your mouth, scrambling for every idea, trying to read him, and what you can glean from that to adapt your persuasion attempt. Rolling dice for rousing the fighters to action just isn't actually standing there, atop the palisades, having to come up with the words and shouting out your lungs so your voice carries them to everyone. And if you want to sit around a table, comfortable, and roll dice? The former might be more like what you want out of the situation.

[QUOTE=Lorsa;21535162]Unfortunately I, and many others with me, still like to include social interaction acting in your games. I prefer to speak as my characters would. It helps me immerse myself, both in the world and the character. Simply describing every social interaction as "I talk to NPC X and ask him Y" would be unsatisfactory.

I am not trying to make a case that "acting is roleplaying", so please don't give me that strawman. It simply feels better for me, it aids in immersion and helps me feel more as though the people I talk to are "real".

I think a comparison with books is quite valid here. I don't think I have read any book that reduces all dialogue to "he said a romantic comment to his paramour" or the like. Dialogue is written down word for word, line for line, identical to what the characters actually say. Why is this? I think it isn't by some random chance, that books simply have missed that they could just skip it. I think it helps us, the readers, to feel that the characters are more "real". It does add something to the narrative. So too in a RPG (in my opinion).

So, to conclude this part of the discussion. You can either enjoy "real" dialogue, or "acting", in which case social mechanics need to take this into account, or it can be a completely unnecessary part of your experience, in which case social mechanics shouldn't be difficult to implement. Just decide on a level of abstraction, set your skills and target difficulties and that's that.

Assuming the social mechanics still need to allow for social interaction to be a part of the game, I see two ways one can do it.

1) Interaction first - roll second.

2) Roll first - interaction second.

The first type of game is one where you let players interact with the NPCs, and then only call in rolls when you are uncertain of how well their deception / persuasion / seduction / intimidation should work. This has the advantage that players feel as though what they say to have an effect on the outcome. It's sort of the same as allowing for player strategic decision in combat, even though the actual swing of the weapon is resolved by die (as opposed to having players roll their characters "tactic" skill and the GM telling them exactly what their characters do). The disadvantage with this type of system is that it can still allow for very socially-apt players to by-pass much of their characters' lack of skill.

The second type of game is one where you first roll to see what the outcome of the social interaction will be, and then have your players act it out. The advantage is, obviously, that it clearly rewards character skill only. The disadvantage is that it can be hard, even almost impossible, for a socially inept player to successfully "act out" an awesome persuasion attempt. Especially under pressure of the die rolls. For the first type of system, at least they can make an attempt and even if it isn't very good, can still turn out to be successful. At least for me with the second system, it can often be hard to "act out" an interaction where you already know the result. Suddenly you have a script to follow, and your skills might not be enough to really "live up to" the character's.

I, too, like to talk as my character (Most of the time. Sometimes I just wanna get it over with. Sometimes I can't find the words and think my character would - so I just give rough outlines. Sometimes I switch back and forth for my NPCs. Back to topic.).
(Minor note: I have seen books gloss over unimportant dialogue. I couldn't name any specific example, but something akin to "They talked until well in the night, but nothing really came of it" I defnitely remember reading.)

So how do I solve this problem of "I like talking in character as well as rolling dice"? By doing 1). And, to be honest - I don't agree with your assessment of what the disadvantage is. Or rather, I can see where it might come from - but it is ENTIRELY a problem of wheighing the "talk input". If you use it to set the difficulty of the roll completely, or just modify a pre-thought number, what really matters is how much you let the talking influence. Or, an option you completely miss: If at all. There isn't actually any rule that one has to have the talking influence the rolls being made.

I personally handle it at my table in this way:
1. Talk, sure, and make whatever argument you want. (If you wanna roll a Lore skill to have me come up with an argument for you that your character knows but you don't, alright. I will do my best.)
2. At the end of your talk, you have to roll. And what exactly you said might influence the target numbers/difficulty/whatever the system has a bit, if it is really incessantly clever, but never by more than maybe 10%. (So, a +2 (maximum) in Dark Eye; in FATE MAYBE +1; -10 TN (at most) for L5R; something like that.) Most times, though, I handle the roll pretty independently of what was being said - how good you, as a player are at bringing your argument, means rather little for how good your character is at presenting it.

I can see 2) working - but I wouldn't really want it. There I actually agree with the problems.

Unfortunately I need to stop here and continue some other day with another big issue with social mechanics; the fact that it actually is very hard to convince anyone of anything they don't already believe. But so far, is there anything in core assumptions regarding social mechanics and the three ways they can be implemented (act first, act second, act never) that I missed? Please correct me if my thinking is flawed, before I move on to the next "level" of problems.

I hope I got all my problems with your arguments out there and haven't missed any. So far, I must say, I am not convinced :smallwink:
For convincing people of things they don't already believe - hard to do directly, yes. But that is why people call for more fleshed-out and varied social mechanics - to represent the ways in which people actually manage to make others "come around". Because those processes are a lot more varied (and easier to have be successfull) than just convincing people by direct argument.

Quertus

2016-12-28, 10:05 AM

Still Recovering from the holidays, but... if I've followed things correctly, I think there are several camps, one of which proposes that, by modeling a character's internals - or, at least, happiness - correctly, one can encourage better role-playing.

To which I can only respond, do you really think taking a morale penalty every time someone hugs me, and I only have one arm to hug them back; every time I get into a fight taking a morale penalty because I can contribute less; constantly suffering penalties to all my actions from the building morale penalties, let alone the lack of an arm... is going to make it easier to correctly roleplay sticking my arm in the creatures mouth?

No, mechanized happiness will simply provide one more way to game the system, one more way for the min maxed character to be stronger than the roleplayer.

Which has already been hinted at, when it was suggested to take genre appropriate pleasures like "killing things" and "getting rich". Or how much more min maxed "Virtual Segev" would be if his player had taken "loves to exercise" and "hates soda".

.....

Are happier people more productive? IME, happier people work more and think less. Which makes them more productive for certain types of work. But unhappy (and drugged) people tend to be better at, say, the creative arts, IME. Happy people tend to be less observant; unhappy people have problems with memory, so, IME, happiness-neutral individuals make the best witnesses. Happy people heal faster. I don't know if one can "spend" happiness to improve ones ability to do things, but I can easily spend anger* 100 times a day to - to put it in game terms - take a 15 as a standard action, even (especially) when I couldn't take a 10.

Trying to model the effects of happiness correctly is unlikely to produce a satisfactory model in an RPG, but could be fun for the sake of discussion.

* some restrictions apply. See individual actions for details. Anger not available in all locales.

.....

Imagine if D&D had been a "Padded Weapons Game". Then Someone came along with the concept of a diced combat simulator. Yes, this would separate player skill from character skill (somewhat), but billing it as an aid to padded weapons combat is an obvious misnomer.

People seem to be focusing on when the rules would go along with them role-playing their character, and ignoring the fact that the rules will, at times, go against them playing their character. And this will happen more often the more complex and realistic the character, and more often the less complex and more playable the rules.

.....

Jumping back a good bit in the conversation, I very explicitly don't reduce my characters to a few simple personality traits - I very much don't want to write my character's personality down. Ever.

Because what I know about my character is their history, that which informs their decisions and personality.

Let's look at one character - we'll call him "Bruce". If I had to describe his personality in a couple of words, I guess I'd pick "violence vigilante". But even with a mild code vs killing, and a very strong code vs guns, I'm sure someone who knows the character could point out that I've come nowhere close to explaining his personality. It's the fact that his parents were murdered in front of him - by a mugger with a gun - that is the defining moment of his career. That history is far more informative and far richer than those few, dry words could ever be.

So, for conversational expediency, I'll describe Quertus as "verbose academia", but the personality behind such generalizations is far more complex, and is informed by the entirety of the character's experience.

Oddly, it was that post that got me to take a deeper look at Scion and confirm that it's absolutely not something I'd be interested in.

The whole idea of encouraging or enforcing "narrative causality", instead of doing everything possible to avoid the contrivances and cliches and tropes thereof... ugh.

I'd think having an in game reason to fight against narrative causality would be right up your alley :smalltongue:

I am sorry for having been missing from this thread for a while now. I was very busy at work, and then there is Christmas celebration and traveling to visit family. Hopefully the discussion hasn't been suffering from my absence. Unfortunately I do not have the time the fully catch up on everything that has been said, so my comments may be a bit off from the current turn of conversation. I did promise to write something about social mechanics though, so that's what I will do.

First however, I will make a quick remark to Segev.

It will be interesting to see what your morale system will look like once it's been developed a bit more. Yesterday during a session I found at least three separate times when I would've asked the players to spend morale points in order to go through with an action, had a system been in use.

I do see three types of generic groups though (as far as your system is concerned).

The first type is the one that appreciates the kind of stories where things such as hunger, boredom and generally human frailties are part of the obstacles that needs to be overcome - but are able to engage and solve them through free-form roleplaying. The second type is the one that also appreciates these things to be part of their stories, but requires or appreciates a system to help them. I think you have described yourself as belonging to this groiup? The third group then is the one that doesn't at all appreciate stories where hunger, boredom and other frailties are an issue.

Your morale system would be welcomed by the second group, despised by the third and most not appreciated by the first. So if you are targeting a larger group of players with a system, you need to evaluate how many belong in either group, as an absence of rules would work for two groups out of three, whereas their presence only be helpful for one.

Something to consider if you're targeting a larger player base.

On [b]social mechanics[/]:

I really would like to make an essay-length post now, but I fear it's too late and there is too little time before sleep beckons me.

However, I have always found the topic of social game mechanics to be intriguing. Too often I feel people are merely arguing, or discussing, the surface points. Therefore, it often becomes more of a back-and-forth of arguments which fails to reach the core issues, or the core values.

So, let's start from the very beginning (a very good place to start). Why do we even have rules in the first place?

Well, for most people, having some form of "neutral" arbiter if certain actions succeed or fail is simply more enjoyable than free-forming everything. There is tension and excitement in uncertainty. It's also quite evident from the amount of rule-books bought by people that this is an idea shared by many.

For some reason however, game mechanics that are meant to resolve social actions are much more prone to be disliked by people compared to those resolving physical or even mental actions. More often then not, social game mechanics turn out to be unsatisfactory. Why is this?

Before I continue with this question, I will question whether we actually need social game mechanics at all.

Someone mentioned having fights be resolved by actual stick sword-fighting instead of dice. Why don't we do that? To me, the answer is "it isn't very practical". Most physical actions engaged in a roleplaying game can't actually be performed easily, or at all, in real life. We can't fight dragons. It's impractical to find a large castle wall to climb it. It can be expensive to locate a real dungeon, set up traps there, and have your players explore it. It is much much easier to perform these actions in our imagination rather than actually doing them physically. I think it's very clear that we thus need rules for this. We can't do these actions for real, we need imagination and therefore rules.

Social actions are very different than this though. We actually can, quite easily, talked with each other around a roleplaying table. It is one of the few things we can easily do, unlike riding a horse, climbing a cliff or fighting a dragon. It is thus easier to make a case that you don't really need rules for this to the same extent you do physical actions.

However, the usual argument that follows is "but I want my character to be better at talking with people than I am!". I can not dismiss this completely. It is a fully valid power fantasy ideal, and I understand how it may be hard to find a GM which will simply apply a "filter" to everything you say and free-form your crude attempts at persuasion to be more successful than your real-life silver-tongued friend's.

Unfortunately I, and many others with me, still like to include social interaction acting in your games. I prefer to speak as my characters would. It helps me immerse myself, both in the world and the character. Simply describing every social interaction as "I talk to NPC X and ask him Y" would be unsatisfactory.

I am not trying to make a case that "acting is roleplaying", so please don't give me that strawman. It simply feels better for me, it aids in immersion and helps me feel more as though the people I talk to are "real".

I think a comparison with books is quite valid here. I don't think I have read any book that reduces all dialogue to "he said a romantic comment to his paramour" or the like. Dialogue is written down word for word, line for line, identical to what the characters actually say. Why is this? I think it isn't by some random chance, that books simply have missed that they could just skip it. I think it helps us, the readers, to feel that the characters are more "real". It does add something to the narrative. So too in a RPG (in my opinion).

So, to conclude this part of the discussion. You can either enjoy "real" dialogue, or "acting", in which case social mechanics need to take this into account, or it can be a completely unnecessary part of your experience, in which case social mechanics shouldn't be difficult to implement. Just decide on a level of abstraction, set your skills and target difficulties and that's that.

Assuming the social mechanics still need to allow for social interaction to be a part of the game, I see two ways one can do it.

1) Interaction first - roll second.

2) Roll first - interaction second.

The first type of game is one where you let players interact with the NPCs, and then only call in rolls when you are uncertain of how well their deception / persuasion / seduction / intimidation should work. This has the advantage that players feel as though what they say to have an effect on the outcome. It's sort of the same as allowing for player strategic decision in combat, even though the actual swing of the weapon is resolved by die (as opposed to having players roll their characters "tactic" skill and the GM telling them exactly what their characters do). The disadvantage with this type of system is that it can still allow for very socially-apt players to by-pass much of their characters' lack of skill.

The second type of game is one where you first roll to see what the outcome of the social interaction will be, and then have your players act it out. The advantage is, obviously, that it clearly rewards character skill only. The disadvantage is that it can be hard, even almost impossible, for a socially inept player to successfully "act out" an awesome persuasion attempt. Especially under pressure of the die rolls. For the first type of system, at least they can make an attempt and even if it isn't very good, can still turn out to be successful. At least for me with the second system, it can often be hard to "act out" an interaction where you already know the result. Suddenly you have a script to follow, and your skills might not be enough to really "live up to" the character's.

Unfortunately I need to stop here and continue some other day with another big issue with social mechanics; the fact that it actually is very hard to convince anyone of anything they don't already believe. But so far, is there anything in core assumptions regarding social mechanics and the three ways they can be implemented (act first, act second, act never) that I missed? Please correct me if my thinking is flawed, before I move on to the next "level" of problems.

I should say a lot more, but let me address what I view as a false dichotomy. I have players say what their characters say - kind of - and a) modify it according to the characters social skill; b) have the NPC react according to the characters social skill. By which I mean, NPCs will readily take offense to things said by low Chr characters, but merely be amused by or point out more offensive things said by high Chr characters. I like to describe it as a vector: what the player says indicates the [i]direction[i], the character's social skill determines the distance / magnitude.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-28, 11:31 AM

Floret

2016-12-28, 01:24 PM

As per my last post, the spoiler tags contain quotes, and only quotes. Tag descriptors by myself.

If I've followed things correctly, I think there are several camps, one of which proposes that, by modeling a character's internals - or, at least, happiness - correctly, one can encourage better role-playing.

To which I can only respond, do you really think taking a morale penalty every time someone hugs me, and I only have one arm to hug them back; every time I get into a fight taking a morale penalty because I can contribute less; constantly suffering penalties to all my actions from the building morale penalties, let alone the lack of an arm... is going to make it easier to correctly roleplay sticking my arm in the creatures mouth?

No, mechanized happiness will simply provide one more way to game the system, one more way for the min maxed character to be stronger than the roleplayer.

Which has already been hinted at, when it was suggested to take genre appropriate pleasures like "killing things" and "getting rich". Or how much more min maxed "Virtual Segev" would be if his player had taken "loves to exercise" and "hates soda".

I am unsure where your example draws its specifics from - who exactly argued to penalize a character that has lost an arm for being hugged? Or do you just think that it would be realistic? I'd think something like the opposite would be closer to the things suggested - some form of moral gain from sticking it in the beasts mouth, to "offset" loosing your arm. I don't particularly think that morale can or should offset this completely, but it would be closer to any argument I have seen actually brought forward.

And... Sure, for some people it won't help. For others it might. Segev has repeatedly stated that it would help him (iirc? Both argument as well as pronoun), and I think having some representation of WHY my character would do it other than "it's just what they would do" would help myself as well. It can be exploited. But... so can every rule, and even the absence of rules.
(I will note that yes, just because we SAY it would help us, and think it will, it might not actually do that in practice. That would have to be tested. But giving us the impression that it does might just be enough :smalltongue:. And contrary to the few times I actually saw this sort of disconnect working, I have not noticed it yet in this sort of situation.)

Are happier people more productive? IME, happier people work more and think less. Which makes them more productive for certain types of work. But unhappy (and drugged) people tend to be better at, say, the creative arts, IME. Happy people tend to be less observant; unhappy people have problems with memory, so, IME, happiness-neutral individuals make the best witnesses. Happy people heal faster. I don't know if one can "spend" happiness to improve ones ability to do things, but I can easily spend anger* 100 times a day to - to put it in game terms - take a 15 as a standard action, even (especially) when I couldn't take a 10.

Trying to model the effects of happiness correctly is unlikely to produce a satisfactory model in an RPG, but could be fun for the sake of discussion.

* some restrictions apply. See individual actions for details. Anger not available in all locales.

On the creative arts thing: Bull****. They produce different art, sure, but better or more art? Nah. (Anecdotal: Being happy makes me WAY more likely to do anything, INCLUDING creative work.) Sorry if I sound harsh, but the argument of "depressed artists are better artists" is just so tired and can even be quite damaging to people. Art can help you make meaning of your unhappiness, sure, but unhappiness isn't the ultimate driving factor behind creativity that it is sometimes - and far too often - made out to be. The best art arises from practise - and, guess what, doing more makes you get practise, and one does more when happy.

The other question that arises is: What exactly would you describe as doing it "correctly"? An accurate representation of the intricate workings of it IRL?
Then, yeah, probably not gonna produce something satisfying. Or... maybe it would. For a certain crowd of hyper-simulationists. Not that I would count myself amongst them, but they might dig it.
But at least some people just want a system that is fun to use, has some impact, and models it "close enough" to reality. How close it has to be for that to qualify will vary, but I don't think such a system would necessarily need to be 100% accurate, as long as it feels good to use.

On a sidenote: I personally don't think anyone called for "happiness" to be spendable, but one might, sure. But I also don't think that one can spend anger in such a way either. Can you really get angry at will? And does it really help, for anything other than punching really, really hard? Because one of the best lessons on fighting I ever got was "don't get angry, stay calm, stay focussed" (paraphrased from decade-old memory). And boy am I more effective when I can abide by it. Adrenaline can be useful, but it can also be very, very hindering. Now it might get you to stop pulling your punches, and actually hurt people. But there are different ways to achieve that state of mind - not that it is necessarily good to be there.
That is not to say that an RPG can't MODEL anger being used in that way - sure, might be a fun idea! But, it will be disconnected from modelling reality accurately. (But so what, if it isn't what one is interested in.)

Imagine if D&D had been a "Padded Weapons Game". Then Someone came along with the concept of a diced combat simulator. Yes, this would separate player skill from character skill (somewhat), but billing it as an aid to padded weapons combat is an obvious misnomer.

People seem to be focusing on when the rules would go along with them role-playing their character, and ignoring the fact that the rules will, at times, go against them playing their character. And this will happen more often the more complex and realistic the character, and more often the less complex and more playable the rules.

I mean, but we have been over this example a lot of times. And we aren't, I think, really arguing with the term "Role-playing aids" anymore, and many of us don't want "role-playing rules" as merely to portray these things because they can be fun, not because they are necessarily useful for aiding anyone. Though they might do that as well.

The focus on the terminology, here, leads me to believe that you are alluding to DnD being a "role-playing game" and those things "Role playing rules". But, here again, inconsistent terminology rears its ugly head: Both of these "Role-playing" terms don't mean the same thing. The first is much more broader than the second. If the second was encompassing the same spectrum, EVERY rule in DnD would be a Role-playing rule, because everything is a rule for Role playing games.
So arguing that these rules are out of place because they take the "role-playing" out of "Role-playing games", as I feel is an underlying assumption of the statement, kind of misses the point as it conflates very different definitions of the term.

Also: Will the rules go against people playing their character? They could, if they are constructed in a way of "you must behave this way", but none of the proposed ones actually are - merely providing incentives for certain decisions, always with an "out".
That more "realistic" and "complex" people more often go against their core defining features... I dunno. I feel like it conflates "complex" with "contradictory", which... doesn't really have to be the case? And if you want your character to have contradicting natures, there still are the aforementioned "outs".

Jumping back a good bit in the conversation, I very explicitly don't reduce my characters to a few simple personality traits - I very much don't want to write my character's personality down. Ever.

Because what I know about my character is their history, that which informs their decisions and personality.

Let's look at one character - we'll call him "Bruce". If I had to describe his personality in a couple of words, I guess I'd pick "violence vigilante". But even with a mild code vs killing, and a very strong code vs guns, I'm sure someone who knows the character could point out that I've come nowhere close to explaining his personality. It's the fact that his parents were murdered in front of him - by a mugger with a gun - that is the defining moment of his career. That history is far more informative and far richer than those few, dry words could ever be.

So, for conversational expediency, I'll describe Quertus as "verbose academia", but the personality behind such generalizations is far more complex, and is informed by the entirety of the character's experience.

Yaknow what? I'm gonna challenge you on that. That history, tells us much, much less. It tells us specifically one moment - formative, yes, tragic, sure - of his life. But that alone doesn't do anything. It doesn't tell us the consequences the character drew from the event. There is no universal truth to how you react to your parents being shot in front of you.
Imagine a gun-toting, ruthless killer. His parents were killed in front of him, and he took from it that violence will bring down everyone, and wealth doesn't matter. Guns do. Just needs to be someone different holding them.
Or a reclusive nerd, going outside as little as possible, with heavy PTSD, freezing up at the mere sight of a gun. Too deep to the terrors of that night sit.
Or a policeman. That something like this happens means there needs to be more law enforcement. Someone should have been there, and next time, someone will be and lock that mugger up before he can even get into that alley.
Or an utter hedonist, throwing his life away, because no matter how far you work yourself upwards, some idiot with a gun can just take it at a moments whim, so why bother? I could go on.

All of those are not Bruce, and quite far from him in personality. Even though they ALL share that one defining moment, that according to you tells us so much about their personality. Backstory is all nice and good in conjunction with a personality to EXPLAIN it, but it can never be more informative about who a character is, because people are more than the sum of their experiences. Few people will react to the same event identically, so just listing an event might as well tell us nothing at all.

Contrary to that? "Violent Vigilante with code vs. guns" tells me quite a bit about who the character is - or at least what he does. And it isn't even directly personality traits. And, sure, there will be more to a character than that. But so what? Noone actually claimed one COULD list every single aspect of a person with such terms - just that one would very well be able to hit the largest and most important ones.
Listing my character as "Ruthless hedonist" does nothing to erase their past in the jungles as a child soldier. Listing the core driving concept as "Freedom" does nothing to erase the PTSD and suicidality that they feel. Just because I word out the most formative aspects does not mean there is no depth there beyond those phrases.

I should say a lot more, but let me address what I view as a false dichotomy. I have players say what their characters say - kind of - and a) modify it according to the characters social skill; b) have the NPC react according to the characters social skill. By which I mean, NPCs will readily take offense to things said by low Chr characters, but merely be amused by or point out more offensive things said by high Chr characters. I like to describe it as a vector: what the player says indicates the [i]direction[i], the character's social skill determines the distance / magnitude.

With the difference of me specifically rolling on social skills, this sounds close to what I am doing, generally fun and workable. The one thing we agree on, it seems. :smallwink:

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-28, 05:55 PM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-28, 08:12 PM

Quick question about Lorsa's post:

Why are RP-related rules the only ones which need to justify their own existence?

No other rules need to, or are asked to justify themselves.

Justify combat rules. Do you NEED them?
Justify detailed item lists.
Justify Hit Points.
Justify Armor Class.

Explain why those are NEEDED and I'll explain why RP rules are needed.

To put my point very simply:
No rules are NEEDED.
"Do we need RP rules?" No. We don't need any rules. We just like them. We don't need to justify having systems for the sake of having more neat things to play with and do.
RP rules aren't like wifi on a toilet. They're not some extra extravagance with no point. They're just a neat thing people like.
Unless you can categorically justify every other RPG mechanic as NEEDED for an RPG to be an RPG, shove off with that balogna.

Well, we keep getting back to this.

Combat != social interaction != character "internals".

There's no reason that what works for one will work for the others.

There's no reason to assume that the same level of abstraction will work for all three.

Having satisfactory mechanics for one doesn't automatically imply that satisfactory mechanics exist for the others.

Finding the right scale, granularity, player-agency, etc, etc, etc, for one, doesn't mean that you'll find the same for the others.

Justifying one doesn't automatically justify others.

Invalidating one doesn't automatically invalidate the others.

Needing one doesn't automatically imply that others are needed.

Not needing one doesn't automatically imply that others are not needed.

Etc.

Quertus

2016-12-28, 09:29 PM

As per my last post, the spoiler tags contain quotes, and only quotes. Tag descriptors by myself.

I am unsure where your example draws its specifics from - who exactly argued to penalize a character that has lost an arm for being hugged? Or do you just think that it would be realistic?

I believe it would be realistic, at least for me. Don't get me wrong, "lefty" Scyvola (sp?) is one of my heroes, but that wouldn't stop me from "feeling" my sacrifice every time it came up. Perhaps other people are wired differently.

And "different people are wired differently" may itself be a big issue for at least my satisfaction with any proposed happiness simulator.

Unless, of course, it's meant to model reality worse than most RPG mechanics, and is purely a humorous, "in this game reality, people only gain happiness by getting drunk" or something. That would probably be fine.

... On thinking about it, I don't think people are generally wired differently than me in this regard. How many times have I seen someone pick the wrong car - in a video game or IRL - or buy the wrong thing (again, in a video game or IRL), and complain every time they suffer the disadvantage of their choice until they either restart the game, or sell / return the item, and buy the correct one.

So I'm guessing most everyone loses happiness whenever they suffer from the consequences of their decisions. So I'm not sure why it would be odd to think that I might do so, too.

I'd think something like the opposite would be closer to the things suggested - some form of moral gain from sticking it in the beasts mouth, to "offset" loosing your arm. I don't particularly think that morale can or should offset this completely, but it would be closer to any argument I have seen actually brought forward.

And that's why I'm bringing it up - proponents of such systems seem to be almost exclusively discussing how the system will sync with the way they want to roleplay their character, while ignoring the times when it will punish you. I'm much more concerned with the fail states than what it looks like when it's rewarding you.

And, IMO, sacrificing your arm is really gonna come back to bite you (pun intended).

And... Sure, for some people it won't help. For others it might. Segev has repeatedly stated that it would help him (iirc? Both argument as well as pronoun), and I think having some representation of WHY my character would do it other than "it's just what they would do" would help myself as well. It can be exploited. But... so can every rule, and even the absence of rules.

So, IIRC, the theory was, it would be easier to roleplay if we weren't punished for making suboptimal choices. The problem was that there was no mechanical reason not to make the optional choice.

The proposed solution of creating yet another vector of optimal vs suboptimal choices - both in game and at character creation - seems to me like it would not solve this problem, and would simple lead to players still having no mechanical reason not to make the optional choice.

Yes, sometimes, it's a choice between one mechanical benefit and another. Sometimes, it's have your cake and eat it, too. But even "choosing between different mechanical benefits" probably isn't something anyone would list as one of the things they look for in an RPG.

Personally, I'd rather the game be about interesting choices for the character than interesting mechanical choices. I'd rather focus on solving the problem at a more fundamental level than try to shoehorn in half-baked social / personality / happiness mechanics. And (almost) nobody wants fully-baked mechanics.

Can we get close enough to solve some problem / scratch some itch? For some of us, we obviously believe that the answer is no. Or even NJNHN. And, if we're generous, want the potential for fervent rejection of such systems figured in to any discussion; if we're less generous, consider going this route the path to the dark side, and detrimental to the hobby.

But exactly what itch are we trying to scratch?

We can't simulate human behavior / emotion / happiness at a level of realism that will make me happy without making the game too complex for anyone to be happy.

We can't balance out bad choices without invalidating the concept of making choices in the first place.

What can we do? And, perhaps more importantly, what are we trying to do?

Because, I think, the problem of "encourage role-playing in someone who only makes optional choices" can only be solved by only presenting them with choices with equally optimal options, where the role-playing is in which of those equally optimal options they choose.

But that's not really the problem we're trying to solve, is it?

On the creative arts thing: Bull****. They produce different art, sure, but better or more art? Nah. (Anecdotal: Being happy makes me WAY more likely to do anything, INCLUDING creative work.) Sorry if I sound harsh, but the argument of "depressed artists are better artists" is just so tired and can even be quite damaging to people. Art can help you make meaning of your unhappiness, sure, but unhappiness isn't the ultimate driving factor behind creativity that it is sometimes - and far too often - made out to be. The best art arises from practise - and, guess what, doing more makes you get practise, and one does more when happy.

Fair enough. Commonly held belief, backed by my own personal experience in that almost all my favorite artists are known for / have admitted to depression and/or drugs... but not a universal truth.

Still seems likely enough that I submit it for consideration in any potential happiness model, either specifically, or in the general form that unhappiness may well provide bonuses to certain rolls. As another example, necessity is the mother of invention.

Of course, if the significant part is that I take more pleasure in the art of the depressed / drugged, well, that's probably more complicated than any happiness system is likely to emulate. :smalltongue:

On a sidenote: I personally don't think anyone called for "happiness" to be spendable, but one might, sure. But I also don't think that one can spend anger in such a way either. Can you really get angry at will? And does it really help, for anything other than punching really, really hard? Because one of the best lessons on fighting I ever got was "don't get angry, stay calm, stay focussed" (paraphrased from decade-old memory). And boy am I more effective when I can abide by it. Adrenaline can be useful, but it can also be very, very hindering. Now it might get you to stop pulling your punches, and actually hurt people. But there are different ways to achieve that state of mind - not that it is necessarily good to be there.
That is not to say that an RPG can't MODEL anger being used in that way - sure, might be a fun idea! But, it will be disconnected from modelling reality accurately. (But so what, if it isn't what one is interested in.)

Perhaps I conflated proposed systems.

Can I get angry at will? Shoving physical objects into place? Absolutely. I'm good at getting angry at will. I've worked very hard to become so. Probably after someone commented that there are recliners that are less laid back than me.

Just another example of how mechanics are likely to irritate me when they model me poorly, because no-one even considered making the model work for that case.

Also: Will the rules go against people playing their character? They could, if they are constructed in a way of "you must behave this way", but none of the proposed ones actually are - merely providing incentives for certain decisions, always with an "out".
That more "realistic" and "complex" people more often go against their core defining features... I dunno. I feel like it conflates "complex" with "contradictory", which... doesn't really have to be the case? And if you want your character to have contradicting natures, there still are the aforementioned "outs".

I tried to write out a detailed reply, but... the short of it is, my core features come up in very little of my decision making. So, which of my other, often conflicting, non-core traits will win out in any given decision certainly makes predicting my behavior complex.

And, if you try to model my personality with just a small fraction of those motivations / behaviors / features - say, a mere hundred of them - I'm fairly confident that you'd find the system punishing me all the time for acting against the things I supposedly care about.

Yaknow what? I'm gonna challenge you on that. That history, tells us much, much less.

Fair enough. The entirety of Bruce's history might inform us of his personality by example, but the single incident is, obviously, inadequate.

Which helps explain why I make extended backstory, and prefer characters with extensive play over new characters.

jayem

2016-12-29, 04:44 AM

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-29, 09:34 AM

And that's why I'm bringing it up - proponents of such systems seem to be almost exclusively discussing how the system will sync with the way they want to roleplay their character, while ignoring the times when it will punish you. I'm much more concerned with the fail states than what it looks like when it's rewarding you.

It is my life experience that human beings are bad at seeing the drawbacks of something they desire.

And that those who try to point those drawbacks out tend to be greeted coldly.

Talakeal

2016-12-29, 05:28 PM

I have been thinking a lot about this thread over the past few days and I came to a conclusion; a lot of the arguments I am seeing are red herrings / false equivalencies.

When you play a (traditional) RPG you get to decide what your character does. You describe in it in as much as little detail as you like. You don't have to act it out. You don't determine success. You just determine what your character does.

Talking about "boffer combat" or "decided to automatically hit without a roll" are not the same thing as deciding what your character does in a given situation.

Do you actually require people to act out everything they do during the "talkie bits"? I sure don't, nor does any player I have ever seen. I don't act out facial expressions, I don't yell when my character raises their voice, I don't sit on the DM's lap when I am trying to flirt with an NPC, I don't go and pour myself a glass of wine when we are having a chat in a tavern, etc.

The core rule of all RPGs which I have played is the DM sets the scene, the players determine how their characters react to the scene, and the dice determine the outcome of anything that happens when the players interact with the scene that has an uncertain outcome.

This applies to every aspect of the game, be it talking, exploration, or combat.

You can act out more if you like, and you can go into varying levels of details, but on a fundamental level they are the same.

When you give the DM or the dice the power to determine how the player characters act you are fundamentally chipping away at the player's core role. And IF you ever did find a perfect set of "RP mechanics" the player might as well not even show up as they no longer have a role at the table beyond listening to the DM and robotically tossing dice.

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-29, 09:42 PM

Well, we keep getting back to this.

Combat != social interaction != character "internals".

There's no reason that what works for one will work for the others.

There's no reason to assume that the same level of abstraction will work for all three.

Having satisfactory mechanics for one doesn't automatically imply that satisfactory mechanics exist for the others.

Finding the right scale, granularity, player-agency, etc, etc, etc, for one, doesn't mean that you'll find the same for the others.
None of this is my point.

Justifying one doesn't automatically justify others.

True. But none can be universally justified so this is a moot point.

Invalidating one doesn't automatically invalidate the others.

True. But none can be universally invalidated so this is a moot point.

Needing one doesn't automatically imply that others are needed.

Not needing one doesn't automatically imply that others are not needed.

Each must be proven needful in their own right. Yes.

This has not occurred for any other mechanic. Nor has it been ASKED of any other mechanics.

I am now asking.

Why is a combat mechanic NEEDED?

(Please note that this is not an appeal to the equivalence of combat and social mechanics. Only asking the same question of both.)

It is my life experience that human beings are bad at seeing the drawbacks of something they desire.

And that those who try to point those drawbacks out tend to be greeted coldly.

Most of us have openly admitted to the drawbacks. Please don't paint the rest of the discussors in an untrue light.

For the most part the argument is, as far as I've seen,
"Me liking it is enough reason for me to play with said systems."
And/or
"These systems are not universally a bad thing as evidenced by my positive experiences."

The idea that RP rules are flawless, or attempts to minimize or ignore those faults have been few and far between. What has mostly occurred is the discussion of various ways RP mechanics might theoretically or actually do function in ways that accomplish certain goals.

Goals and rules you are free to disagree with, dislike, or choose not to play with due to them not meshing with you.

But I get to play with those rules because I like them. And "because I like them" is sufficient reason for them to be around.

Segev

2016-12-30, 10:03 PM

All of which is built around a very specific and not universally accepted model of the human mind and human behavior.I'm not sure that's entirely relevant, as the question is more, "is it believable?" and "does it help weight choices that should have meaning to your character but don't have mechanical meaning without this?"

It is my life experience that human beings are bad at seeing the drawbacks of something they desire.

And that those who try to point those drawbacks out tend to be greeted coldly.Indeed. And yet, if you're NOT your PC, if you're sitting comfortably at the gaming table, you can clearly see the drawbacks because you are not feeling the desires of your character. (Again, this is a generic "you.") So you can see those drawbacks where your character shouldn't, by Max_Killjoy's description here.

It's like games that attempt to bake morality into the rules... it works only so long as all the players agree with or at least tolerate that moral model.I would like to take a moment to make sure we're not conflating "morals" and "morale," here. I know Max_Killjoy probably isn't, but a couple of posts that followed this one seemed to be referring to the "morale points" I had been discussing as "moral points," and I want to make sure the difference is understood.

"Morals" are "what is right or wrong" (or at least, what a particular moral system says is such). "Morale" is "general good feeling and confidence." (At least, that's my understanding of it. I have not looked it up in a dictionary recently. It is roughly in this sense that, say, D&D 3.5 uses "morale bonuses" to various rolls and such.

Another risk, related to above -- the game designers start deciding what should and should not be a possible character personality.Maybe, but that's not really relevant to the system I propose, as I have suggested that this should be relatively flexible.

I thought that was the type of system Segev was trying to avoid.

If you can just choose whatever vices you want then we haven't actually solved the problem. The only difference is that instead of playing as an optimized murder hobo and feeling bad about it during the game you will simply choose "killing enemies" and "getting rich" and "succeeding at my goals" as character traits for the same outcome.Actually, these would have their own issues.

As somebody else points out in another post, this allows the avoidance of double-speak, if nothing else. A character who is explicitly a murder-hobo by nature and preference doesn't turn on his "emotions" for other things when it's convenient. He is this driven, this paranoid. And social characters can use that, as we bring other pieces together with this subsystem. Even if they're not using it to directly manipulate the murder-hobo, the fact that he's a murder-hobo becomes painfully obvious to others and can't be denied.

Add in some blanket rules that all characters have an innate benefit from being more comfortable, and building your PC to explicitly deny this requires expending effort and character traits on reducing the benefit from "high comfort living" (or whatever) and so enjoying the rough life that it overcomes the natural morale-draining effects of destitute living. It would begin to become counter-productive in some ways.

First however, I will make a quick remark to Segev.

It will be interesting to see what your morale system will look like once it's been developed a bit more. Yesterday during a session I found at least three separate times when I would've asked the players to spend morale points in order to go through with an action, had a system been in use.*nod* I would expect such to come up fairly naturally a lot of the time in actual play.

I do see three types of generic groups though (as far as your system is concerned).

The first type is the one that appreciates the kind of stories where things such as hunger, boredom and generally human frailties are part of the obstacles that needs to be overcome - but are able to engage and solve them through free-form roleplaying. The second type is the one that also appreciates these things to be part of their stories, but requires or appreciates a system to help them. I think you have described yourself as belonging to this groiup? The third group then is the one that doesn't at all appreciate stories where hunger, boredom and other frailties are an issue.

Your morale system would be welcomed by the second group, despised by the third and most not appreciated by the first. So if you are targeting a larger group of players with a system, you need to evaluate how many belong in either group, as an absence of rules would work for two groups out of three, whereas their presence only be helpful for one.

Something to consider if you're targeting a larger player base.While I know I've used hunger and boredom as points, it is important to make sure we're not overly focusing on them. These shouldn't be things that come up so often that they distract from the focus of the game. They should be things that come up at - and I know Max_Killjoy will hate the use of this term, but I hope he'll bear with me here as I'm not using it to justify "narrative mechanics" - appropriately dramatic moments.

It's fair to assume that, under normal circumstances, hunger and boredom are ignorable from the players' perspective. Only when these things are suddenly pitted against something important enough to have mechanics representing it should they take any focus. Otherwise, it's as easy as marking off the rations or tracking whether you decided to spend some downtime on a luxurious party for a bigger morale bonus, or something.

If Armus is offered an awesome taco when he has literally nothing that could make eating it a bad idea, there is limited reason to do more than free-form it as a bit of fluff. Maybe as part of his downtime relaxation (so the morale boost is accounted for there, if applicable).Ideally, these mechanics would be relatively non-intrusive. To the kind of player who'd find them repugnant because they'd rather free-form it, it falls into the same category as bringing up the kind of player who can free-form combat being annoyed that they have to roll dice for that.

And no, Max_Killjoy, this isn't an unfair comparison; what parts of the game you want mechanics for is a relevant question. Social/morale mechanics need not be equivalent in all ways to combat mechanics for the "I don't want X mechanics" complaint to apply equally to both sets.

I am going to confine my examination of her post to the parts I quote; it's a good post, but my replies are going to focus here, because here's where I think I have some clarifications that make the most sense.

Unfortunately I, and many others with me, still like to include social interaction acting in your games. I prefer to speak as my characters would. It helps me immerse myself, both in the world and the character. Simply describing every social interaction as "I talk to NPC X and ask him Y" would be unsatisfactory.

I am not trying to make a case that "acting is roleplaying", so please don't give me that strawman. It simply feels better for me, it aids in immersion and helps me feel more as though the people I talk to are "real".

I think a comparison with books is quite valid here. I don't think I have read any book that reduces all dialogue to "he said a romantic comment to his paramour" or the like. Dialogue is written down word for word, line for line, identical to what the characters actually say. Why is this? I think it isn't by some random chance, that books simply have missed that they could just skip it. I think it helps us, the readers, to feel that the characters are more "real". It does add something to the narrative. So too in a RPG (in my opinion).

So, to conclude this part of the discussion. You can either enjoy "real" dialogue, or "acting", in which case social mechanics need to take this into account, or it can be a completely unnecessary part of your experience, in which case social mechanics shouldn't be difficult to implement. Just decide on a level of abstraction, set your skills and target difficulties and that's that.

Assuming the social mechanics still need to allow for social interaction to be a part of the game, I see two ways one can do it.I think mechanics do nothing to prevent the acting out of the speech. They do prevent Silver Tongue Player-dude's magnificent speech from allowing him to ignore that he's playing Boorish Bob the Barbarian, but I think we can agree that if Silver Tongue is putting his magnificent speech in Bob's mouth, he's not really acting or role-playing well as Bob.

In my experience, combat mechanics don't force players to say naught but "I attack him with my sword." Bad mechanics and/or DMs might encourage that (because they will make any description harder by adding skill checks not to fail), but plenty of D&D-esq mechanics allow for description of evocative action which are then reduced to a die roll to determine if it succeeds and what mechanical impact it has. There is some constraint, but that's of the same sort as "Bob's player shouldn't be making him speak like a courtesan."

So social mechanics can do similarly: play out what you want it to be, then translate it to a fitting roll to see if it's persuasive. Maybe he was more or less eloquent than his player made him sound when he acted it out. Maybe he hit on something that was near to the target's heart, or accidentally said something that reminded him of his hated brother-in-law.

To avoid quoting the bit about it (sorry, Lorsa; length), I'll just add that this makes an "interaction->roll->explanation" pattern as what I expect and prefer.

I personally handle it at my table in this way:
1. Talk, sure, and make whatever argument you want. (If you wanna roll a Lore skill to have me come up with an argument for you that your character knows but you don't, alright. I will do my best.)
2. At the end of your talk, you have to roll. And what exactly you said might influence the target numbers/difficulty/whatever the system has a bit, if it is really incessantly clever, but never by more than maybe 10%. (So, a +2 (maximum) in Dark Eye; in FATE MAYBE +1; -10 TN (at most) for L5R; something like that.) Most times, though, I handle the roll pretty independently of what was being said - how good you, as a player are at bringing your argument, means rather little for how good your character is at presenting it.

I can see 2) working - but I wouldn't really want it. There I actually agree with the problems.Indeed. My favorite approach I've seen to this is from Exalted. Describing your actions gets you "stunt dice," rated as 1, 2, or 3-die stunts. 1-die stunts are "you described it as something more than a mechanical action." 2-die stunts explicitly use (and may alter/add to) the environment; in social contexts, this includes utilizing things you know about the target or invoking emotional states. 3-die stunts are such amazing descriptions that there's basically no argument from anybody at the table that it was a 3-die stunt. They're typically once every few sessions events.

The idea here being that the stunt - the description, the role-play, the speech, whatever - is rated on how much it adds to the experience of the game as an RP event. And they offer some amount of bonus to the roll, but not so much that they dwarf the mechanics.

That was one of my concerns -- that some players will take full advantage of the rules the same way the take advantage of other existing rules, simply for the sake of gaining another advantage ("my character is going out carousing because I want to store up some "drama points" for the big fight tomorrow"), and while the external result may be more satisfying for those who want to encourage "character appropriate actions", it wouldn't be roleplaying (at least as I understand roleplaying)... and some players will continue to engage in the same roleplaying they were already engaging in, and if it conflicts with the "what your character should do here" of the mechanics, then mechanics be damned.
I...don't see this as a problem. If people are gaming it, they're at least gaming something that causes them to play a character more consistently, with the drives and motives and concerns of real people actually mattering over them being automatons. If they build automatons, then at least they've made the commitment to that kind of character, rather than it being a switch they flip between "when the mechanics matter" and "when the mechanics don't matter." (That switch-flipping is a clue the mechanics are hindering RP.)

It is a failure of the "RP mechanics" if the game is trying to get them to play a character they wouldn't have wanted to play. What I have proposed shouldn't cause that problem, but I confess that the incomplete nature of it means it's hard to really be certain just yet.

But at least some people just want a system that is fun to use, has some impact, and models it "close enough" to reality. How close it has to be for that to qualify will vary, but I don't think such a system would necessarily need to be 100% accurate, as long as it feels good to use.This is pretty much my position on it, and my design goal.

On a sidenote: I personally don't think anyone called for "happiness" to be spendable, but one might, sure. But I also don't think that one can spend anger in such a way either. Can you really get angry at will? And does it really help, for anything other than punching really, really hard? Because one of the best lessons on fighting I ever got was "don't get angry, stay calm, stay focussed" (paraphrased from decade-old memory). And boy am I more effective when I can abide by it. Adrenaline can be useful, but it can also be very, very hindering. Now it might get you to stop pulling your punches, and actually hurt people. But there are different ways to achieve that state of mind - not that it is necessarily good to be there.To be fair, I did suggest that one way to make "morale points" desirable was to allow them to be expended on improving your rolls. You feel good and confident and can expend your focus and drive to DO THIS RIGHT. It leaves you a little "drained" afterwards (in that you have less morale than before). You can keep it up until you just don't have anything left in the tank, of course. But you'll eventually need to rest and recover. Relax, do something you enjoy, rebuild your reserves of morale.

That is not to say that an RPG can't MODEL anger being used in that way - sure, might be a fun idea! But, it will be disconnected from modelling reality accurately. (But so what, if it isn't what one is interested in.)"Rage" is actually a pool of expendable points in oWoD's Werewolf. Of course, it is a primal, almost mystical rage.

That history, tells us much, much less. It tells us specifically one moment - formative, yes, tragic, sure - of his life. But that alone doesn't do anything. It doesn't tell us the consequences the character drew from the event. There is no universal truth to how you react to your parents being shot in front of you.
Imagine a gun-toting, ruthless killer. His parents were killed in front of him, and he took from it that violence will bring down everyone, and wealth doesn't matter. Guns do. Just needs to be someone different holding them.
Or a reclusive nerd, going outside as little as possible, with heavy PTSD, freezing up at the mere sight of a gun. Too deep to the terrors of that night sit.
Or a policeman. That something like this happens means there needs to be more law enforcement. Someone should have been there, and next time, someone will be and lock that mugger up before he can even get into that alley.
Or an utter hedonist, throwing his life away, because no matter how far you work yourself upwards, some idiot with a gun can just take it at a moments whim, so why bother? I could go on.

All of those are not Bruce, and quite far from him in personality. Even though they ALL share that one defining moment, that according to you tells us so much about their personality. Backstory is all nice and good in conjunction with a personality to EXPLAIN it, but it can never be more informative about who a character is, because people are more than the sum of their experiences. Few people will react to the same event identically, so just listing an event might as well tell us nothing at all.

Contrary to that? "Violent Vigilante with code vs. guns" tells me quite a bit about who the character is - or at least what he does. And it isn't even directly personality traits. And, sure, there will be more to a character than that. But so what? Noone actually claimed one COULD list every single aspect of a person with such terms - just that one would very well be able to hit the largest and most important ones.
Listing my character as "Ruthless hedonist" does nothing to erase their past in the jungles as a child soldier. Listing the core driving concept as "Freedom" does nothing to erase the PTSD and suicidality that they feel. Just because I word out the most formative aspects does not mean there is no depth there beyond those phrases.I just wanted to quote this because it's an excellent point.

Simple, broad strokes descriptions can tell a lot about somebody. The key will be designing it to avoid making it a straight jacket. And to leave room for nuances to develop.

Floret

2016-12-30, 10:04 PM

I believe it would be realistic, at least for me. Don't get me wrong, "lefty" Scyvola (sp?) is one of my heroes, but that wouldn't stop me from "feeling" my sacrifice every time it came up. Perhaps other people are wired differently.

And "different people are wired differently" may itself be a big issue for at least my satisfaction with any proposed happiness simulator.

Unless, of course, it's meant to model reality worse than most RPG mechanics, and is purely a humorous, "in this game reality, people only gain happiness by getting drunk" or something. That would probably be fine.

... On thinking about it, I don't think people are generally wired differently than me in this regard. How many times have I seen someone pick the wrong car - in a video game or IRL - or buy the wrong thing (again, in a video game or IRL), and complain every time they suffer the disadvantage of their choice until they either restart the game, or sell / return the item, and buy the correct one.

So I'm guessing most everyone loses happiness whenever they suffer from the consequences of their decisions. So I'm not sure why it would be odd to think that I might do so, too.

And that's why I'm bringing it up - proponents of such systems seem to be almost exclusively discussing how the system will sync with the way they want to roleplay their character, while ignoring the times when it will punish you. I'm much more concerned with the fail states than what it looks like when it's rewarding you.

And, IMO, sacrificing your arm is really gonna come back to bite you (pun intended).

I mean, the "happiness simulator"/Morality system proposed just models the effects happiness has on people - and how you gain it, but with the very definitively discussed option of having "how you gain it" be different depending on personality, and determinable rather free-form.

Sure, sacrificing your arm would come with drawbacks. But I don't think getting sad everytime you hug someone is realistic - such things wear off if you get used to them. If the system is free enough, it will be able to present that adapting - and if a player deliberately plays slipping into depression, then that player seems to want to play such a thing, and why not accept that the system aids you in that. Such a character would likely then not be made for continued play.

On that "ignoring the times when it will punish you" - I don't think I quite understand what you are saying, to be honest. Loosing morale is an ingrained part of the idea of a morality scale. "Taking a morale hit" for making a tough choice was a thing from the start - and the idea would be, in this case, that the results of the tough choice (Choosing the world over the arm, in this case; or the evening of study over the bar visit) balance out the morale hit in the first place. If you constantly gain and cannot loose, then the whole thing looses its point. So I am not sure what exactly your criticism is aimed at.

So, IIRC, the theory was, it would be easier to roleplay if we weren't punished for making suboptimal choices. The problem was that there was no mechanical reason not to make the optional choice.

The proposed solution of creating yet another vector of optimal vs suboptimal choices - both in game and at character creation - seems to me like it would not solve this problem, and would simple lead to players still having no mechanical reason not to make the optional choice.

Yes, sometimes, it's a choice between one mechanical benefit and another. Sometimes, it's have your cake and eat it, too. But even "choosing between different mechanical benefits" probably isn't something anyone would list as one of the things they look for in an RPG.

The theory was that it would be easier to just go with a "suboptimal" choice for the sake of RP, when it becomes less suboptimal. Yes.

And... No, it would not create just another vector. It might, if badly designed, yes. But also, it is about "easing" a perceived sting for people who actually WANT to RP, but still feel tempted by mechanical optimalcy. They are not the sort of person to 100% optimize in the first place, and they would not design the character to go for perfect optimum. Yes, this is a rather middle-ground person being targeted. That is the point. Both "I already RP as much as I want" as well as "Who cares for RP"-attitudes would likely not benefit. It is only that middle ground of people WANTING RP but feeling themselves cutting back on it in favour of mechanics.

And... sign me up for "choosing between different mechanical benefits". I actively want ANY system I play to offer interesting mechanical choices for designing, building and developing (Over time) my characters. A system that allows me to choose between different, interesting mechanical benefits sounds great. (Sure, the choice between +1 STR/+1 CHA is boring and for most characters obvious, but if it is something more interesting? Between consistent or more risky but also higher potential, for example? (Like, +3 or +D6))

Personally, I'd rather the game be about interesting choices for the character than interesting mechanical choices. I'd rather focus on solving the problem at a more fundamental level than try to shoehorn in half-baked social / personality / happiness mechanics. And (almost) nobody wants fully-baked mechanics.

Can we get close enough to solve some problem / scratch some itch? For some of us, we obviously believe that the answer is no. Or even NJNHN. And, if we're generous, want the potential for fervent rejection of such systems figured in to any discussion; if we're less generous, consider going this route the path to the dark side, and detrimental to the hobby.

But exactly what itch are we trying to scratch?

We can't simulate human behavior / emotion / happiness at a level of realism that will make me happy without making the game too complex for anyone to be happy.

We can't balance out bad choices without invalidating the concept of making choices in the first place.

What can we do? And, perhaps more importantly, what are we trying to do?

Because, I think, the problem of "encourage role-playing in someone who only makes optional choices" can only be solved by only presenting them with choices with equally optimal options, where the role-playing is in which of those equally optimal options they choose.

But that's not really the problem we're trying to solve, is it?

No. That is indeed not the problem we are trying to solve. It is, as above "encourage Role-based decisions against mechanics in someone who generally likes roleplay, but is still tempted by mechanics".

Say, with the +1 CHA vs. +1 STR above. (Ignoring it was the example of "boring" then, it is also simpler and easier)

Now, say my character is somehow in her build reliant on strength. But I have, for flavour reasons, been playing her as a Casanova. The In-world choice is between some Fairy giving one of two things: A silver tongue, to always find the right words to get every woman to swoon; and iron tendons, to make it easy to lift any weapon. (It is late, forgive my examples) Now, for my character, this might be a tough choice. But for me, as a player? The strength actually makes her more effective at what I play her for, the charisma better at something the character lives for, but that I as a player consider a nice addition for flavour.

Or make it more extreme: She is also arrogant, and thinks her strength great enough. I, as a player, know that is not true. I can look at the character sheet. She, as a character, would never consider the tendons. But mechanically, it REALLY would be better to take them. I, as a player, feel tempted to do something that would be out of character for her. And with no "consolation price" for the silver tongue, other than to witness the GM playing girls swooning over my character (Which, really, while maybe nice, isn't all its cut out to be, even if the GM is really good at voices and acting), I would at least think if I could come up with a justification for still taking the tendons, while the "in-character" choice would be rather clear. To lessen that mechanical temptation in people who are generally interested in roleplaying. THAT is the problem some people and proposed mechanics would like to adress. To ease the sting.

As for itches it would scratch for me (Regardless of if it solves the problem above. I personally can understand the problem, but I am generally fine with it - I can justify pretty much anything, so why not. I actively like my author stance.), is simply having rules for personality, and having the characters internal state mean something for the game world. Because then you can use that to model effects you could not before.
Going insane as in Call of Cthulhu or the aforementioned Darkest Dungeon, the psychological horrors of a wartime setting, portraying emotional manipulators in a more meaningful way (really I love social characters and want to give them more playthings, and since what social characters DO is play around with emotions means one would have to model emotions in some way. And to model emotion and changing it, kinda puts personality on the table.), or having the fact that my character is a certain way mean something for the game in a mechanical way, seeing as I consider the mechanics not the map of the ingame world but rather closer to maybe a window into it. Or even the way we actually interact with it.

Fair enough. Commonly held belief, backed by my own personal experience in that almost all my favorite artists are known for / have admitted to depression and/or drugs... but not a universal truth.

Still seems likely enough that I submit it for consideration in any potential happiness model, either specifically, or in the general form that unhappiness may well provide bonuses to certain rolls. As another example, necessity is the mother of invention.

Of course, if the significant part is that I take more pleasure in the art of the depressed / drugged, well, that's probably more complicated than any happiness system is likely to emulate. :smalltongue:

(Note: This is getting rather off-topic, and also somewhat personal. You just kinda hit a trigger button of mine with that phrasing :smallwink:)

Meh. I wouldn't even call that a backing of the belief. Because, really, the moments someone with depression actually does their art is in the "good" phases, when there is some measure of hope. In the bad ones, the truly unhappy ones... one doesn't do much of anything, lest of all create art. So I would call it into question even then.
(Note, depression MIGHT work differently in other people but this is backed by numerous artist friends with depression as well as my own experiences with both subjects. One is more likely to produce art - because it is easier to get yourself to do something you actually want to for its own sake, rather than to achieve some goal behind it. I wanna write poems because poems, I wanna write my essays to get my degree, for example.
And if you barely have the energy to get out of bed, you go for the easiest things. And art, for artists, generally is amongst them. Not "finishing up and proofreading that novel" but "just write out the words" level. The first one would work again. More work that you can get yourself to do if there is no energy left in you to make breakfast.)

Drugs, on the other hand, just release **** into your brain that makes you generally happier - so would artificially increase the measure on the scale, and not be in any way proof of being "more productive with lower happiness".

Maybe the "depression art" would be better modelled by giving bonusses to people who once went below a certain threshold, but otherwise applying the same boni and mali as everywhere else. But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that being unhappy actively helps you with anything. Really, from my own experience, it just doesn't. And, yes, after much consideration, searching through every interaction I possibly remember, every friend I have and every ounce of psychological knowlege I have: I will stand by that generalization that this is a fundamental thing.
(For consideration: I am aware that brains work differently - sometimes fundamentally so, as maybe for people on the autism spectrum, with ADHD, bipolar people and other conditions. But I know people with all manner of mental "illnesses", and while they work... weirdly, sometimes, and I can't for the life of me understand some people, I can see that this one fact - being happy helps with doing things, being sad hinders doing things - holds universally true.)

Perhaps I conflated proposed systems.

Can I get angry at will? Shoving physical objects into place? Absolutely. I'm good at getting angry at will. I've worked very hard to become so. Probably after someone commented that there are recliners that are less laid back than me.

Just another example of how mechanics are likely to irritate me when they model me poorly, because no-one even considered making the model work for that case.

...that sounds like a case of "humanity is weirder than I thought" (And, really, I know my fair share of human weirdness. I mean, I Larp. It comes with the territory.) or a matter of miscommunication that we mean very different things when we say that.
In any case, while a woundrous power, I do not think it is something that really affects personality systems - really, it would be a "special power" a person has, that most systems would have to represent, outside of modelling personality as it effects decision making.

I mean, really, the "morality" system barely is a personality system anyways. It is only affected by it, due to personality influencing how you gain or loose morality, but not "personality" in and of itself.

Fair enough. The entirety of Bruce's history might inform us of his personality by example, but the single incident is, obviously, inadequate.

Which helps explain why I make extended backstory, and prefer characters with extensive play over new characters.

It's probably a 'both and' thing. (Though you could hide the personality things in the examples, or detail the backstory in the personality)

It might, through the actions of the character. Other than that, backstory does nothing to inform the personality of the character, only to explain the personality that you DO have determined otherwise. A list of "my life and what happened to me" might leave suggestions, but nothing definitive. The only thing that describes your personality other than, yaknow, describing your personality, is maybe your actions.

I would argue for a "both" thing, like jayem. I like to have backstory - though, really, to justify and explain the personality traits I do give my characters. If your character design doesn't work that way, sure, go your way! But describing personality traits will always be better at describing personality than any other thing, seeing as every other thing can only do it indirectly. Describing actions and "justifications" for the personality (As in, Backstory) helps to nuance and accentuate it, but it does nothing (or rather little) without at least an idea of what personality if you want to explain the personality to someone.

(And, really, if I ask who a character is, and get as response an extensive backstory, I will probably roll my eyes. Probably something personal, but I have just learned that for getting a feel of a character, writing extensive backstorys can almost be counter-productive. The thing with extensive play is something different - if you have already experienced a character, you know more about their details and nuances, cause you lived through them. I would argue this has very little to do with you knowing more of what happened to them, and everything with having more ACTIONS the character took, as well as a closer link to their personality through playing it.)

I tried to write out a detailed reply, but... the short of it is, my core features come up in very little of my decision making. So, which of my other, often conflicting, non-core traits will win out in any given decision certainly makes predicting my behavior complex.

And, if you try to model my personality with just a small fraction of those motivations / behaviors / features - say, a mere hundred of them - I'm fairly confident that you'd find the system punishing me all the time for acting against the things I supposedly care about.

Can I propose the theory that the core features do. It's just that when it's only a slow and notable decision when they are balanced (including missing or uncertain).
And that if you are aware of making the decision, that's when the game personality system (NOT A PREDICTOR OR SIMULATOR) should be presenting* balanced options or perhaps predicting any of these could happen.

*presenting isn't right.

I want to second this. I would argue that, if what you consider your "core features" don't come up in your decision making, either you just don't notice them (As Jayem suggests), or... they aren't actually your core features. Humans can be rather bad at self-assessment. For a character you design from the ground up, you sort of know them better than you do yourself, so that problem will be compensated a good bit.

Personally (half contra Floret but see later) I'd be fine (and said that) with that being difficult, and half the system 'punishing' you. You have just lost an arm, (if Fenris broke free and then Balder killed him with a sprig of mistletoe then there would be little upside). On the other hand (in the conventional story) you have saved the party from a fight that would have resulted in a total PK (and UK). Hel doesn't value morale points. You probably are already being rewarded.

If there really is no other gameplay reward to whatever your doing but it's in character, then you have to work on the other side. If you were doing it to save a unamed NPC (and you would) then that should be rewarded , if doing it for masochistic reasons that should be rewarded, if for thrill-seeking, the successful times should be rewarded.

In the same post you did bring up min-maxing. For what it's worth when I've suggested traits like that, it's when people have said that's the traits THEY WANT to role play. In my view they should be aimed to design to mostly balance out on average (or for it to be recognized as a challenge / or alternatively boring) and so that where a long situation favours min-maxing it should match the theme anyway.

And of course part of the proponents are saying the system (for some games) should acknowledge we are wired differently, (and that at the moment it doesn't to an even greater extent).

Oh, I don't know if this is actually contra me. I don't even want a system to "balance out" these things, I was just trying to correct what I saw was a misrepresentation. I really quite agree with most of what you say here.^^

None of this is my point.

True. But none can be universally justified so this is a moot point.

True. But none can be universally invalidated so this is a moot point.

Each must be proven needful in their own right. Yes.

This has not occurred for any other mechanic. Nor has it been ASKED of any other mechanics.

I am now asking.

Why is a combat mechanic NEEDED?

(Please note that this is not an appeal to the equivalence of combat and social mechanics. Only asking the same question of both.)

Most of us have openly admitted to the drawbacks. Please don't paint the rest of the discussors in an untrue light.

For the most part the argument is, as far as I've seen,
"Me liking it is enough reason for me to play with said systems."
And/or
"These systems are not universally a bad thing as evidenced by my positive experiences."

The idea that RP rules are flawless, or attempts to minimize or ignore those faults have been few and far between. What has mostly occurred is the discussion of various ways RP mechanics might theoretically or actually do function in ways that accomplish certain goals.

Goals and rules you are free to disagree with, dislike, or choose not to play with due to them not meshing with you.

But I get to play with those rules because I like them. And "because I like them" is sufficient reason for them to be around.

Yes. Yes to all of this. I will refrain from responding myself, since... this says all I would have wanted to say.

I have been thinking a lot about this thread over the past few days and I came to a conclusion; a lot of the arguments I am seeing are red herrings / false equivalencies.

When you play a (traditional) RPG you get to decide what your character does. You describe in it in as much as little detail as you like. You don't have to act it out. You don't determine success. You just determine what your character does.

Talking about "boffer combat" or "decided to automatically hit without a roll" are not the same thing as deciding what your character does in a given situation.

Do you actually require people to act out everything they do during the "talkie bits"? I sure don't, nor does any player I have ever seen. I don't act out facial expressions, I don't yell when my character raises their voice, I don't sit on the DM's lap when I am trying to flirt with an NPC, I don't go and pour myself a glass of wine when we are having a chat in a tavern, etc.

The core rule of all RPGs which I have played is the DM sets the scene, the players determine how their characters react to the scene, and the dice determine the outcome of anything that happens when the players interact with the scene that has an uncertain outcome.

This applies to every aspect of the game, be it talking, exploration, or combat.

You can act out more if you like, and you can go into varying levels of details, but on a fundamental level they are the same.

When you give the DM or the dice the power to determine how the player characters act you are fundamentally chipping away at the player's core role. And IF you ever did find a perfect set of "RP mechanics" the player might as well not even show up as they no longer have a role at the table beyond listening to the DM and robotically tossing dice.

yaknow what? I am going to agree with ALL of this, up until the last paragraph. Or rather, I even agree with the last paragraph, to be honest, if with the slight caveat of having little problem with the GM taking over in some minor ways the PCs - after all, if the PCs have 99% of the time control, they are still very much needed, and this doesn't go away just because the GM at one point tells a player how their character might feel about a very specific thing. Or because a player CHOSE the "superstitious" trait, botched a roll, and is now scared of the forest path because an owl is sitting in the tree on the wrong side of the trunk, and that bodes bad luck.

But. That being said I do have a very big problem with the last paragraph: It is, in itself, doing exactly what the first paragraph chastises: Throwing out a red herring, though probably not deliberately. I am pretty sure I said it before (And not only I): NOONE actually wants to build a simulator that "runs the character for the player". Noone. Not one of us, at least. We do not want to build AI - we want to give hints, how the character MIGHT feel, with every power to the player to disagree, at the most part, if the proposed system goes in that direction at all.
Providing the player with certain motivation to prefer one choice over the other (Or to no longer prefer one choice over the other), or to simply provide orientational lines is in no way taking away player control. And does not reduce the players input to rolling dice. Existing systems such as the one of the "superstitious" trait described above do that far more, and those get readily accepted. Player buy-in might be one thing, since in those, the player chooses which traits to pick if any - but for a system as the proposed ones, it would come down to player buy-in being actually playing THIS system over the ones without such mechanics.

To get a bit polemic: Noone is trying to take your sandbox away. We are just trying to build our own - and if you, as you have said, don't wanna play in ours, that is fine with us. Just... please let us build ours in peace, and stop constantly shouting you wouldn't want that. We know that you don't. But we would.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-31, 10:12 AM

I'm not sure that's entirely relevant, as the question is more, "is it believable?" and "does it help weight choices that should have meaning to your character but don't have mechanical meaning without this?"

It's relevant to me if someone's trying to tell me that they know more about how my character "works" than I do, because of some notion they have of how the human mind works.

Indeed. And yet, if you're NOT your PC, if you're sitting comfortably at the gaming table, you can clearly see the drawbacks because you are not feeling the desires of your character. (Again, this is a generic "you.") So you can see those drawbacks where your character shouldn't, by Max_Killjoy's description here.

Some people actually do see the drawbacks, continuously, of everything, including the things they really really want. I happen to be one of those people.

Why should I be expected to build my characters with delusional optimism if I don't want to explore that?

As somebody else points out in another post, this allows the avoidance of double-speak, if nothing else. A character who is explicitly a murder-hobo by nature and preference doesn't turn on his "emotions" for other things when it's convenient. He is this driven, this paranoid. And social characters can use that, as we bring other pieces together with this subsystem. Even if they're not using it to directly manipulate the murder-hobo, the fact that he's a murder-hobo becomes painfully obvious to others and can't be denied.

Add in some blanket rules that all characters have an innate benefit from being more comfortable, and building your PC to explicitly deny this requires expending effort and character traits on reducing the benefit from "high comfort living" (or whatever) and so enjoying the rough life that it overcomes the natural morale-draining effects of destitute living. It would begin to become counter-productive in some ways.

And that would seem to be a system bias against a certain sort of character... in direct contradiction of your other response.

Another risk, related to above -- the game designers start deciding what should and should not be a possible character personality.

Maybe, but that's not really relevant to the system I propose, as I have suggested that this should be relatively flexible.

It sounds like you want to make a certain type of character -- one who isn't driven by desire and comfort -- more expensive to create.

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-31, 03:14 PM

Some people actually do see the drawbacks, continuously, of everything, including the things they really really want. I happen to be one of those people.

Congrats on your omniscience.
Because otherwise, this is literally, and I mean the actual "literally" here, impossible.

You just claimed that you are cognizant of all drawbacks, continuously, of EVERYTHING.

That is literally the sentence you just said.

If that's not what you meant, please use a different sentence. Because unless you are omniscient your claim is impossible.

It sounds like you want to make a certain type of character -- one who isn't driven by desire and comfort -- more expensive to create.

Editing my response here:
Segev did say "relatively flexible."

And murderhobos are generally the most boring, flat, and hardest to RP with characters available. So I'm not really sad about them being removed as an option. Hell, I don't welcome them at my table.

Talakeal

2016-12-31, 05:24 PM

yaknow what? I am going to agree with ALL of this, up until the last paragraph. Or rather, I even agree with the last paragraph, to be honest, if with the slight caveat of having little problem with the GM taking over in some minor ways the PCs - after all, if the PCs have 99% of the time control, they are still very much needed, and this doesn't go away just because the GM at one point tells a player how their character might feel about a very specific thing. Or because a player CHOSE the "superstitious" trait, botched a roll, and is now scared of the forest path because an owl is sitting in the tree on the wrong side of the trunk, and that bodes bad luck.

But. That being said I do have a very big problem with the last paragraph: It is, in itself, doing exactly what the first paragraph chastises: Throwing out a red herring, though probably not deliberately. I am pretty sure I said it before (And not only I): NOONE actually wants to build a simulator that "runs the character for the player". Noone. Not one of us, at least. We do not want to build AI - we want to give hints, how the character MIGHT feel, with every power to the player to disagree, at the most part, if the proposed system goes in that direction at all.
Providing the player with certain motivation to prefer one choice over the other (Or to no longer prefer one choice over the other), or to simply provide orientational lines is in no way taking away player control. And does not reduce the players input to rolling dice. Existing systems such as the one of the "superstitious" trait described above do that far more, and those get readily accepted. Player buy-in might be one thing, since in those, the player chooses which traits to pick if any - but for a system as the proposed ones, it would come down to player buy-in being actually playing THIS system over the ones without such mechanics.

To get a bit polemic: Noone is trying to take your sandbox away. We are just trying to build our own - and if you, as you have said, don't wanna play in ours, that is fine with us. Just... please let us build ours in peace, and stop constantly shouting you wouldn't want that. We know that you don't. But we would.

It's less of a red-herring and more hyperbole. I know it can't / won't happen, that is why I bolded the word if.

Lot's of people DO like it when games take control away from the player. Game designers, people in person, and people on the forums. MY IP was about how Scion has rules to take away your character and I didn't like it, but the rest of my gaming group did (as did several of the game's defenders on this forum). Lot's of people in this thread have been in favor of "social combat" which either takes away control of your character or piles on massive disadvantages for not going along.

I have met lots of people, both in person and online, who want more rules to take away control of PCs and give them to another player (perhaps the DM). They might be courage rules, frenzy rules in WoD, "narrative mechanics", temptation rules, social combat, the D&D alignment rules, or just an overuse of mind control effects.

For example, my current DM only allows LG and NG characters, and constantly tells us we can't do something because it would be "chaotic" or "evil".

Also, discussing our opinions on the subject is what the thread is all about, not sure why you think I am "shouting at you" for doing it. Especially when I have already said that I agree with Segev that his system is sound in principal, merely very difficulty to actually implement without making the underlying problems worse instead of better.

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-31, 07:37 PM

Congrats on your omniscience.
Because otherwise, this is literally, and I mean the actual "literally" here, impossible.

You just claimed that you are cognizant of all drawbacks, continuously, of EVERYTHING.

That is literally the sentence you just said.

No, it's not.

My sentence did not use the word "ALL", and was clearly in the context of most people tending to be unrealistically positive about the things they desire and not seeing the drawbacks clearly.

Editing my response here:
Segev did say "relatively flexible."

And murderhobos are generally the most boring, flat, and hardest to RP with characters available. So I'm not really sad about them being removed as an option. Hell, I don't welcome them at my table.

It's reached the point where "murderhobo" is starting to sound less like a specific thing, and more like something in the vein of "Mary Sue" -- shorthand for nothing more specific or useful than "character who I don't like, and that I think other people shouldn't like either". "Badwrongcharacter" instead of "badwrongfun".

Max_Killjoy

2016-12-31, 07:41 PM

Lot's of people DO like it when games take control away from the player. Game designers, people in person, and people on the forums. MY IP was about how Scion has rules to take away your character and I didn't like it, but the rest of my gaming group did (as did several of the game's defenders on this forum). Lot's of people in this thread have been in favor of "social combat" which either takes away control of your character or piles on massive disadvantages for not going along.

I have met lots of people, both in person and online, who want more rules to take away control of PCs and give them to another player (perhaps the DM). They might be courage rules, frenzy rules in WoD, "narrative mechanics", temptation rules, social combat, the D&D alignment rules, or just an overuse of mind control effects.

For example, my current DM only allows LG and NG characters, and constantly tells us we can't do something because it would be "chaotic" or "evil".

Indeed.

Even if it's not the original explicit intent, these sorts of rules do have a strong tendency to devolve into "you're doing it wrong!" -- "That's not what your character would do!"... "That's not what your character would say!"... "That's not what your character would think/feel/want!"

Floret

2016-12-31, 09:14 PM

It's less of a red-herring and more hyperbole. I know it can't / won't happen, that is why I bolded the word if.

Lot's of people DO like it when games take control away from the player. Game designers, people in person, and people on the forums. MY IP was about how Scion has rules to take away your character and I didn't like it, but the rest of my gaming group did (as did several of the game's defenders on this forum). Lot's of people in this thread have been in favor of "social combat" which either takes away control of your character or piles on massive disadvantages for not going along.

I have met lots of people, both in person and online, who want more rules to take away control of PCs and give them to another player (perhaps the DM). They might be courage rules, frenzy rules in WoD, "narrative mechanics", temptation rules, social combat, the D&D alignment rules, or just an overuse of mind control effects.

For example, my current DM only allows LG and NG characters, and constantly tells us we can't do something because it would be "chaotic" or "evil".

But, fair enough, a certain amount of loss of control (Or, yes, piles of disadvantages for not going along; which seems to be the preferred method) was suggested. It just... doesn't feel like that to me, and since I am fine with this or cherish it myself, it did not seem to warrant the "let the system run the character for you" claim - taking control in small doses does not mean reducing the player to a dice-rolling automaton. And I find arguing with the possible extreme here to be not all too helpful, seeing how... yeah, rules can be abused and that is bad. But that is not inherently a problem of the rules, but probably of the players/GMs doing the abusing. Those people tend to find ways to abuse and take control in most circumstances.

Another point: Seeing how some people want the rules to do that, I think it is important to acknowlege that, and that such rules as we are suggesting might be better suited to them as they are to you.

Also, the things you describe are still somewhat non-equivalent situations: Social combat is limited to very specific situations, for example. And the alternative would be to simply have social skills of characters mean nothing. It is always a tradeoff; more freedom in designing your character is gained by restricting the freedom somewhat in accordance with the skills of the characters involved and the dice. Really, not much different from any other situation this happens.

Your OP did have the rules taking control, but in a very different context: Not trying to model personality, as the systems currently discussed do, but trying to model the character's being "made of legend" as has been pointed out. This vast difference in intent does effect rather greatly how invasive and "ordering" they would be.

Restricting what kinds of character fit a game is... well, the right of every GM? In my campaigns I regularly disallow certain professions and in L5R even did ban Non-humans, because they would not have fitted the theme. Certain settings/"storys" require certain restrictions. And certain settings/"storys" just can't be told with "evil characters". And I can see how then going around and writing "Neutral" on your sheet, but doing things that the GM sees as clearly evil might seem like taking the piss from their perspective, and lead to, maybe justified, complaints. Somewhat like, if I told you "no magic users" and you'd go ahead and said "This isn't magic, this is... psy-power that conveniently works just like magic! But it isn't magic!".

Also, discussing our opinions on the subject is what the thread is all about, not sure why you think I am "shouting at you" for doing it. Especially when I have already said that I agree with Segev that his system is sound in principal, merely very difficulty to actually implement without making the underlying problems worse instead of better.

Oh, as I said, it was a response that was unjustified but I needed to let out somewhat, after being frustrated that a lot of detractions in a row boiled down, from my view at least to "But I don't want this!". It was not directly responding to you, but I can see how my post might frame it that way, and for that I apologize.

ImNotTrevor

2016-12-31, 11:26 PM

No, it's not.

My sentence did not use the word "ALL", and was clearly in the context of most people tending to be unrealistically positive about the things they desire and not seeing the drawbacks clearly.

That minor distinction does nothing to make it less indicative of omniscience, since you're using that argument to counter the point of you as a player having more information than your character does, as if you as a person have knowledge of potential drawbacks you should not be cognizant of.

Are you really and trully cognizant of the drawbacks of everything?
Everything?

It's reached the point where "murderhobo" is starting to sound less like a specific thing, and more like something in the vein of "Mary Sue" -- shorthand for nothing more specific or useful than "character who I don't like, and that I think other people shouldn't like either". "Badwrongcharacter" instead of "badwrongfun".

This doesn't address the point, and Murderhobo is pretty well established as a thing.

Murderhobos show the following features:
No connection to other characters
No connection to the setting
Kill without thought. Everything alive is XP waiting to happen.

They tend to also be either:
A) Entirely robotic and have no emotions or drives at all except ticking off all the mission bullet points like an automated quest-completer or
B) Hugegantic dickweasels.

Type A are boring, flat, and I also happen to not like them. There are various character types I dislike, not all of which are "Murderhobos."

Mary Sues (Walking Perfection Engines, nigh impossible in a TRPG but annoying in fiction)
Edgy McEdgelords (Who tend to stand in dark corners all by themselves and have no friends because that would make them stop being so cool)
Showboat Willies (Those with a backstory 30 pages long and who drop nonstop hints about how good they are at roleplaying, unlike the rest of us sods.)

And many others.

I know what I'm talking about. I actually study crap like narrative, characterization, themes, motif, and style in writing. Because I think it's cool beans and it makes me a better GM when I understand what makes post-apocalypse settings/stories FEEL like post-apocalypses. (The familiar being made unfamiliar, the conflict between Civilized Man and Savage Man, etc) Apply this to any genre of fiction I might care to emulate or combine. And, fully tooting my own horn because I own my talents, I'm good at it. Which also makes me good at staking out on my own into the unknown or strange.

Say what you want about tropes. You might not like that people keep using hammers to put in nails instead of other more nuanced methods. But hammers put in nails just fine.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-01, 01:02 AM

That minor distinction does nothing to make it less indicative of omniscience, since you're using that argument to counter the point of you as a player having more information than your character does, as if you as a person have knowledge of potential drawbacks you should not be cognizant of.

Are you really and trully cognizant of the drawbacks of everything?
Everything?

Enough with your strawman. Context. Learn what it means, and start paying attention to it. You jumped into the discussion and posted a reaction to a cartoon caricature version of what I actually said, a misreading so blatant that one has to suspect it was deliberate on your part.

The clear and plain context began with a comment regarding the way that people generally have on rose-colored glasses when "looking at" the things they really want, and (subconsciously?) self-edit their perceptions to play down or ignore the obvious drawbacks and downsides of getting what they want. It never had anything to do with imperceptible drawbacks that would require "omniscience" to take note of.

We're done with that tangent. I have no patience for people trying to put words in my mouth. One more attempt to paint my comment as something that I did not say, one more claim that your pet inference was what it "really meant", and all discussion between you and I is done permanently.

This doesn't address the point, and Murderhobo is pretty well established as a thing.

Murderhobos show the following features:
No connection to other characters
No connection to the setting
Kill without thought. Everything alive is XP waiting to happen.

They tend to also be either:
A) Entirely robotic and have no emotions or drives at all except ticking off all the mission bullet points like an automated quest-completer or
B) Hugegantic dickweasels.

Type A are boring, flat, and I also happen to not like them. There are various character types I dislike, not all of which are "Murderhobos."

Mary Sues (Walking Perfection Engines, nigh impossible in a TRPG but annoying in fiction)
Edgy McEdgelords (Who tend to stand in dark corners all by themselves and have no friends because that would make them stop being so cool)
Showboat Willies (Those with a backstory 30 pages long and who drop nonstop hints about how good they are at roleplaying, unlike the rest of us sods.)

And many others.

Given the way they're routinely used, they're just as often code for "badwrongcharacter" as they are an objective descriptor.

"Murderhobo" = person using it thinks the character doesn't show sufficient wangst regarding each and every act of violence, and/or isn't sufficiently tangled up in human drama.
"Mary Sue * " = person using it means that the character isn't the sort of incompetent and/or emotional mess that's expected in haut literature... or they're just looking for a way to slam a female character who isn't helpless.
"Edgelord" = person using it means that the character is wearing a longish coat, or sunglasses... or just used to slam any character who has trust issues no matter how appropriate.

They're been diluted to the point of uselessness, to the point where you have to go another two pages of discussion and probably some outside reading to figure out if the person's using a tight, useful, objective meaning of the word, or if it's just another case of "I don't like this character so I'm going to throw buzzwords at it." If there's an actual problem with the character, it's better to just spell out one's reasoning than to slap on some hollowed-out buzzwords.

"Showboat... whatever" = sounds like a personal issue for you, I've never heard of that one.

* Also, all uses of "Mary Sue" outside of the discussion of fan fiction are immediately suspect and probably invalid.

I know what I'm talking about. I actually study crap like narrative, characterization, themes, motif, and style in writing. Because I think it's cool beans and it makes me a better GM when I understand what makes post-apocalypse settings/stories FEEL like post-apocalypses. (The familiar being made unfamiliar, the conflict between Civilized Man and Savage Man, etc) Apply this to any genre of fiction I might care to emulate or combine. And, fully tooting my own horn because I own my talents, I'm good at it. Which also makes me good at staking out on my own into the unknown or strange.

...

It's a good thing this forum lacks an eye-roll smiley... the appropriate number in response to that paragraph would crash the server.

Talakeal

2017-01-01, 02:54 PM

"Mary Sue * " = person using it means that the character isn't the sort of incompetent and/or emotional mess that's expected in haut literature... or they're just looking for a way to slam a female character who isn't helpless.

* Also, all uses of "Mary Sue" outside of the discussion of fan fiction are immediately suspect and probably invalid.
.

I don't know about that. I can think of some pretty blatant Mary-Sues outside of fan fiction.

For example, Alice from the Resident Evil movies is pretty clearly a Mary Sue; although those might actually qualify as bad fan fiction based on the games, they certainly meet all of the hallmarks for it.

But, fair enough, a certain amount of loss of control (Or, yes, piles of disadvantages for not going along; which seems to be the preferred method) was suggested. It just... doesn't feel like that to me, and since I am fine with this or cherish it myself, it did not seem to warrant the "let the system run the character for you" claim - taking control in small doses does not mean reducing the player to a dice-rolling automaton. And I find arguing with the possible extreme here to be not all too helpful, seeing how... yeah, rules can be abused and that is bad. But that is not inherently a problem of the rules, but probably of the players/GMs doing the abusing. Those people tend to find ways to abuse and take control in most circumstances.

Yeah, extremes are extreme. But the principal holds true; the core role of the player is to decide what their character would do, and the more authority you give the GM / dice to dictate player behavior the more you are chipping away at that roll.

Out of curiosity, when do you "cherish" losing control of your character? That seems like a really weird word to use and am having trouble coming up with a context. I can think some times when I might be grateful that a tough decision could be made for me because I am too tired to think about it or don't want to deal with the moral ramifications, but they are by far the outliers and I am having trouble coming up with a scenario where I would describe the experience as "cherished".

Also, the things you describe are still somewhat non-equivalent situations: Social combat is limited to very specific situations, for example. And the alternative would be to simply have social skills of characters mean nothing. It is always a tradeoff; more freedom in designing your character is gained by restricting the freedom somewhat in accordance with the skills of the characters involved and the dice. Really, not much different from any other situation this happens.

When you say "A character's social skills mean nothing" you only mean "NPC on PC" right? Because PCs can still use social roles on NPCs all they want.

You know, I have been DMing for 25 years now and I can't think of a single time when I have had to roll "diplomacy" against a PC. Honestly I don't typically roll NPC on NPC actions, but I still give them social skills if it is appropriate to their character. Someone who is a diplomat or a master manipulator will have social skills to explain how they got where they are just like a farmer will have ranks in agriculture or a maid will have ranks in domestics even if it is unlikely to actually be rolled at the table.

Also, simply rolling the dice is a pretty bad simulation of how charisma actually works. There are plenty of people who are considered highly charismatic that I find to be abominable, and other people who most other's dismiss as unpleasant that I absolutely adore. When the PCs are rolling against an NPC you can "quantum ogre" that persons preferences and opinions to make it fit, but you are going to have a lot of work cut out for you when dealing with an established PC with fleshed out preferences.

Your OP did have the rules taking control, but in a very different context: Not trying to model personality, as the systems currently discussed do, but trying to model the character's being "made of legend" as has been pointed out. This vast difference in intent does effect rather greatly how invasive and "ordering" they would be.

I really don't want to discuss Scion any further. But let's just say that my group didn't say it was about simulating being made of myth or any such thing, it was presented to me as a tool to help me RP "properly" and they seemed overjoyed by that fact.

I also had a similar experience trying to play Spirit of the Century where the group played it (and I am told that this is a house rule) so that whomever had control of the narrative at the moment (be they DM or Player) could control all of the characters (be they PC or NPC) and they felt this was a good system.

Restricting what kinds of character fit a game is... well, the right of every GM? In my campaigns I regularly disallow certain professions and in L5R even did ban Non-humans, because they would not have fitted the theme. Certain settings/"storys" require certain restrictions. And certain settings/"storys" just can't be told with "evil characters". And I can see how then going around and writing "Neutral" on your sheet, but doing things that the GM sees as clearly evil might seem like taking the piss from their perspective, and lead to, maybe justified, complaints. Somewhat like, if I told you "no magic users" and you'd go ahead and said "This isn't magic, this is... psy-power that conveniently works just like magic! But it isn't magic!".

Maybe. I wouldn't say it is a "right" per se. Gaming is a social activity and you need to reach a compromise if you want the game to occur. If the groups wants a different campaign than I want to run then I am just being a jerk if I won't budge on "my story". I also think it is overstepping the DM's bounds quite a lot.

For example, I had a DM who, if he found that the party had too much wealth or a broken magic item, would have the king declare an "emergency tax" and confiscate it, and the player couldn't refuse because that was "chaotic and evil" and he only allowed LG characters. I don't think anyone outside of the "lunatic fringe" who believes the DM is all powerful would say that the DM was well within his rights to do this.

But my point was, many DM's do like rules that take away control of the PCs because it gives them more power, and this does reduce the player's role.

Oh, as I said, it was a response that was unjustified but I needed to let out somewhat, after being frustrated that a lot of detractions in a row boiled down, from my view at least to "But I don't want this!". It was not directly responding to you, but I can see how my post might frame it that way, and for that I apologize.

I am not a controlling person at heart. Heck, this whole thread is me talking about how I don't like to control people.

I am not going to try to tell anyone they can't, or even shouldn't, play with whatever rules they like.

I am just trying to warn you that there is, to me, a lot of danger in using such rules. Just like if my friend said they were getting a pet alligator I wouldn't try to stop them or tell them they couldn't, but I would sure as heck explain the risks to them.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-01, 04:00 PM

I
I am not going to try to tell anyone they can't, or even shouldn't, play with whatever rules they like.

I am just trying to warn you that there is, to me, a lot of danger in using such rules. Just like if my friend said they were getting a pet alligator I wouldn't try to stop them or tell them they couldn't, but I would sure as heck explain the risks to them.

I don't think this is an apt comparison. Because as you've brought up in other examples, any system can be abused, subverted, or used poorly. And the vast majority of the examples I've seen have basically come down to "but some A-hole could use these rules to be an A-hole!" Which is true of every rule.

There isn't a risk here from the rules of anything other than not liking the rules.every other problem will come from the players. Which the rules can't account for, and that's not really their job.

Essentially: it's not the Rules' job to protect you from A-holes.

Talakeal

2017-01-01, 04:09 PM

I don't think this is an apt comparison. Because as you've brought up in other examples, any system can be abused, subverted, or used poorly. And the vast majority of the examples I've seen have basically come down to "but some A-hole could use these rules to be an A-hole!" Which is true of every rule.

There isn't a risk here from the rules of anything other than not liking the rules.every other problem will come from the players. Which the rules can't account for, and that's not really their job.

Essentially: it's not the Rules' job to protect you from A-holes.

Not really, no.

For example, in the case of Segev's proposed system, neutral of any player or DM making a judgment call, these rules could phenomenally backfire.

He wants morale rules to discourage him from always taking the most optimal choice of action.

I am saying that it is going to be nearly impossible to implement such rules so that they don't make the situation worse; there will be situations where the system will get a "false positive" and you will wind up being punished for acting in character.

If, for example, the system says "suffer a -1 to all rolls if you haven't had a big meal in the last 24 hours" that might help some people to role-play a character who will want to eat even though they know there is a risk that the food might be poisoned, but it will discourage people from role-playing an ascetic monk who has taken a vow to never eat anything but small amounts of tea and rice.

There is a big difference between "You have to be an A-hole to screw this up," and "as written this rule has a lot of problems, and you are going to have to ignore / house rule it in order to get a fun game,". For example, in D&D you have to twist the intent of a spell like Planar Binding or Genesis to truly break the game, but Shape-change or even Shivering Touch break game balance even if used 100% as intended.

ImNotTrevor

2017-01-01, 05:55 PM

Not really, no.

For example, in the case of Segev's proposed system, neutral of any player or DM making a judgment call, these rules could phenomenally backfire.

He wants morale rules to discourage him from always taking the most optimal choice of action.

I am saying that it is going to be nearly impossible to implement such rules so that they don't make the situation worse; there will be situations where the system will get a "false positive" and you will wind up being punished for acting in character.

If, for example, the system says "suffer a -1 to all rolls if you haven't had a big meal in the last 24 hours" that might help some people to role-play a character who will want to eat even though they know there is a risk that the food might be poisoned, but it will discourage people from role-playing an ascetic monk who has taken a vow to never eat anything but small amounts of tea and rice.

There is a big difference between "You have to be an A-hole to screw this up," and "as written this rule has a lot of problems, and you are going to have to ignore / house rule it in order to get a fun game,". For example, in D&D you have to twist the intent of a spell like Planar Binding or Genesis to truly break the game, but Shape-change or even Shivering Touch break game balance even if used 100% as intended.

Segev's system isn't even really a system yet, and is just a framework of ideas for how such a system would work. We don't have any firm numbers, and know nothing about how the rest of the system would work around it. So you're making logical leaps based on minimal information because more detailed information doesn't exist yet.

So the threat of this system being abused is even smaller, since the system isn't being used yet. And every system requires playtesting to find the kinks. Can't expect Segev's proposed system to handle all potential problems while still in the "concept" stage of development.

Talakeal

2017-01-01, 06:20 PM

Segev's system isn't even really a system yet, and is just a framework of ideas for how such a system would work. We don't have any firm numbers, and know nothing about how the rest of the system would work around it. So you're making logical leaps based on minimal information because more detailed information doesn't exist yet.

So the threat of this system being abused is even smaller, since the system isn't being used yet. And every system requires playtesting to find the kinks. Can't expect Segev's proposed system to handle all potential problems while still in the "concept" stage of development.

Right. Doesn't that mean that now is the best time to discuss possible pitfalls and perils?

And again, the problem isn't that it is open to abuse, its that if you don't design it precisely right the system will cause bigger problems than it solves, and might actually have the opposite effect that it intends to set out to accomplish.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-01, 08:32 PM

I don't know about that. I can think of some pretty blatant Mary-Sues outside of fan fiction.

For example, Alice from the Resident Evil movies is pretty clearly a Mary Sue; although those might actually qualify as bad fan fiction based on the games, they certainly meet all of the hallmarks for it.

To be an actual Mary Sue, the character must be an insert into an existing work, who warps the reactions of the existing characters.

I doubt Alice is a fan-insert character.

Yeah, extremes are extreme. But the principal holds true; the core role of the player is to decide what their character would do, and the more authority you give the GM / dice to dictate player behavior the more you are chipping away at that roll.

Out of curiosity, when do you "cherish" losing control of your character? That seems like a really weird word to use and am having trouble coming up with a context. I can think some times when I might be grateful that a tough decision could be made for me because I am too tired to think about it or don't want to deal with the moral ramifications, but they are by far the outliers and I am having trouble coming up with a scenario where I would describe the experience as "cherished".

Same here.

When you say "A character's social skills mean nothing" you only mean "NPC on PC" right? Because PCs can still use social roles on NPCs all they want.

You know, I have been DMing for 25 years now and I can't think of a single time when I have had to roll "diplomacy" against a PC. Honestly I don't typically roll NPC on NPC actions, but I still give them social skills if it is appropriate to their character. Someone who is a diplomat or a master manipulator will have social skills to explain how they got where they are just like a farmer will have ranks in agriculture or a maid will have ranks in domestics even if it is unlikely to actually be rolled at the table.

Agreed -- characters, especially NPCs, have their skills because it's part of who they are and what they can do, not just because they're guaranteed to roll them X so often.

Also, simply rolling the dice is a pretty bad simulation of how charisma actually works. There are plenty of people who are considered highly charismatic that I find to be abominable, and other people who most other's dismiss as unpleasant that I absolutely adore. When the PCs are rolling against an NPC you can "quantum ogre" that persons preferences and opinions to make it fit, but you are going to have a lot of work cut out for you when dealing with an established PC with fleshed out preferences.

Good point. I can think of a long list of real-life people who others find charismatic... and I find smarmy, or creepy, or fake, or whatever.

I also had a similar experience trying to play Spirit of the Century where the group played it (and I am told that this is a house rule) so that whomever had control of the narrative at the moment (be they DM or Player) could control all of the characters (be they PC or NPC) and they felt this was a good system.

Yeah, if that's the way that system is supposed to be run -- instant fail.

Maybe. I wouldn't say it is a "right" per se. Gaming is a social activity and you need to reach a compromise if you want the game to occur. If the groups wants a different campaign than I want to run then I am just being a jerk if I won't budge on "my story". I also think it is overstepping the DM's bounds quite a lot.

For example, I had a DM who, if he found that the party had too much wealth or a broken magic item, would have the king declare an "emergency tax" and confiscate it, and the player couldn't refuse because that was "chaotic and evil" and he only allowed LG characters. I don't think anyone outside of the "lunatic fringe" who believes the DM is all powerful would say that the DM was well within his rights to do this.

But my point was, many DM's do like rules that take away control of the PCs because it gives them more power, and this does reduce the player's role.

That's the sort of GM I'd stop playing with... to be blunt, they need to grow the hell up.

I am not a controlling person at heart. Heck, this whole thread is me talking about how I don't like to control people.

I am not going to try to tell anyone they can't, or even shouldn't, play with whatever rules they like.

I am just trying to warn you that there is, to me, a lot of danger in using such rules. Just like if my friend said they were getting a pet alligator I wouldn't try to stop them or tell them they couldn't, but I would sure as heck explain the risks to them.

I don't think I posted what you're replying to here...

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-01, 08:41 PM

Segev -- I'm curious, how would your system handle/model a character whose internal response to any desire, is a reflexive internal "voicing" of the drawbacks of actually getting what they want?

For example, the thought that it would be nice to own a house with a yard and a garage and more room, instead of renting an apartment, would be met immediately by thoughts of the increased cost and the trouble of having a mortage and being responsible for all the maintenance and yardwork and so on.

Or the thought that it would be nice to have a pet again is immediately met by thoughts of having to clean up after it, and take it to the vet, and eventually have to go through it dying or having to have it put to sleep, and how terrible that was last time.

Or the thought that it would be nice to have a relationship is immediately met with thoughts of the complications of giving up privacy and independence and so on, and that's if it doesn't go down in flames at some point before that.

Talakeal

2017-01-01, 09:18 PM

To be an actual Mary Sue, the character must be an insert into an existing work, who warps the reactions of the existing characters.

I doubt Alice is a fan-insert character.

It certainly feels that way to me.

The RE movies are an adaptation of an existing game series.

Alice is an original character inserted into the game's stories who is an order of magnitude more "badass" than any of the game's existing characters (and happens to be portrayed by the director's wife.)

In this adaptation the video games protagonists (who in the original game were perfectly competent and able to handle things on their own) spend most of their time standing around gawking at how awesome Alice is or waiting for her to rescue them.

I don't think I posted what you're replying to here...

Whoops, sorry, that was meant to say Floret, but somehow the multi-quote got mangled.

Max_Killjoy

2017-01-01, 09:26 PM

It certainly feels that way to me.

The RE movies are an adaptation of an existing game series.

Alice is an original character inserted into the games stories who is an order of magnitude more "badass" than any of the game's existing characters (and happens to be portrayed by the director's wife.)

In this adaptation the video games protagonists (who in the original game were perfectly competent and able to handle things on their own) spend most of their time standing around gawking at how Alice is or waiting for her to rescue them.

I didn't realize Alice wasn't in any of the video games... huh.

(I'm not big on horror... )

Cluedrew

2017-01-01, 10:38 PM

Wow. I just left the internet for a week and I felt that the thread was winding down when I left. Seems that I was wrong.

Anyways, and roughly in reply to Quertus, I am going to take a moment and talk about goals. As in why am I interested in personality mechanics. (Aside: I have actually asked similar questions of other mechanics ImNotTrevor, its why my current work doesn't have initiative.)

First is to explore:
As a designer (and I am a game designer at a hobbyist level) I wonder what went wrong in all these systems that people don't like. I want to explore and see what can be done, and try to find a solution that works for no other reason than to do so. It is an interest of mine onto itself.

Second is to communicate:
To communicate what the system is about first off, I have given an examples before but I do believe the mechanics should make what the game is about clear. And so a game about characters should have some mechanics about the characters. (The form of such mechanics is still a work in progress.) It also gives players another opportunity to communicate about their characters, but that is a minor point.

Third is to represent:
That is, I want a character's internals* to matter in a game. Yes a lot of this can be represented by free-form role-play, and all things considered the core will always remain there, but I believe there is a place for mechanics to exist beside that.

I guess what I want is mechanics that complement role-playing. Definitely not replace it. And I am at best neutral to them enforcing it.

* Side note: For me there is a choices vs. abilities line similar to the one I think Max_Killjoy is arguing for (I still don't fully understand that position.) but it does not lie on the internal vs. external line... if one can even be drawn.

P.S. Nice to be back.

0

Floret

2017-01-02, 10:46 AM

Yeah, extremes are extreme. But the principal holds true; the core role of the player is to decide what their character would do, and the more authority you give the GM / dice to dictate player behavior the more you are chipping away at that roll.

Out of curiosity, when do you "cherish" losing control of your character? That seems like a really weird word to use and am having trouble coming up with a context. I can think some times when I might be grateful that a tough decision could be made for me because I am too tired to think about it or don't want to deal with the moral ramifications, but they are by far the outliers and I am having trouble coming up with a scenario where I would describe the experience as "cherished".

Well... Let's see how to put this. See, if we define the player's core role thusly, then the core role of the GM (As long as at the table) is generally to decide what the NPCs do, how the world reacts and how it looks. Now, the players, at least in my games (Both as player and as GM), have some degree of influence on at least the latter and quite sometimes the former (In a "sure, why not, that sounds interesting" kind of way). Them "intruding" on the GM role in this manner does not invalidate there being a GM, though - up until the point of the players ACTUALLY taking over, which is quite a long distance away. One needs only look at the difference between my style and a GM-less game to notice the giant difference still left - even though the players, to the benefit of everyone's fun, gain a small part of the GM's role.

And why I "cherish" it... Maybe some of it is to do with my grasp on the english language as a non-native speaker if that word really is that weird^^
But why do I like loosing some control? Because I myself recognize, or at least feel, that I am not always the one with the best ideas. Don't get me wrong, I GM, I write, I have tons of ideas, and they are all great! (Well. Most of them, anyways). But sometimes, the greatest ideas come up when talking to other people, and getting their input, with their different frames and biases from your own. Or just them continuing a thought in a way I didn't before. Any one of my stories and settings were not the same, had I not talked to other people and considered their ideas, and would be poorer for it.

And... sometimes, other people do know a character better than I do. In some respects other people know me better than I do myself, because my own perspective shapes my view, and certain things you just don't question, but other people do, and see them, and can put them into perspective. This is especially true for settings that you are less familiar with than other people. The question "What would my character feel about the fact that this guy isn't telling me his clan affiliation" came up in the last session of my L5R game. Because I, the GM, know the setting better (Or, at the very least certain aspects and my personal interpretation of the setting) than the player that asked it.
So I do like to have input from other people. And while yes, this is not loosing control per se, rules that do suggest other actions (By disincentivising certain ones, piles of disadvantages for not going along, etc.) do encourage a certain input. From a "cooperative storytelling" perspective, I don't want full control, otherwise it would not be cooperative. Yes, this does not NECESSITATE a loss of control, but can be helped by it.

On top of that, I don't want my character to succeed 100% of the time. A real chance of failure produces much more interesting stories, and a much greater sense of suspense and involvement in those stories. That is why I like dice - and for internals, it goes the same way. I don't want my characters to always resist persuasion, to always be stronger than the urge to punch that guy, to always get over their superstitions. But I also don't want to be the one to determine WHEN I can do it - so I need someone else to decide. Here, dice would be my preferred method, but the loss of control is in part what makes RPGs interesting to me. This, too, doesn't NEED a loss of control considering what the character does, only in result, not in intent - but it too can be helped by leaving things up to the dice or at least outside of my reach.

Thirdly, I want my character to not be a puppet I control, but feel independant from myself. I am not my character, and my experience is something different. If I now want my character to have certain traits, I either need to play them, and have them come up filtered through my own desires and goals, or I leave them up to chance.

When you say "A character's social skills mean nothing" you only mean "NPC on PC" right? Because PCs can still use social roles on NPCs all they want.

You know, I have been DMing for 25 years now and I can't think of a single time when I have had to roll "diplomacy" against a PC. Honestly I don't typically roll NPC on NPC actions, but I still give them social skills if it is appropriate to their character. Someone who is a diplomat or a master manipulator will have social skills to explain how they got where they are just like a farmer will have ranks in agriculture or a maid will have ranks in domestics even if it is unlikely to actually be rolled at the table.

Also, simply rolling the dice is a pretty bad simulation of how charisma actually works. There are plenty of people who are considered highly charismatic that I find to be abominable, and other people who most other's dismiss as unpleasant that I absolutely adore. When the PCs are rolling against an NPC you can "quantum ogre" that persons preferences and opinions to make it fit, but you are going to have a lot of work cut out for you when dealing with an established PC with fleshed out preferences.

In some respects, yes. Or PC on PC. I don't like having PCs and NPCs work after vastly different rules, for one. And, yes, I do want the GM to have the same tools for "Not having to rely 100% on player skill" as the players. As I have said, I don't actually want to seduce my players, just to have an NPC seduce a PC. I don't want to reduce my players to a whimpering pile just because an NPC is doing the same to a PC. I DO want these things to be an option in my games. So I look to the dice and skills as an arbiter of the question if this works, beyond mere player arbitration.

The rest, I think might be a matter of playstlye - and also game. I very regularly roll social skills against PCs. One of the most common rolls in my L5R game, actually, given that it has a substantial part of intrigue and liars. NPC on NPC I do less often, or use heavily abstracted rolls (One roll to determine who won a duel, for example, if the result is not story relevant, for example), because that would simply elongate the game and reduce it to playing by myself.

As for it being a matter of game: Yes, simply one roll is a bad simulation. It necessarily means it is a bad way to handle it in an RPG, but this is one of the points where more fleshed-out social systems, including some manner of personality system would be beneficial to the simulation.
Something like this can be done in FATE - you can investigate a person, try to figure out an aspect that might help you ("Likes pretty men" or whatever), and then invoke that aspect on the social roll afterwards - if you send the pretty guy from your team to do the talking. Very crude version, sure. But more interesting than simply rolling a die - and possibly a better simulation as well.

I really don't want to discuss Scion any further. But let's just say that my group didn't say it was about simulating being made of myth or any such thing, it was presented to me as a tool to help me RP "properly" and they seemed overjoyed by that fact.

I also had a similar experience trying to play Spirit of the Century where the group played it (and I am told that this is a house rule) so that whomever had control of the narrative at the moment (be they DM or Player) could control all of the characters (be they PC or NPC) and they felt this was a good system.

Yeah, I think your group are just asshats. Or at least has a very, very different playstyle from you. To which I recommend: Don't play with them. As hard as it might seem to cut this tie, if you disagree on such a fundamental level, you are better off without them. And they probably without you.

Maybe. I wouldn't say it is a "right" per se. Gaming is a social activity and you need to reach a compromise if you want the game to occur. If the groups wants a different campaign than I want to run then I am just being a jerk if I won't budge on "my story". I also think it is overstepping the DM's bounds quite a lot.

For example, I had a DM who, if he found that the party had too much wealth or a broken magic item, would have the king declare an "emergency tax" and confiscate it, and the player couldn't refuse because that was "chaotic and evil" and he only allowed LG characters. I don't think anyone outside of the "lunatic fringe" who believes the DM is all powerful would say that the DM was well within his rights to do this.

But my point was, many DM's do like rules that take away control of the PCs because it gives them more power, and this does reduce the player's role.

I disagree. Yes, gaming is a social activity, but I have every RIGHT to not budge on "my story". Just as the players have every right to say "Nah, yaknow what? Not interested." So it is certainly helpful for games to occur if both parties are willing to compromise - but it is absolutely not necessary for any of them to do so. As long as all parties agree on what is supposed to go on, how that agreement came is irrelevant.
Maybe this is a difference in how gaming works for me. In my case, if I GM something, I come up with an idea, and then ask around if people want to play. I don't have one set group with whom I play every game. Sure, there is overlap between my groups (Seeing how asking people in another game if they'd be interested in playing with my idea is a rather easy way to find players), but every group is assembled for the specific game/campaign.

The example you describe is not that. The example you describe is the GM being an asshat, and changing what is "supposed to go on" in the middle - considering he made it possible that you get these things. I mean, sure, he still has every right to that, but you have every right to walk. Or, before that, talk to him and suggest a compromise (Don't give us **** you're gonna take away later might be a good start), and if he doesn't concede, walk. Having all the power within the game does not mean you are consequence-free from people thinking you are an asshat.

If the DM's do like the rules for that reason? Fine. As long as all players agree that they are fine with this, where is the problem? I mean, I wouldn't wanna play with a power-crazed person like that, but if people want to, I'd let them, and not adapt any rules.

I am not a controlling person at heart. Heck, this whole thread is me talking about how I don't like to control people.

I am not going to try to tell anyone they can't, or even shouldn't, play with whatever rules they like.

I am just trying to warn you that there is, to me, a lot of danger in using such rules. Just like if my friend said they were getting a pet alligator I wouldn't try to stop them or tell them they couldn't, but I would sure as heck explain the risks to them.

And if your friend has told you, repeatedly, that they are aware of the risks, but see benefits x, y, and z in getting a pet alligator, and how they intend to compensate for the risks, you should probably not bring up the risks again.
But this is, what I feel, the detracting side very often boils down to: Constantly pointing out the risks again, without much acknowlegement of the fact that yes, those have been considered.

Right. Doesn't that mean that now is the best time to discuss possible pitfalls and perils?

And again, the problem isn't that it is open to abuse, its that if you don't design it precisely right the system will cause bigger problems than it solves, and might actually have the opposite effect that it intends to set out to accomplish.

In some ways, yes. In some ways, saying "this could be a problem" might also seem as just discouragement, if no "and one might avoid it by taking care with x and y" is offered. The whole problem with destructive criticism, so to speak. And, many of the "possible pitfalls and perils" do sound like worst-case scenarios, which is alright to say, but especially runs into this problem.
Also: "This system has problem x" is, in some ways, much more productive than "This problem might have problem y if you do it wrong". Pointing out problems and pitfalls of what has been proposed is different from pointing out hypotheticals that have little relation to the actual propositions.

Segev -- I'm curious, how would your system handle/model a character whose internal response to any desire, is a reflexive internal "voicing" of the drawbacks of actually getting what they want?

For example, the thought that it would be nice to own a house with a yard and a garage and more room, instead of renting an apartment, would be met immediately by thoughts of the increased cost and the trouble of having a mortage and being responsible for all the maintenance and yardwork and so on.

Or the thought that it would be nice to have a pet again is immediately met by thoughts of having to clean up after it, and take it to the vet, and eventually have to go through it dying or having to have it put to sleep, and how terrible that was last time.

Or the thought that it would be nice to have a relationship is immediately met with thoughts of the complications of giving up privacy and independence and so on, and that's if it doesn't go down in flames at some point before that.

Not Segev, but one could take a look at how systems so far have handled anxiety disorder. As systems regularly include (At least systems I'm familiar with) mental illnesses, they most often do it as negative traits that you get build points or some other form of compensation for. What they do will vary wildly on the base game, of course. Sadly I don't know any system that has this one in particular.

Independent ideas: Take a moral hit for having to make a decision, or taking longer to do it (If the system can model it in any way), because of overthinking. A "Was it the right decision?" condition after a particularly difficult one, working until it was resolved by being (seemingly) confirmed as good or bad (As it shows its good or bad consequences). Having to roll something, maybe influenced by morale, to actually get yourself to do something you see as the "risky" decision - if you fail the roll, you take the "comfortable" way out. Maybe have the niceties not give that much morale points, to simulate the tradeoff - they still make life nicer, but thinking about their risks, even while having them, still takes its toll and takes points, leading to a net gain, but a smaller one than a person without the condition.
Which way exactly to go for would heavily depend on the details of both the personality/Morale system, as well as the general rules of the game itself.

Wow. I just left the internet for a week and I felt that the thread was winding down when I left. Seems that I was wrong.

Anyways, and roughly in reply to Quertus, I am going to take a moment and talk about goals. As in why am I interested in personality mechanics. (Aside: I have actually asked similar questions of other mechanics ImNotTrevor, its why my current work doesn't have initiative.)

First is to explore:
As a designer (and I am a game designer at a hobbyist level) I wonder what went wrong in all these systems that people don't like. I want to explore and see what can be done, and try to find a solution that works for no other reason than to do so. It is an interest of mine onto itself.

Second is to communicate:
To communicate what the system is about first off, I have given an examples before but I do believe the mechanics should make what the game is about clear. And so a game about characters should have some mechanics about the characters. (The form of such mechanics is still a work in progress.) It also gives players another opportunity to communicate about their characters, but that is a minor point.

Third is to represent:
That is, I want a character's internals* to matter in a game. Yes a lot of this can be represented by free-form role-play, and all things considered the core will always remain there, but I believe there is a place for mechanics to exist beside that.

I guess what I want is mechanics that complement role-playing. Definitely not replace it. And I am at best neutral to them enforcing it.

* Side note: For me there is a choices vs. abilities line similar to the one I think Max_Killjoy is arguing for (I still don't fully understand that position.) but it does not lie on the internal vs. external line... if one can even be drawn.

P.S. Nice to be back.

0

Welcome back. It DID wind down - it just picked up again :smallwink:

Other than that, I pretty much agree with what you say here. Those are at least pretty close to the goals I have as well.