Okay, I'm not actually sure that meta-rules mean what i think it means, but what I'm using it for is rules that somehow dictate how you are to play your character.
A primary example would be the various Insanity rules: these force you to play your character in a different way. Many games also use perks or traits that can have these effects.
But what do you think of rules that interfere with roleplaying? Personally, i think it's a great idea. Not only does it challenge the player, it also makes the rules and the roleplaying flow together and become more of a fluid entity, instead of two separate instances of the same case (as i believe is the case with 4e, although this shouldn't involve into a discussion about that).
But what are your thoughts? do you prefer it more freeform without constraints?
I don't like metarules. However I tend to DM more on the fly and greatly emphasize ROLEplay over ROLLplay. But again that's just me.
I absolutely loath them. My character is my creation, it's my creativity I'm putting into them, I do not want anyone telling me how to play them unless I ask.
Sorry about all the italics, this is just a very personal thing.
Generally, I don't favor them. At one point I tried some insanity rules, but I don't think they worked that well.
As a player, I prefer to add complexity, even neurosis, of my own design. As a GM, I prefer not to alienate the players by forcing them to play something they can't or don't want to.
I expected some hostility towards this subject :)
@Nomadic: if you prefer to skip rules as much as possible, i can understand that you'd want to avoid using limitations, but i don't think that meta-rules should necessarily mean that a game leans more towards the rollplay aspect.
@Silvercat: Look at it this way; your character is fed some poison and the DM tells you that you are struck by paranoia. This would be a meta-rule as the DM gives you a role-playing penalty. In your model, what would happen instead was that the DM would impose a wisdom penalty and you would act that out however you wished. I don't know about you, but i definitely prefer the first option...
Quote from: Crippled Crow@Silvercat: Look at it this way; your character is fed some poison and the DM tells you that you are struck by paranoia. This would be a meta-rule as the DM gives you a role-playing penalty. In your model, what would happen instead was that the DM would impose a wisdom penalty and you would act that out however you wished. I don't know about you, but i definitely prefer the first option...
Well the way I look at it the first option means I don't really need to be there: the game or the DM has decided what my character's RP should be, so why need me?
Well, we do this all the time, regardless. There are mechanisms all over the place to keep you from doing things the way you might otherwise want to do them, in every system I can think of. (There's something stopping you from sending your character to deal with the skulking assassin that you know is there. That something is your Eyesight roll that you rolled too low on. That something is affecting the way you are playing your character.)
There's a time and a place for these sorts of mechanics, when they get a little more... invasive. Various quirks and handicaps can make characters interesting, even at the same time as they're making those characters do stupid things. (Consider Indiana Jones reaching back into a just-escaped lethal trap to grab his hat, or Marty McFly turning around to confront the huge goon that called him "chicken.") At the same time, we're not reading from a script when we play-- we're playing in a type of game that boasts freedom of action as one of its primary draws. Do too much to squash that freedom of action and you risk alienating people. It's like the spices in your dinner-- the amount and the type that you use depends on what you're cooking and who you're cooking it for.
People are going to get sick of hearing me effervesce about Spirit of the Century, but I think the game handles this sort of thing in the best way I've heard: by using flavorful little character tags called Aspects, which may be brought into play either to aid or hinder the character possessing them. A character subject to an Aspect "compel" (that is, a situation where the Storyteller/GM/Narrator is using the Aspect to induce behavior a player might not prefer) can deny the compel (at a cost) or go along with the compel (for a quantifiable gain, and a situation that is usually more interesting than otherwise.)
I can probably explain this better, but I can sense my audience drifting off to sleep already, and I don't want to push my luck.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonA character subject to an Aspect "compel" (that is, a situation where the Storyteller/GM/Narrator is using the Aspect to induce behavior a player might not prefer) can deny the compel (at a cost) or go along with the compel (for a quantifiable gain, and a situation that is usually more interesting than otherwise.)
I can probably explain this better, but I can sense my audience drifting off to sleep already, and I don't want to push my luck.
Actually I found your description quite compelling.
Ouch.
I don't worry about this sort of thing. My players will roleplay true to the characters even if it hurts them. If a character is slightly insane his player will roleplay him slightly insane.
Quote from: Crippled Crow@Nomadic: if you prefer to skip rules as much as possible, i can understand that you'd want to avoid using limitations, but i don't think that meta-rules should necessarily mean that a game leans more towards the rollplay aspect.
The very definition of rollplay (at least how i define it) means that using metarules will cause your game to lean more into such rollplay. This isn't to say I don't use penalties and bonuses. However mine tend to be on the fly based off of common sense instead of predesigned rules. But that's what works for me.
It's not as easy or as cut and dried as a yes or no.
Gaming is kind of a social contract, and becomes moreso as one gets older.Players get (as a rule) less interested in gaming the system and min/maxing, and GM's become more interested in the cooperative story and less intersted in their own plans.
As part of this, there is a social contract that goes on and becomes stronger. The GM will be fair and give the PLayer every break to create their character, but the Player has to be willing to immerse their goals for the sake of roleplaying. The GM has to be the ultimate arbiter of reality, the Players must respond to this. Whether a change to this reality is the appearance of a group of orcash warriors descending from the hills, or the GM ruling that the PC's CC failure against poison has given them a permanent , psychological fear of being cut. Either way, the Player has to work within the bounds of this reality. If the player can't do this, and has to have everything happen the way they want it, they should stick to videogames where they can go back to the last point they saved.
It's called an FRP or RPG for a reason. Roleplay or go find a new hobby.
Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxGaming is kind of a social contract'¦'¦
'¦'¦the Player has to work within the bounds of this reality. If the player can't do this, and has to have everything happen the way they want it, they should stick to videogames where they can go back to the last point they saved.
But part of that contract is letting the players have some control over the story. Part of negotiating that social contract is deciding how much control the players get: some people are going to be okay with the idea of handing a lot of control over to the GM, some aren't. You don't force people to play the type of game they don't want.
If
all roleplaying is is reading from the script the GM has set up then yes, I'll find another hobby.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawBut part of that contract is letting the players have some control over the story. Part of negotiating that social contract is deciding how much control the players get: some people are going to be okay with the idea of handing a lot of control over to the GM, some aren't. You don't force people to play the type of game they don't want.
This is reasonable and accurate, and I agree with it 100% completely.
If you had stopped your post at this point, I would have puffed my pipe and declared: "Hmm, gentlemen, I do believe SCMP has the right of it!"
Quote from: SCMPIf all roleplaying is is reading from the script the GM has set up then yes, I'll find another hobby.
nobody is saying anything like that anywhere in the whole thread.[/i] Now you are Don Quixote, jousting with windmills. You often make very astute points when you are not undermining yourself with absurd hyperbole.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Vreeg's BordeauxGaming is kind of a social contract'¦'¦
'¦'¦the Player has to work within the bounds of this reality. If the player can't do this, and has to have everything happen the way they want it, they should stick to videogames where they can go back to the last point they saved.
But part of that contract is letting the players have some control over the story. Part of negotiating that social contract is deciding how much control the players get: some people are going to be okay with the idea of handing a lot of control over to the GM, some aren't. You don't force people to play the type of game they don't want.
If all roleplaying is is reading from the script the GM has set up then yes, I'll find another hobby.
Good.
Then you agree with me. You conveniently left out this part.
[blockquote=Vreeg]As part of this, there is a social contract that goes on and becomes stronger. The GM will be fair and give the PLayer every break to create their character, but the Player has to be willing to immerse their goals for the sake of roleplaying.[/blockquote] This contract, as I noted, goes both ways.
Also
[blockquote=Vreeg]Gaming is kind of a social contract, and becomes moreso as one gets older.Players get (as a rule) less interested in gaming the system and min/maxing, and GM's become more interested in the cooperative story and less interested in their own plans.[/blockquote]
Nobody talked about forcing. Only you are setting up self-fulfilling conditions and situations where "
all roleplaying is reading from the script the GM has set up." (italics yours). As noted above, good GM's become more interested in the cooperative story.
And to use LC's example, if giving you a minor penalty like paranoia from poison is too invasive, I don't know what to tell you. I understand that it is personal, but if that is cause for you absenting yourself from a game due to the GM making too many demands, as per this comment,
[blockquote=SCMP] Well the way I look at it the first option means I don't really need to be there: the game or the DM has decided what my character's RP should be, so why need me?[/blockquote], I really think you are talking about penalizing the other players and the GM for what could be very good GMing, just because it very slightly creates a situation where the versimilatude of the setting infringes on the needs and wants of one player. This is not even close to a railroad or a permanent situation, just a bit of seting reality intruding on the plans of a player. Certainly less intrusive then a GM determining that the last major shot a character took scarred them for life or cut off a few fingers.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonIf you had stopped your post at this point, I would have puffed my pipe and declared: "Hmm, gentlemen, I do believe SCMP has the right of it!"
Quote from: SCMPIf all roleplaying is is reading from the script the GM has set up then yes, I'll find another hobby.
nobody is saying anything like that anywhere in the whole thread.[/i] Now you are Don Quixote, jousting with windmills. You often make very astute points when you are not undermining yourself with absurd hyperbole.
I'm sorry, but that's what it sounded like to me. In fact I still read Vreeg's post like that. It sounds very self-assured of it's position, and the position sounds very accusatory toward those players who may wish to have control over what happens to their characters. I felt it necessary to respond to that tone.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI'm sorry, but that's what it sounded like to me. In fact I still read Vreeg's post like that. It sounds very self-assured of it's position, and the position sounds very accusatory toward those players who may wish to have control over what happens to their characters. I felt it necessary to respond to that tone.
That's nice, but you're still imagining things. I'm not even sure I'm reading the same Vreeg post you're describing, because I don't see any in this thread that fit your description.
Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxGood.
Then you agree with me. You conveniently left out this part.
[blockquote=Vreeg]As part of this, there is a social contract that goes on and becomes stronger. The GM will be fair and give the PLayer every break to create their character, but the Player has to be willing to immerse their goals for the sake of roleplaying.[/blockquote] This contract, as I noted, goes both ways.
"Immerse their goals for the sake of" sounds very much, to me, like saying the goals of the player do not matter.
Quote from: Vreeg's Bordeaux[blockquote=Vreeg]Gaming is kind of a social contract, and becomes moreso as one gets older.Players get (as a rule) less interested in gaming the system and min/maxing, and GM's become more interested in the cooperative story and less interested in their own plans.[/blockquote]
Nobody talked about forcing. Only you are setting up self-fulfilling conditions and situations where "all roleplaying is reading from the script the GM has set up." (italics yours). As noted above, good GM's become more interested in the cooperative story.
Other parts of your post make your point sound much more antagonistic to the idea that the player has a part in the process.
Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxAnd to use LC's example, if giving you a minor penalty like paranoia from poison is too invasive, I don't know what to tell you. I understand that it is personal, but if that is cause for you absenting yourself from a game due to the GM making too many demands, as per this comment,
[blockquote=SCMP] Well the way I look at it the first option means I don't really need to be there: the game or the DM has decided what my character's RP should be, so why need me?[/blockquote], I really think you are talking about penalizing the other players and the GM for what could be very good GMing, just because it very slightly creates a situation where the versimilatude of the setting infringes on the needs and wants of one player. This is not even close to a railroad or a permanent situation, just a bit of seting reality intruding on the plans of a player. Certainly less intrusive then a GM determining that the last major shot a character took scarred them for life or cut off a few fingers.
For the example given I object to the psychological condition being decided for me. If the personality of the character that I've worked on up till that point is going to be changed without my say I really don't see how I am a player rather than an actor being told what to do. If I was told I could choose what kind of psychological result the poison had that would be better because it would involve me in the process. (Also what does the GM do if the player is uncomfortable with the change? What if acting out the condition triggers real psychological issues?)
One last thing: I'm not interested in the type of game where setting reality is more important than my choice. I get that enough in real life and it makes me feel worthless, in a game I like to be asked before it happens.
Call me a rollplayer then, but I absolutely love "invasive" RP rules like alignment and insanity. Back in 3E I had a long discussion with my players on how we were going to handle NPCs use of social skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. I had statted up the player's primary NPC contact as a half-elf bard who absolutely hated his mother for falling in love with a human, shorting him out of the lifespan he would have had if his father had been an elf. This fear of death was leading him down the path of lichdom (it was an evil campaign, btw). Crow, his name, was (on the surface) the nicest person you could ever meet. Even though he had an 18 charisma, his Intimidate score was in the negatives due to the traits he took (from Unearthed Arcana) which imposed negatives to his Intimidate skill. He simply couldn't be intimidating; if he tried to be, people would take it in the best possible way and just think he was joking. He made a living writing plays that were commentaries on the royalty while he was also a patron to many of the noblemen's wives and daughters (he'd have them over to his manor for "private poetry readings").
Needless to say, the depth of this character absolutely required the players to play by the same rules that NPCs did. There were going to be duplicitous plot elements and I had to know that I could pull a fast one on the characters even though the players totally suspected it.
When I came to my players to ask them if they'd let me roll Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against them, they were at first confused. I explained to them that I was allowed to roll Bluff checks against their Sense Motive. I also asked them if they were okay when they failed a save against an NPC wizard's domination. Since they were fine playing out a wizard's domination, they decided they were fine playing out an NPC sweet talking them with Diplomacy or seeming like 10 levels stronger with Intimidate.
I was worried that they'd see it as me telling them how to play their characters, but after the discussion one player in particular told me that it wasn't so harsh. Instead of playing their characters for them, it's like a director giving an actor their motivation (less so, since actors are on a script). But an actor still gets to determine how they portray a character (that's why actor's get more awards and acclaim than the writers do).
Currently, I'm trying to figure out a set of meta-rules to encourage my players to play Good aligned characters and make Evil both tempting and damning. I want Good to be the hard but rewarding path, and I want Evil to be the easy but ultimately bad path. Players will still be perfectly able to play Neutral and Evil characters, but I'd like some small mechanic to inject the sort of "moral shield" that people get when they truly believe they're doing the right thing (you know, that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you do something truly altruistic). I'd like the world to reward such characters for going extensively out of their way to do the heroic thing, even though it not only puts them at risk but also costs them something.
I also love sanity/taint rules in settings which are made for them. Legend of the Five Rings wouldn't be the same without the threat of taint (Shadowlands creatures wouldn't be fearsome if they were just like fighting a warrior; sure, you could lose limb or life in both fights, but a fight with an Oni could cost you your soul). Likewise, Call of Cthulu wouldn't be the same without the ever present threat of sanity. One of my favorite video games of all times was "Eternal Darkness", which took advantage of being a video game with its sanity systems (there were times where the game would seem to turn off, or blue-screen-of-death you, or you'd see insects crawling on your TV screen, or you'd get game over screens).
I also loved the Traits of 3E, because they let players get some mechanical means to express the way they wanted to play their characters. One of the better written characters in games I've DMed was a halfling shuriken throwing rogue, who grew farsighted from constantly wearing his "goggles of minute seeing". The bonus and penalty he got from the trait (-2 search, +1 spot) wasn't overly beneficial or hindering for him, but the player found it nice to have his stat sheet reflect the way he intended to play his character (I actually never let a player see the effects of the traits we used, I'd have them either pick two traits from the list or just make up two of their own, and I'd add the changes to their character sheet after they were done. This way, no one picked traits to min/max their character, as I've seen done with advantages and disadvantages in many systems.)
LC, that sounds really interesting with Spirit of the Century. That reminds me of the Complications and Drawbacks of Mutants and Masterminds. Complications are little quirks of your character, like Spiderman's alterego and his relationship with Marry Jane. If Spiderman's GM decides to make his being Peter Parker get in the way of his super heroing (lets say Dr. Octopus is robbing an armored car shipping dangerous chemicals when Peter needs to finish an essay, and staying out all night to catch Doc Oc makes it so Peter can't finish the paper and he flunks a class ...), then Spiderman earns an Action Point. Likewise, if a bout of superheroing were to keep Peter from a date with MJ, an action point would be awarded.
Disadvantages are actual mechanical penalties. By taking a disadvantage, you gain bonus character points to buy things to make you stronger. The amount of points you gain are based on the Severity and Frequency of the drawback. The Severity is how badly the drawback will affect you: lets say your vampire character begins to die in the sunlight, losing a point of Constitution every turn he's in sunlight. This drawback is severe, because it can kill your character. Rather than letting a player pick a drawback and then go through every means in their disposal to keep it from happening, the system incorporates Frequency into the value of the drawback. The frequency determines how often the GM will bring up your drawback (either 1/4th of sessions, 1/2, or 3/4ths of sessions). To keep it random, a GM is advised to roll a d4 (actually a d20, looking at 5's, since the system uses only d20s) before each adventure to see if the drawback will come up. Superman's weakness to kryptonite is a drawback of this sort; it is meaningless if it's not around, but it comes up whenever the GM wants it to (since most Superman players buy it with pretty heavy frequency to pay for all the BS Superman can do), even though it's supposed to be a rare element.
But again, I'm Kaptain Krunch. I ran a game involving a bleed from Far Realm where the group of characters were slowly losing their mind (one had snapped because she was forced to kill an old lady, a possessed child, and one of her adventuring companions all in the span of 5 minutes), and I was making extensive uses of the sanity and taint rules.
I like when the rules support the fluff. If a race's description says they're frail, I'd like to see a Con penalty. If a race description says that a race is athletic, I'd like to see a bonus to athletic-type skills. In 4E, I totally do not understand why Half-Elves have as much Constitution as Dwarves (the description of the Half-Elf says they're hardier than Elves, but since Elves don't have a Con penalty we ended up with Dwarf-tough Half-Elves).
Now, I think such meta rules typically work best if players have some say in it. If you're using Sanity rules, for instance, you should probably either only use one effect for everyone or just let each player choose the effect of their Sanity (from a mechanically balanced list, preferably). It might not have been in the player's picture of their character for their character to become irredeemably obsessive-compulsive, stopping to count the eyes on ever group of monsters they fight (mechanics, dazed for the first round of every encounter, combative or social), but it's also not on most player's agendas to have their character die a horrible death or be converted to a ghoul; these things happen.
I find it really odd that most players will accept their character dying at some amount of negative HP, or having their character's weapons be non-functional against a certain monster, a wizard dominating their character, or their character contracting Lycanthropy, yet I've seen posts of players saying that it's unfair for a DM to roll an Intimidate check, beat their Will defense and tell the player to play their character as if they're absolutely terrified of the NPC and should do what the NPC says or suffer the consequences. In fact, I saw a thread just today talking about the issue of an NPC grabbing a character, holding a knife to their throat and telling the other players to "freeze or he dies"; out of character the player of the held character says "let him, he can't deal 1/4th my life in damage in a single blow from a dagger, so even a coup de grace won't kill me". Mechanics don't match up with the fluff in that circumstance and many others. As an amateur designer, these are the things I hope to be able to address in any system I tweek or possibly create in the future.
Wow that ended up being longer than I thought. Thanks for the awesome thread.
This is interesting. SilvercatMoonpaw, you like a game in which not only do you affect the game through your character but in dimensions outside of your character, right? Whereas Vreeg, you're all for cooperation, but at the level of characters' actions within your world rather than players' input on your plot - correct?
Both positions are valid, I think, and all depend on personal comfort levels/preference. It seems to me that SCMP's way gives a ton more control to the player but at the expense of surprise or danger. For example, SCMP, would you have a problem with your character dying in a fight? What if they're at low hp, exploring an area, come acorss a lock, attempt to pick it, fail a reflex save (or equivalent), are pricked by a poison needle, and die?
Vreeg, your way is the way I've usually played - where players have little control over the specifics of a plot or campaign, but characters can create plots and stories, reacting to the world. Players might have broad input into the sort of campaign they'd like to play ("lots of politics," or "something creepy," or "more quests in Igbar") and they might even have specific directions they plan to take their characters, which they might tell you about ("I have a new, secret goal"). But they can only control the world itself through their characters' decisions, for the most part, right?
Like let's say you run a plot where the players fight against werewolves. The players should realize that they need to take precautions when fighting werewolves (for example, researching how to cure lycanthropy in case they're bitten). If I'm interpreting correctly, under Vreeg's method, if the characters are bitten, the player just has to deal with it, and it'll probably be unforseen (i.e. Vreeg wouldn't plan specifically to have a player become a werewolf, even if he planned a confrontation with some werewolves).
Silvercat, under your method, you'd want complete control over whether your character got bitten or not, right? Being afflicted with lycanthropy would alter your character in a both physical and psychological way, and you wouldn't be OK with a GM violating your character, even in a combat situation? So thus, as a GM, you would always ask a player beforehand (before the session or before the specific combat) whether they want to become a werewolf or not - rolls be damned, its the player's creativity that counts, the integrity of a character. That's cool, but what it does mean is that it gives up an element of risk - if players act foolishly, their characters won't suffer any consequences, and thus won't learn to adapt to situations, which can be part of the fun of roleplaying ("crap, werewolves again - remember that time I got lycanthropy? That's not happening again. Memorize some Remove Disease spells and let's sharpen those silver weapons!").
Or would you even want creatures like werewolves in a game at all - creatures/spells/whatever that can affect a player in a permanent fashion?
I think both approaches have their merit. Tell me if I'm interpreting either of you incorrectly.
Mmm, I think I do something like this. If you want to be a cleric in my setting, you will be: Male, a cleric of Good, and will have two domains, one of which is war.
M.
As long as things stay either broad in scope, and the player has some freedom to interpret.
*or*
As long as the duration is relatively short.
For the first one, alignment or things like the aforementioned "paranoia" are open to interpretation when characters make specific decisions. Honestly, there's some fun to deciding what a character with a certain flaw or restriction would do in a given situation, whether this comes about at character creation or later.
For the latter, if charms, compulsions, illusions, fear effects, and so many other kinds of magic are available to players to manipulate NPCs, it stands to reason that the same magic might be used on the players too. It's bad enough social skill mechanics don't work on 'em.
When it comes to mechanical representation for this stuff, I prefer a system where either a character has some mechanical penalty and a descriptive phrase to RP, *or* a system where a character must make checks to accomplish otherwise mundane tasks, with the DC varying by the severity of the situation (again, with a sort of description for the why... and on the stipulation that only a very few tasks were made difficult in this manner). There's also the hero point / action point /whatever option, where players can buy out of a restriction at the expense of later still having it rougher in some other situation, but I don't like this as much.
For my second example, think will saves in general are a good example.
I honestly don't mind being dictated to in this way. I've never been in a situation where I thought my character was being railroaded or compelled to do something I didn't want to do - I'm not so attached to my characters that I am chagrined when they don't follow exactly the route of character development I had in mind.
I mean, I could imagine a hypothetical situation wherein this could be a problem, but it's just not something I have any experience with. Perhaps that's just my luck.
@Steerpike: Interesting analysis. But you're right in that it probably comes down to gaming styles. I think i have a foot in each camp; it's the job of the players to react to whatever the GM does, and he shouldn't get to dictate what that is since it ruins the surprise and excitement. On the other hand, the DM doesn't always know what a player wants for his character and the player should therefore be able to make suggestions perhaps ingame as well as offgame. All for the improvement of the game.
But back to the subject at hand. I think it might not be clear what i mean by meta-rules; these rules aren't per definition forced upon you by the DM and are often consequences of your own choices; and the choice itself seemed to be something some of you (SCMP amongst others) thought much of. So what are your thoughts if a previous choice limits your future choices? Is this bad?
Also, when i say frame, it doesn't mean that his choice is taken beforehand. Just like with a frame the player can roam free as long as he doesn't cross the preset borders.
Admitted, the previously mentioned traits ("greedy" or what have you) are not the best examples as they often force you to do a single thing when faced by a choice. LC's Spirit of the Century (still have to read that; why can't i find any fudge dice in my stores??) aspects as well as the aforementioned insanities might be a better example. One of my favorite example of this type of rule is the Affliction rules for the much acclaimed (by me) Unhallowed Metropolis. This game specifically focuses on the downfall of your character more than their success, and the rules are therefore made so each character has up to three afflictions which essentially make him more depraved in some way (e.g. evil, crazed or cursed) and you have a option to make a "deal with the devil" if you fail a roll by taking one of your afflictions to the next level. This fits perfectly with the setting and has the added benefit of making the character more dynamic and a bit more interesting. The spiritual attributes of the Riddle of Steel system also mesh roleplaying with gaming by making XP depend on actions and motivations rather than monsters or rolls.
So to the critics of meta-rules, what do you say when the rules are consequences of your own choices, don't limit your freedom and make your characters more dynamic?
Quote from: SteerpikeIt seems to me that SCMP's way gives a ton more control to the player but at the expense of surprise or danger. For example, SCMP, would you have a problem with your character dying in a fight? What if they're at low hp, exploring an area, come acorss a lock, attempt to pick it, fail a reflex save (or equivalent), are pricked by a poison needle, and die?
First thing I want to say is I have to admit I'm not interested in "deadly" systems that try to discourage being impulsive and encourage thinking tactically. In a tense situation impulsively jumping on it and trying to kill it is the only method I can use, anything else just doesn't compute.
That said I don't mind dying so long as I was involved in the process. That means I prefer seeing whatever's going to kill me coming and then dying because I didn't recognize the danger. Giant hulking monster? Yes. Save-or-die? No.
Quote from: SteerpikeSilvercat, under your method, you'd want complete control over whether your character got bitten or not, right? Being afflicted with lycanthropy would alter your character in a both physical and psychological way, and you wouldn't be OK with a GM violating your character, even in a combat situation? So thus, as a GM, you would always ask a player beforehand (before the session or before the specific combat) whether they want to become a werewolf or not - rolls be damned, its the player's creativity that counts, the integrity of a character. That's cool, but what it does mean is that it gives up an element of risk - if players act foolishly, their characters won't suffer any consequences, and thus won't learn to adapt to situations, which can be part of the fun of roleplaying ("crap, werewolves again - remember that time I got lycanthropy? That's not happening again. Memorize some Remove Disease spells and let's sharpen those silver weapons!").
Or would you even want creatures like werewolves in a game at all - creatures/spells/whatever that can affect a player in a permanent fashion?
I think you're asking about only one part of the situation and forgetting another. In your example you assume that the change of lycanthropy must come with a psychological component. But it's entirely possible I wouldn't even want to play in a world where that happened for reasons of keeping my character intact.
But let's think of doing it the way you propose and say that the GM asks beforehand if they can do something like this. I actually had a situation of this type come up in a real game:
It was a superhero game, and my character was from another dimension. The GM asked if he could have the setting's dimension-destroying BBEG destroy my home dimension so the team could go rescue some survivors. I said no because I knew an event like that would fundamentally alter my character's personality in a way I just couldn't play. The GM agreed not to go that route.
Let's then apply this to the lycanthrope example: The GM mentions that the adventure is going to feature lycanthropes who's affliction turns the character into an evil sadist. I mention that this would probably psychologically scar my character (via versimilitude) so that I couldn't bare to play them even if they got cured of the lycanthropy. So now I see several possible compromises: 1) the GM decides not to use the lycanthropes, 2) the GM decides to avoid biting my character, 3) the GM decides to alter the psychological component so my character wouldn't be scarred, 4) the GM decides to keep the adventure the way it is and allows me to have a new character ready in case my old one is afflicted. Even the last solution is fine because it contains the one key ingredient: the GM informed me of the decision before it affected my character and I agreed to go along with it.
The keys to my argument are as follows:
1) There are some roleplaying events which I am just not capable of roleplaying without issues. So long as I am not asked to be the one acting them out I will be fine.
2) I play Pen&Paper RPGs to have control over processes, excepting those I agree to hand over to someone else. In real life there are a lot of things that happen which I cannot control. If a similar amount of un-control then I see not reason to involve myself in something that isn't real at expense of something real.
Well, it sounds like you simply play in a different style. each to his own taste. And i can see that meta-rules wouldn't make much sense in that style.
I must admit that i would feel that that style would take out a lot of the suspense; wouldn't you more or less know half of every surprise your GM throws after you if he has to run it by you?
*sigh*
Logic has failed so far, so logic dictates I try something else...something other than logic. Now that is a conundrum.
First off, anyone who has read my stuff understands that in terms of a frequency distribution of game style, with rollplay/railroad being at one end and roleplay/freeform being at the other, i am very far on the latter side of said statistical curve. For Wat's sake, I accidentally a whole game system in favor of creating my own system of rules that pander to a holistic, freeform player character development. I have PC's that have relationships, that get married, that have children, that create guilds, that invest in property and in business undertakings, and that work on their frikkin' 'mass cooking' and 'baking' skills in the turniper's communal kitchen. And with 25 years of continuous GMing of this system, I feel pretty confident where my game style lies in this continuum. So in one way, this kind of weird for me arguing this side of the rollplay/roleplay position. I guess, statistically speaking, I'm way out on the curve, but I'm contrasted to an outlier.
But this is how I prefer to look at it, big picture. No one is right or wrong in toto. It is a matter of play style and where that play style falls on the curve.
Steerpike, you interpret me correctly, I think. You've read a lot of my postings on specific game play, so it does not surprise me that you have a grasp on my style. (Except i might and do have contingencies for when a PC is infected by Vernidale's curse (Lycanthropy).
You also say this...
[blockquote=Steerpike]Vreeg, your way is the way I've usually played - where players have little control over the specifics of a plot or campaign, but characters can create plots and stories, reacting to the world. Players might have broad input into the sort of campaign they'd like to play ("lots of politics," or "something creepy," or "more quests in Igbar") and they might even have specific directions they plan to take their characters, which they might tell you about ("I have a new, secret goal"). But they can only control the world itself through their characters' decisions, for the most part, right?[/blockquote]
...which is dead spot on. For a lot of levels. There is, in most of our experiences here, a GM and players. There is also a level of suspense necessary, so letting a Player know about any and all of the possible negative issues the player might include destroys the point of playing an FRP. And at an absolute level, in terms of defining how the game is played, the players and the GM have different tasks, while there are millions of variations on how this is achieved.
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]
At a definition level, it is the GM's job to create the world, and the players job to react to it. No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments) are that SCMP argues for a position that flies in the face of the basic definition and reality of the game. That does NOT make it wrong, or my posiition right, as this is still a flippin' game, and people should play it in the way that they have fun.
And SCMP has written 1 thing I actually have to agree with.
I am very self assured of my position. I'm not upset I came off that way. The accusatory part...I think that might have something to do with the individual reader.
Hu, no one replied to my mini essay. Guess I should make a "TLDR" version?
Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxFor Wat's sake, I accidentally a whole game system ...
Heh.
I have no measurable contribution to add to this thread, but that cracked me up.
Also, I prefer the meta-rules myself, because they give a way for the GM and player to both react in fair and cooperative ways to any situation. But I think it's a good idea for players and GMs to discuss
before the first session to what extent meta rules will be used.
Quote from: Crippled CrowI must admit that i would feel that that style would take out a lot of the suspense; wouldn't you more or less know half of every surprise your GM throws after you if he has to run it by you?
Did I say every surprise had to be run by me? I just don't want surprises sprung on me that invalidate all the work I've done up till that point.
Essentially I don't see the point in bothering to give my character a personality, to work on creating one, if it's going to be changed on me for any length of time without my input.
Quote from: Vreeg's Bordeaux[blockquote=Steerpike]Vreeg, your way is the way I've usually played - where players have little control over the specifics of a plot or campaign, but characters can create plots and stories, reacting to the world. Players might have broad input into the sort of campaign they'd like to play ("lots of politics," or "something creepy," or "more quests in Igbar") and they might even have specific directions they plan to take their characters, which they might tell you about ("I have a new, secret goal"). But they can only control the world itself through their characters' decisions, for the most part, right?[/blockquote]
...which is dead spot on. For a lot of levels. There is, in most of our experiences here, a GM and players. There is also a level of suspense necessary, so letting a Player know about any and all of the possible negative issues the player might include destroys the point of playing an FRP.
I don't understand your position: earlier you said,
Quote from: Vreeg's Bordeaux.....the Player has to work within the bounds of this reality. If the player can't do this, and has to have everything happen the way they want it, they should stick to videogames where they can go back to the last point they saved.
But the thing about video-games is that you can only do what the game lets you do. Whereas in a P&P-RPG you have the freedom to do what you feel like. So why do you keep wanting to restrict what you can do, which is based on what you know?
Also this idea of "surprise": have you never read a book or watched a movie more than once, even though you know what's going to happen?
Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxAnd at an absolute level, in terms of defining how the game is played, the players and the GM have different tasks, while there are millions of variations on how this is achieved.
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]
At a definition level, it is the GM's job to create the world, and the players job to react to it. No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments) are that SCMP argues for a position that flies in the face of the basic definition and reality of the game.
And for me your position flies in the very face of what I know the reason for bothering to play cooperatively is.
Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxThat does NOT make it wrong, or my posiition right, as this is still a flippin' game, and people should play it in the way that they have fun.
Well then why are you arguing?
Quote from: Vreeg's BordeauxThe accusatory part...I think that might have something to do with the individual reader.
Very possible.
I'm thinking our argument is ending up this way: you see RPGs as games, I see them as collaborative stories. Playing them as games means you give up a lot of control. Playing them as collaborative stories means that everyone holds on to some control. And you can play somewhere in the middle, where some control is given up by the players but not all.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI'm thinking our argument is ending up this way: you see RPGs as games, I see them as collaborative stories.
Wait, what? I have never seen someone so obsessed with focusing on the storytelling aspect of roleplay as Vreeg.
On another note, I don't mind using metarules as a player. I like working with the system and using it to shape my character. My ideas for what my character should be only deal with the introduction. Once the game starts its more fun for me to let the rules take over and dictate what paths my character will take. In other words, I like watching them grow separate of my whims. As I said before though, as a DM I just don't use them too much.
Yeah, personally, I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.
Quote from: Ishmayl....I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.
Why?
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Ishmayl....I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.
Why?
See my post above for an idea as to why. To simplify it though, some of us like to react to changes to our character that we didn't have in mind rather than get upset at them. We like the surprise that comes with it and the challenge of having to change our roleplay style to fit. The style makes for a more organic character development.
Because every player in the game doesn't just follow their own way or the way they have decided upon as a group. Instead the game can take unexpected turns and the characters will have to come to terms with things that might never have come up if they had had their way with it.
It's a question of whether you want to have a game that is average all the time or varies between good and bad. (okay, not sure that last sentence makes sense to you but felt like it made some sense to me).
Quote from: Crippled CrowBecause every player in the game doesn't just follow their own way or the way they have decided upon as a group. Instead the game can take unexpected turns and the characters will have to come to terms with things that might never have come up if they had had their way with it.
It's a question of whether you want to have a game that is average all the time or varies between good and bad. (okay, not sure that last sentence makes sense to you but felt like it made some sense to me).
Indeed, a good example of this would be a game I played a fair bit ago. I had a Dwarven Cleric of Thor who picked up a piece of jewelry without thinking anything of it. The jewelry turned out to be an artifact that stole his soul and sealed it away within itself. The DM was expecting me to rush and find a way to get my soul back (since if I died in this state I would become a lich). I couldn't do that though, my cleric would never think of himself over his friend, who was currently in alot of danger. I was playing dangerous but I needed to stick to my characters mindset. Unfortunately in the process of helping my ally I fell down a huge shaft and died. Viola Dwarven Lich Cleric of Thor. I had never expected that to happen when I first created the character. But when it did happen, it ended up making a very awesome story. Tales spread far and wide of a mighty force of good among the undead. As a good cleric of course I had to be careful with how I channeled my magic, but it was a blast. After the story ended the DM even said some things about how at Ragnarok (the world was Norse focused) my immortal and now epic cleric would be destroyed fighting alongside Thor with the burning of the world tree.
Quote from: NomadicTo simplify it......some of us like to react to changes to our character that we didn't have in mind rather than get upset at them. We like the surprise that comes with it and the challenge of having to change our roleplay style to fit. The style makes for a more organic character development.
So you don't care about the work you put into the characters, you're playing a game of "improv this thing I give you"?
Quote from: Crippled CrowBecause every player in the game doesn't just follow their own way or the way they have decided upon as a group. Instead the game can take unexpected turns and the characters will have to come to terms with things that might never have come up if they had had their way with it.
Again, so the characters and the work the player puts into them don't matter? That's what I reading because you're saying you'd rather that the characters be altered by the world, which means what came before is now in some amount irrelevant.
Quote from: NomadicIndeed, a good example of this would be a game I played a fair bit ago. I had a Dwarven Cleric of Thor who picked up a piece of jewelry without thinking anything of it. The jewelry turned out to be an artifact that stole his soul and sealed it away within itself. The DM was expecting me to rush and find a way to get my soul back (since if I died in this state I would become a lich). I couldn't do that though, my cleric would never think of himself over his friend, who was currently in alot of danger. I was playing dangerous but I needed to stick to my characters mindset. Unfortunately in the process of helping my ally I fell down a huge shaft and died. Viola Dwarven Lich Cleric of Thor. I had never expected that to happen when I first created the character. But when it did happen, it ended up making a very awesome story. Tales spread far and wide of a mighty force of good among the undead. As a good cleric of course I had to be careful with how I channeled my magic, but it was a blast. After the story ended the DM even said some things about how at Ragnarok (the world was Norse focused) my immortal and now epic cleric would be destroyed fighting alongside Thor with the burning of the world tree.
Well in that example you weren't forced to change: you got to keep playing the character the way you felt like playing him.
For me it all boils down to this: I have no interest in wasting time working on something that is then going to be changed without me getting a say as to whether or not it's changed and how. You can get me to play in a game that goes the other way, but I'm not going to put effort into building the fluff of my character. I'm just not that interested.
You're still playing the same character no matter how many meta-rules you employ for god's sake! Everybody changes over time. And so should characters. Your characters might be awesomely crafted down to the most minute detail but they are just as one-dimensional as characters in a bad crime novel if they stay that way forever. And Nomadic's example is a good example of what we are all talking about. None of us ever said anything about scripts or removing free will or the personality of the character. It was all about choices and changes to begin with.
Some of the best roleplaying experiences i had was when my character was influenced in some way.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawQuote from: Ishmayl....I believe it builds stronger characters when they (and the player) have to make changes based on events and circumstances beyond their control.
Why?
Because that's how reality works. The things that define you are not your reactions to what you're prepared for, but your reactions to what you never expected. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the GM should steamroller all the players ambitions, but seriously, if you have fun (in gaming) by never having to deal with something out of your control, then Vreeg's previous statement about "playing games with a save point" seems pretty à propos to me.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSo you don't care about the work you put into the characters, you're playing a game of "improv this thing I give you"?
How does "willing to adapt to change that I never saw coming" translate to "not caring about the work I've put into the characters?" If I build a music business from scratch, work lovingly on it for 10 years, and then see that we're coming into an economic freefall, I need to change the way I do business to survive. "Not caring" would be crying about how these changes shouldn't be happening to me because I didn't plan on them, and thus, I won't abide by their turns. "Caring" would be making the best of every situation, not just the ones that benefit my preconceived notions of how things should always run.
(Added more to my post, in case you're posting while I was editing ;))
Quote from: IshmaylBecause that's how reality works.
I have never understood the reason for this statement in the context of anything fictional: if it isn't real, why should it be made like reality? If you like real things so much, why are you spending time dealing with something that isn't real?
Quote from: IshmaylThe things that define you are not your reactions to what you're prepared for, but your reactions to what you never expected.
The problem is I'm no fun if something I didn't expect happens: I stop doing anything and wait for instructions. If it's not something I expect how am I supposed to know what to do?
Quote from: IshmaylDon't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the GM should steamroller all the players ambitions, but seriously, if you have fun (in gaming) by never having to deal with something out of your control, then Vreeg's previous statement about "playing games with a save point" seems pretty à propos to me.
Actually it isn't: anything with a save point has very little -- generally no -- opportunity for exercising one's control.
Hmm, yeah, me and Ish posted at the same time so you (SCMP) didn't see my last post (or maybe you just decided not to comment)
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpaw... If it's not something I expect how am I supposed to know what to do?
Now i understand you don't like comparing fact to fiction (personally i prefer an equal mix), but you have to be faced with surprises on occassion yourself? Can't you transfer those experiences to your character? It's not that i mind your gaming style, it just seems to lack some "challenge" (at least, that added bit you get from non-control games).
And all roleplaying games will inevitably always include reality in some way. I'm pretty sure you would hate playing in a world that hadn't nothing to do with reality as much as everybody else would. Although a world that resembles reality entirely would be just as boring (or at least unneccessary).
Quote from: Crippled CrowYou're still playing the same character no matter how many meta-rules you employ for god's sake!
No they aren't: if anything has changed about them they aren't the same person.
Quote from: Crippled CrowEverybody changes over time. And so should characters.
Why should characters act like real people when they aren't? And if they change over time shouldn't it be based upon the choices of the player rather than some condition imposed upon them?
Quote from: Crippled CrowYour characters might be awesomely crafted down to the most minute detail but they are just as one-dimensional as characters in a bad crime novel if they stay that way forever.
And changing them without careful consideration for what the change means and whether or not it is a good idea for the character is better?
Quote from: Crippled CrowAnd Nomadic's example is a good example of what we are all talking about. None of us ever said anything about scripts or removing free will or the personality of the character. It was all about choices and changes to begin with.
Well when you keep talking about how the character must react to the situation rather than the action of the character being decided by the player, and said choices being very narrow, it sounds very much like you're not talking about choices.
Quote from: Crippled CrowSome of the best roleplaying experiences i had was when my character was influenced in some way.
And all my best roleplaying experiences have been when I've had
complete control over my character. And that's because I know that the work's mine and that if changes happen to the character they have been carefully considered and are appropriate.
Quote from: IshmaylHow does "willing to adapt to change that I never saw coming" translate to "not caring about the work I've put into the characters?" If I build a music business from scratch, work lovingly on it for 10 years, and then see that we're coming into an economic freefall, I need to change the way I do business to survive. "Not caring" would be crying about how these changes shouldn't be happening to me because I didn't plan on them, and thus, I won't abide by their turns. "Caring" would be making the best of every situation, not just the ones that benefit my preconceived notions of how things should always run.
I see "not caring" as "not giving a damn what happens". If you hand over control of your character to someone you know is going to alter them somehow that seems to me like you don't care about them.
Okay, a few laughs here and there. Sometimes I'm not sure whether you're serious, or just trying to drive debate for the sake of conversation.
To some extent, I agree with you, though. I think you just take it too far. I had a ST once that got a little free with the dominate in a V:tM game. It got to the point that I was make few to no meaningful decisions in the game, at which point I wondered why he wanted me instead of an NPC.
But to equate such a thing to a mechanic like LC's "compels" is a poor reductio absurdum.
QuoteNo they aren't: if anything has changed about them they aren't the same person.
Why should characters act like real people when they aren't?[/quote]And if they change over time shouldn't it be based upon the choices of the player rather than some condition imposed upon them?[/quote]And changing them without careful consideration for what the change means and whether or not it is a good idea for the character is better?[/quote]Well when you keep talking about how the character must react to the situation rather than the action of the character being decided by the player, and said choices being very narrow, it sounds very much like you're not talking about choices.[/quote]4: a number and variety to choose among[/b] <a plan with a wide choice of options>5: care in selecting6: a grade of meat between prime and good
QuoteAnd all my best roleplaying experiences have been when I've had complete control over my character. And that's because I know that the work's mine and that if changes happen to the character they have been carefully considered and are appropriate.
I see "not caring" as "not giving a damn what happens". If you hand over control of your character to someone you know is going to alter them somehow that seems to me like you don't care about them.[/quote]
That's ridiculous. Just... no. Some people are willing to contribute to a group effort with established rules to improve the group experience. That doesn't mean they don't care about their character.
[blockquote=scmp]I'm thinking our argument is ending up this way: you see RPGs as games, I see them as collaborative stories. Playing them as games means you give up a lot of control. Playing them as collaborative stories means that everyone holds on to some control. And you can play somewhere in the middle, where some control is given up by the players but not all.[/blockquote]
No. Maybe it is the definitions and differentiations that are causing some of the problems. But Obviously, I also see RPGs as collaborative storytelling. Some of these collaborative stories have gone on for decades. Currently, my Miston group has been playing the same characters, or at least the same group, for almost 13 yearsMiston (http://celtricia.pbwiki.com/Mistonians).
I said, specifically
[blockquote=Vreeg]No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments)[/blockquote]
So obviously, we both view our Role Playing Games this way as cooperative storytelling. So once again, obviously, you should not use that term as a differentiator... I frankly don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I make that clear as heck that is how I view the game I play, and then you use the exact same term, somehow, as a contrast on how you believe we differ.
especially
[blockquote=SCMP][blockquote=Vreeg's Bordeaux]And at an absolute level, in terms of defining how the game is played, the players and the GM have different tasks, while there are millions of variations on how this is achieved.
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]
At a definition level, it is the GM's job to create the world, and the players job to react to it. No matter how cooperative the game (and mine are extremely cooperative, storytelling experiences), my issue and my compulsion for coming back to this thread (and the interesting interpretation of my own comments) are that SCMP argues for a position that flies in the face of the basic definition and reality of the game.[/blockquote]
And for me your position flies in the very face of what I know the reason for bothering to play cooperatively is.[/blockquote]
My position flies in the face of of the reason for playing cooperatively? Maybe for you, but when I specifically use the term 'cooperatively' as part of the definition of what I do, and you respond with that without any reasons, you are drawing lines.
I think the issue between us is actually one of control.
What is implied but not stated in this and most traditional definitions of roleplaying games, (and I love you you didn't even bring up the definition or respond to it)
From the Wikipedia entry on the subject...
One player, the game master (GM), creates a setting in which the other players play the role of a single character.[2] The GM describes the game world and its inhabitants; the other players describe the intended actions of their characters, and the GM describes the outcomes. Some outcomes are determined by the game system, and some are chosen by the GM.[2]
is that the GM is the arbiter and controls the outcomes of a player characters interactions with their setting. A good gm never misuses this but part of playing the game is consequences. But your response to CC speaks volumes on this.
[blockquote=SCMP]Did I say every surprise had to be run by me? I just don't want surprises sprung on me that invalidate all the work I've done up till that point.[/blockquote]
I think this says it all.
What I think it really says is that you want to create a cooperative storytelling experience with some elements of a traditional FRP, but with less GM fiat and more player input on the consequences of the setting upon the character.
Hmm, glad that the thread is active even if it has derailed somewhat from mechanics to style...
And i'm pretty sure this discussion can't be turned by anyone. Everybody is adamant about their own opinion. You see a game as a sandbox where everybody can act out their own personal image of a character and play a non-threatening but probably fun game with friends. The other camp focuses on more dynamic and "realistic" characters (realistic in motivation and emotion and thought that is) that are exploring an unknown world and an unknown story with the DM acting as the omniscient storyteller who sets the scene. The non-control type operate with dynamic environment, that changes to accomodate players, and static characters while the control camp operate with a static environment and dynamic characters. (and then there are of course a range of variants in between).
Quote from: Crippled CrowQuote from: SilvercatMoonpaw... If it's not something I expect how am I supposed to know what to do?
Now i understand you don't like comparing fact to fiction (personally i prefer an equal mix), but you have to be faced with surprises on occassion yourself? Can't you transfer those experiences to your character?
That actually
is what I'm doing. It's the only way I know how to react to those types of situations. My thought process is very simple regarding problems I realize I don't know how to solve: 1) stop doing anything, 2) determine if the can avoid/ignore the problem, 3) if #2 is not viable determine if you can destroy the problem (not very likely in RL), 4) if neither solution is possible do not do anything until instructions are forthcoming. Probably I'll have to retreat and seek out instructions. Aside from knowing what to do beforehand these are the only options I understand how to carry out.
Quote from: Crippled CrowIt's not that i mind your gaming style, it just seems to lack some "challenge" (at least, that added bit you get from non-control games).
There are some challenges I know I can deal with, and some I know I will never overcome. I avoid those I cannot overcome out of practicality. The character-influencing situations are one such challenge.
Quote from: Crippled CrowAnd all roleplaying games will inevitably always include reality in some way. I'm pretty sure you would hate playing in a world that hadn't nothing to do with reality as much as everybody else would. Although a world that resembles reality entirely would be just as boring (or at least unneccessary).
It's the amount of reality that bothers me: past a certain point it just seems more logical to engage in real life.
and now i advocate that we end this style discussion seeing as it will reach no conclusion.
(and of course so you can comment on my question from the first post :p)
^Agreed
Personally I totally see the merit of your position, SCMP. It's a totally valid style of play; it not only qualifies as collaborative storytelling, it transcends the usual bounds of player input, making them effective co-authors of the world. Basically, as I understand it, some tenets of your play style might include (and these are all different facets of the same principle):
1) No changes, positive or negative, can be made to a character without the controlling player's prior permission; even if a GM doesn't explicitly plan an event, if the GM engineers a situation where a positive or negative change can happen, s/he must warn the player beforehand or check with them before making the change.
2) The player can veto anything negative that happens to their character, period. Don't want to go insane? No insanity. Don't like that your character was physically or psychologically scarred, transformed, or degenerated? It doesn't happen.
3)The player and the player alone controls their character and the direction they take that character, 100%. A GM, or other players, can suggest changes, but the player's character remains sacred, untouchable.
4) The player not only controls the reaction their character might have to events within the world, s/he should be able to control the event itself insofar as that event might impact their character. Not only can your superhero react in a way you choose to the destruction of his/her home dimension, you as a player should actively be allowed to determine whether the home dimension gets destroyed.
This is cool, and I see its advantages. What you should realize is that not everyone - in fact I'd go so far as to say very few people - play this way; it's not the only way to play. The standard style of playing is quite different:
1) Actions have consequences in the game-world as in the real-world. If a character's decisions place them in peril, they should have to respond to that peril. The key here is that the player and the character still make choices, but they are limited to controlling only those things that their character can control. Everything else is up to the GM and the other players.
2) The player has no automatic veto over negative changes that are a result of their own decisions. A good GM will not simply assail a character with situations and confrontations in which they have no choice as to how to respond (railroading); instead, they a GM devises situations that a character, rather than a player, may respond to in a variety of ways. They might consult about really big events, such as the destruction of an entire dimension. But for most specific events, he won't ask permission to introduce, even if they could positively or negatively change a character.
3) Characters can die, be transformed, polymorphed, petrified, poisoned, and otherwise altered. A player can attempt to avoid any of the alterations through their characters' actions, but through their characters' actions only. This generates suspense and risk because the player feels that their character is genuinely in danger and will work harder to preserve them within the game-world. A good GM won't overdose his campaign with uber-powerful villains or monsters, all of whom can alter a player, but he will include enough risks to make players think hard before taking action.
4) A GM listens to players wants and desires and allows a player to play their character in the manner that they choose. S/he respects a player's choices for a character. S/he expects in "return" for the player to understand that the world itself is essentially the GM's character, and just as the player has control over his character's actions, the GM has control over the world's actions.
I think this is a decent outline of SCMP vs. Vreeg in terms of play styles, to expand my above analysis a bit further...
EDIT: sorry, posted after the discussion ended. Consider the above post as my footnote to the post I made before...
No prob, Steerpike, it was a remarkably well-phrased closing statement on the subject.
Cheers!
A pretty good foodnote though. Nice and diplomatic and brings out the good parts equally in both styles :)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatCall me a rollplayer then, but I absolutely love "invasive" RP rules like alignment and insanity. Back in 3E I had a long discussion with my players on how we were going to handle NPCs use of social skills like Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate. I had statted up the player's primary NPC contact as a half-elf bard who absolutely hated his mother for falling in love with a human, shorting him out of the lifespan he would have had if his father had been an elf. This fear of death was leading him down the path of lichdom (it was an evil campaign, btw). Crow, his name, was (on the surface) the nicest person you could ever meet. Even though he had an 18 charisma, his Intimidate score was in the negatives due to the traits he took (from Unearthed Arcana) which imposed negatives to his Intimidate skill. He simply couldn't be intimidating; if he tried to be, people would take it in the best possible way and just think he was joking. He made a living writing plays that were commentaries on the royalty while he was also a patron to many of the noblemen's wives and daughters (he'd have them over to his manor for "private poetry readings").
Needless to say, the depth of this character absolutely required the players to play by the same rules that NPCs did. There were going to be duplicitous plot elements and I had to know that I could pull a fast one on the characters even though the players totally suspected it.
When I came to my players to ask them if they'd let me roll Diplomacy and Intimidate checks against them, they were at first confused. I explained to them that I was allowed to roll Bluff checks against their Sense Motive. I also asked them if they were okay when they failed a save against an NPC wizard's domination. Since they were fine playing out a wizard's domination, they decided they were fine playing out an NPC sweet talking them with Diplomacy or seeming like 10 levels stronger with Intimidate.
I was worried that they'd see it as me telling them how to play their characters, but after the discussion one player in particular told me that it wasn't so harsh. Instead of playing their characters for them, it's like a director giving an actor their motivation (less so, since actors are on a script). But an actor still gets to determine how they portray a character (that's why actor's get more awards and acclaim than the writers do).
Currently, I'm trying to figure out a set of meta-rules to encourage my players to play Good aligned characters and make Evil both tempting and damning. I want Good to be the hard but rewarding path, and I want Evil to be the easy but ultimately bad path. Players will still be perfectly able to play Neutral and Evil characters, but I'd like some small mechanic to inject the sort of "moral shield" that people get when they truly believe they're doing the right thing (you know, that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you do something truly altruistic). I'd like the world to reward such characters for going extensively out of their way to do the heroic thing, even though it not only puts them at risk but also costs them something.
I also love sanity/taint rules in settings which are made for them. Legend of the Five Rings wouldn't be the same without the threat of taint (Shadowlands creatures wouldn't be fearsome if they were just like fighting a warrior; sure, you could lose limb or life in both fights, but a fight with an Oni could cost you your soul). Likewise, Call of Cthulu wouldn't be the same without the ever present threat of sanity. One of my favorite video games of all times was "Eternal Darkness", which took advantage of being a video game with its sanity systems (there were times where the game would seem to turn off, or blue-screen-of-death you, or you'd see insects crawling on your TV screen, or you'd get game over screens).
I also loved the Traits of 3E, because they let players get some mechanical means to express the way they wanted to play their characters. One of the better written characters in games I've DMed was a halfling shuriken throwing rogue, who grew farsighted from constantly wearing his "goggles of minute seeing". The bonus and penalty he got from the trait (-2 search, +1 spot) wasn't overly beneficial or hindering for him, but the player found it nice to have his stat sheet reflect the way he intended to play his character (I actually never let a player see the effects of the traits we used, I'd have them either pick two traits from the list or just make up two of their own, and I'd add the changes to their character sheet after they were done. This way, no one picked traits to min/max their character, as I've seen done with advantages and disadvantages in many systems.)
LC, that sounds really interesting with Spirit of the Century. That reminds me of the Complications and Drawbacks of Mutants and Masterminds. Complications are little quirks of your character, like Spiderman's alterego and his relationship with Marry Jane. If Spiderman's GM decides to make his being Peter Parker get in the way of his super heroing (lets say Dr. Octopus is robbing an armored car shipping dangerous chemicals when Peter needs to finish an essay, and staying out all night to catch Doc Oc makes it so Peter can't finish the paper and he flunks a class ...), then Spiderman earns an Action Point. Likewise, if a bout of superheroing were to keep Peter from a date with MJ, an action point would be awarded.
Disadvantages are actual mechanical penalties. By taking a disadvantage, you gain bonus character points to buy things to make you stronger. The amount of points you gain are based on the Severity and Frequency of the drawback. The Severity is how badly the drawback will affect you: lets say your vampire character begins to die in the sunlight, losing a point of Constitution every turn he's in sunlight. This drawback is severe, because it can kill your character. Rather than letting a player pick a drawback and then go through every means in their disposal to keep it from happening, the system incorporates Frequency into the value of the drawback. The frequency determines how often the GM will bring up your drawback (either 1/4th of sessions, 1/2, or 3/4ths of sessions). To keep it random, a GM is advised to roll a d4 (actually a d20, looking at 5's, since the system uses only d20s) before each adventure to see if the drawback will come up. Superman's weakness to kryptonite is a drawback of this sort; it is meaningless if it's not around, but it comes up whenever the GM wants it to (since most Superman players buy it with pretty heavy frequency to pay for all the BS Superman can do), even though it's supposed to be a rare element.
But again, I'm Kaptain Krunch. I ran a game involving a bleed from Far Realm where the group of characters were slowly losing their mind (one had snapped because she was forced to kill an old lady, a possessed child, and one of her adventuring companions all in the span of 5 minutes), and I was making extensive uses of the sanity and taint rules.
I like when the rules support the fluff. If a race's description says they're frail, I'd like to see a Con penalty. If a race description says that a race is athletic, I'd like to see a bonus to athletic-type skills. In 4E, I totally do not understand why Half-Elves have as much Constitution as Dwarves (the description of the Half-Elf says they're hardier than Elves, but since Elves don't have a Con penalty we ended up with Dwarf-tough Half-Elves).
Now, I think such meta rules typically work best if players have some say in it. If you're using Sanity rules, for instance, you should probably either only use one effect for everyone or just let each player choose the effect of their Sanity (from a mechanically balanced list, preferably). It might not have been in the player's picture of their character for their character to become irredeemably obsessive-compulsive, stopping to count the eyes on ever group of monsters they fight (mechanics, dazed for the first round of every encounter, combative or social), but it's also not on most player's agendas to have their character die a horrible death or be converted to a ghoul; these things happen.
I find it really odd that most players will accept their character dying at some amount of negative HP, or having their character's weapons be non-functional against a certain monster, a wizard dominating their character, or their character contracting Lycanthropy, yet I've seen posts of players saying that it's unfair for a DM to roll an Intimidate check, beat their Will defense and tell the player to play their character as if they're absolutely terrified of the NPC and should do what the NPC says or suffer the consequences. In fact, I saw a thread just today talking about the issue of an NPC grabbing a character, holding a knife to their throat and telling the other players to "freeze or he dies"; out of character the player of the held character says "let him, he can't deal 1/4th my life in damage in a single blow from a dagger, so even a coup de grace won't kill me". Mechanics don't match up with the fluff in that circumstance and many others. As an amateur designer, these are the things I hope to be able to address in any system I tweek or possibly create in the future.
Wow that ended up being longer than I thought. Thanks for the awesome thread.
This is awsome Kap Xeviat. I really like how you explained all your points and it really gives a good in depth look at how meta-rules can be used in a really neat way. I think it is a bit more work to be done (randomizing traits, handling social checks vs PCs) but it really seems like you pulled it off.
I acknowledge that other people will see and play games differently. I was only trying to clarify my own position and get clarification on the position of others.
Oh yeah, forgot that one Xev. sorry. Got caught up in the discussion...
The alignment idea sounds really neat. I would love to see it if you were able to figure it out. Most aligment systems always seem to lack the rewards that you really want.
Haven't looked much at taint rules except shortly in unearthed arcana. I think insanity and fear rules can add much since these are factors that can be hard to fit into one's character by yourself.
Quote from: SteerpikePersonally I totally see the merit of your position, SCMP. It's a totally valid style of play; it not only qualifies as collaborative storytelling, it transcends the usual bounds of player input, making them effective co-authors of the world. Basically, as I understand it, some tenets of your play style might include (and these are all different facets of the same principle):
1) No changes, positive or negative, can be made to a character without the controlling player's prior permission; even if a GM doesn't explicitly plan an event, if the GM engineers a situation where a positive or negative change can happen, s/he must warn the player beforehand or check with them before making the change.
2) The player can veto anything negative that happens to their character, period. Don't want to go insane? No insanity. Don't like that your character was physically or psychologically scarred, transformed, or degenerated? It doesn't happen.
3)The player and the player alone controls their character and the direction they take that character, 100%. A GM, or other players, can suggest changes, but the player's character remains sacred, untouchable.
4) The player not only controls the reaction their character might have to events within the world, s/he should be able to control the event itself insofar as that event might impact their character. Not only can your superhero react in a way you choose to the destruction of his/her home dimension, you as a player should actively be allowed to determine whether the home dimension gets destroyed.
I've actually played several games like this, and it works very well once everyone understands the few simple rules and what each of the others is like. Truthfully we don't bother with actual game rules, and we still don't have any problems with arbitration because we all know we're not competing. (Yeah, it probably is a fantastic group devoid of power-players.)
QuoteLC, that sounds really interesting with Spirit of the Century. That reminds me of the Complications and Drawbacks of Mutants and Masterminds. Complications are little quirks of your character, like Spiderman's alterego and his relationship with Marry Jane. If Spiderman's GM decides to make his being Peter Parker get in the way of his super heroing (lets say Dr. Octopus is robbing an armored car shipping dangerous chemicals when Peter needs to finish an essay, and staying out all night to catch Doc Oc makes it so Peter can't finish the paper and he flunks a class ...), then Spiderman earns an Action Point. Likewise, if a bout of superheroing were to keep Peter from a date with MJ, an action point would be awarded.
one[/i] FP for this compel, perhaps
two will sweeten the pot? Now, if Henry wants to resist the compel, it
costs two FP as well. (Upping the ante like this is supposed to be rare, and reserved for especially dramatic situations.)
If Henry runs out of Fate Points, he can no longer resist Aspect compels-- in this case, he'd "run out of willpower" and would have no choice but to smash the bomb.
This is a silly and extreme example, because unless the bomb is a dud (or is in some kind of really hard case), hitting it with a hammer will probably kill everyone.
To follow up on your Spider-Man example, it's recommended in SotC that you take an Aspect to represent any kind of dependent like that-- in SotC rules, Spider-Man would certainly have an Aspect for Mary Jane. Since they're going to be imperiled
anyway, might as well snag a Fate Point when it happens.
I love the idea of Fate points! I definitely have to adapt that for my own games.
Going back to what I was talking about earlier. I DM differently than I PC. As a DM I see importance in the ability to let players do what they want. My systems tend to be very loose and freeform with room for making rules and decisions on the fly. I prefer to stay away from complex and solid mechanics like madness rules. While I recognize that they have a place I tend to only use them where I have no choice.
As a player character though I don't mind rules and I don't mind major impacts to my character. But you see I don't roleplay to create a character I roleplay to create a story. I also see it as a joint effort between me and the DM. The DM sets the encounter I make the choices and the DM tells me the results. I like to roll with the results since that makes for some interesting character development that I simply couldn't make up if I was just creating a character alone.
This sort of by the seat of the pants dangerous roleplay isn't for everyone. That's fine. I grew up with it though so I greatly enjoy the challenge. My first DMs were people who made Gygaxian gameplay look like my little pony goes to candyland. I enjoyed it though and played for the sake of the story instead. It gleaned within me an interest to stake my claim in the story instead of the individual characters (a bit like writing a book jointly with the DM and my fellow PCs). Since then I have had far more mellow DMs but I still have that love in me and I think I always will.
...and now you all know a bit more about how the crazy nomad rolls.
Quote from: SteerpikeI love the idea of Fate points! I definitely have to adapt that for my own games.
They are also used to invoke Aspects (that is, to use them proactively and positively.) With the earlier examples, Henry can spend a Fate Point for a bonus to any roll where "Brute Force" (or any of his other Aspects) is applicable (here, to assist him in smashing things.) Spider-Man could spend a FP for a bonus to a roll where he is rescuing Mary Jane. Et cetera.
Further, you can use them to "tag" other players' or NPCs' aspects. If I'm in a discussion with Lord Whiffenpoof and my goal is to make him look foolish in front of the assembled aristocracy, and I know that he has an Aspect like "Bad Temper," I can spend a fate point for a bonus on a roll to provoke that temper, causing him to look
dreadfully socially maladroit!
Further still, I can place temporary aspects on other players, then tag those aspects. Say I spend a turn aiming a rifle at a thug who hasn't seen me yet. I can give him a temporary Aspect like "In My Sights". Then on my next turn, use the Aspect to put some extra punch behind my opening shot. (This is a fun way for players to get creative with
all sorts of tricky combat maneouvers.)
Honestly, forget Fate Points. Aspects are where it's at; FP are just the currency associated with using them.
I like both concepts. Sounds elegant.
That's really cool LC. Now that you've fully explained it, that's really like the complications in M&M except a bit more developed. Would those Traits offer some kind of mechanical bonus too, when you aren't tempting the player? Like that "Brute Force" character might get some kind of attack or damage bonus, or is it all fate points?
I like the idea of players picking personality quirks that reward the character with some kind of game currency for when they follow their quirk to their own disadvantage. It gives characters depth that some RPG characters tend to lack. 2D characters do whatever is most beneficial in a given situation, but realistic people have character defects that often get them into trouble.
I'm opinionated and lazy. I get into very heated debates with good friends over minuscule things. I'm fully aware that there are many times I should just shut up (recently I argued with Nomadic about something over AIM when he was completely agreeing with me). As for my laziness, I procrastinate doing assignments or design work, and my recent worst act of laziness was me not getting my car checked when the check engine light was on; now it's sitting in my parking spot collecting cobwebs.
Obviously I'm getting something out of these little quirks. For the laziness, it's usually because I'd rather play a video game or something instead of doing work. As for being opinionated, I think I get some kind of vindication when someone agrees with me that I'm right. those wouldn't really work well in an RPG, so giving out "action points" or whatever is a good substitute.
Having little meta rules to encourage people to play their character the way they intended to rather than doing the optimal idea makes for more entertaining characters in the end I think. I could go on about my favorite characters in games I've DMed, but long story short it was mostly because they had some quirk that made them stand out (like the passive/aggressive cleric of St. Cuthbert; he was a character).
And thanks for bringing me back into the discussion Llum and Crow. =)
Quote from: Kapn XeviatI'm opinionated and lazy. I get into very heated debates with good friends over minuscule things. I'm fully aware that there are many times I should just shut up (recently I argued with Nomadic about something over AIM when he was completely agreeing with me).
Hey don't you be taking all the credit for that. An argument takes two people :P . Besides, as several others can attest to I often get into debates where both sides agree but don't realize it.
See, I'm saying I have a character flaw and Nomadic's trying to say it's his fault. LOL.
Quote from: XeviatThat's really cool LC. Now that you've fully explained it, that's really like the complications in M&M except a bit more developed. Would those Traits offer some kind of mechanical bonus too, when you aren't tempting the player? Like that "Brute Force" character might get some kind of attack or damage bonus, or is it all fate points?
Henry can spend a Fate Point for a bonus to any roll where "Brute Force" (or any of his other Aspects) is applicable (here, to assist him in smashing things.)[/quote]Remember, two things you do with your Aspects:
- Invoking, which is when you use your Aspects to be better at relevant actions by spending a FP (with Brute Force, perhaps lifting cars or breaking manacles, etc.)
- Compelling, which is when the Narrator offers you a FP to entice you to give into the less advantageous side of an Aspect (with Brute Force, perhaps not thinking clearly, etc.)
Really have to sit down and read those rules. Still have the link you posted a month back bookmarked...
I'm wondering how the temporary Aspects work though. They seem quite beneficient, so what keeps you from doing it all the time?
As far as flaws/traits go i have always liked them as they make for more nuanced characters in my opinion, but they fare best when they deal with non-meta-rules. Meta-rules usually require some framework of their own.