Meta-rules: Roleplaying within a frame

[Superfluous Crow]

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?

[Nomadic]

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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

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.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

[Superfluous Crow]

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...

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

@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?

[Lmns Crn]

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.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

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.

Actually I found your description quite compelling.

[Lmns Crn]

Ouch.

[Loch Belthadd]

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.

[Nomadic]

@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.

[LordVreeg]

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.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Gaming 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.

[Lmns Crn]

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.

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!"

If 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.

[LordVreeg]

Gaming 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.