Heat of the Moment

[Robyn]

It's all very well and good to fantasize about how you're going to go up to the villain, force him to his knees, cuff him, and drag him off to jail amid the cheers of a joyous city; but, after a long fight that you barely live through, come face to face at least with the nemesis you've chased for so long, that has visited atrocity after barbarous atrocity on your friends and the innocent citizens . . . all you really want is to smash his face in.

 

The question I've come here to ask is, do you?

 

I want to put in a campaign mechanic that will threaten, at inconvenient times, to overwhelm a PC with emotion. How strong of a (NND, I'm assuming, since it is, after all, the character's own desires) Mental/Presence attack should this be, for various influential factors?

[gojira]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Psych Lim: Berzerk/Enraged (When your main enemy is sighted) 8-/10-?

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Psych Lim: Berzerk/Enraged (When your main enemy is sighted) 8-/10-?

 

If you mean, forcing it on all the PC's - no. I'm thinking more of something like random weather determination; does the rain cause a delay in anyone's schedule? Just a little something that would, occasionally, strike at all characters; not all at once, of course, but adding a mechanic of Global scope to reflect how, sometimes, human emotion can overwhelm all rationality.

 

It wouldn't be just Berzerk/Enraged, either; in the Heat of the Moment, you could become overtaken by Passion and do something with that lady (villain) which, umm, you really shouldn't have

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If you mean' date=' forcing it on all the PC's - no. I'm thinking more of something like random weather determination; does the rain cause a delay in anyone's schedule? Just a little something that would, occasionally, strike at [i']all[/i] characters; not all at once, of course, but adding a mechanic of Global scope to reflect how, sometimes, human emotion can overwhelm all rationality.

 

It wouldn't be just Berzerk/Enraged, either; in the Heat of the Moment, you could become overtaken by Passion and do something with that lady (villain) which, umm, you really shouldn't have

 

This is what roleplaying is all about, allowing the character to make the choice rather than the player. The best games come from this concept.

 

But assuming your players aren't that involved with their characters, EGO rolls are your friend...

 

"Brickhouse, Lady Dark is now helpless in your grasp, she looks so frail and lovely, you almost can't help yourself, you want to kiss her, make an EGO roll please..."

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

It's all very well and good to fantasize about how you're going to go up to the villain, force him to his knees, cuff him, and drag him off to jail amid the cheers of a joyous city; but, after a long fight that you barely live through, come face to face at least with the nemesis you've chased for so long, that has visited atrocity after barbarous atrocity on your friends and the innocent citizens . . . all you really want is to smash his face in.

 

The question I've come here to ask is, do you?

 

I want to put in a campaign mechanic that will threaten, at inconvenient times, to overwhelm a PC with emotion. How strong of a (NND, I'm assuming, since it is, after all, the character's own desires) Mental/Presence attack should this be, for various influential factors?

 

And sometimes you become overwhelmed with emotion and that causes you to destroy your target... Just happened to my character Gabriel in the Champions of Vancouver game. The group had finally taken down Dark Seraph and retrieved the Crowns of Krimm from his grasp. Gabriel, having tangled with the midnight angel before and having witnessed him kill others, lost control and proceeded to cleave the Crown from his head.

 

It was in character, Gabriel being the Angel of Vengeance and all, and it made for a great scene [thanks QM!] and some great roleplaying moments throughout the game...

 

But was it the best course of action?

 

Probably not, but it was the character's action.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I do believe that all actions of a character are 100% in the player's hands. The only exceptions are when that player has given his character a Psych Limit, which restricts his actions in some way. Even then, it's the Player that's making he choice to place that restriction on his character, and thus the actions of the character are still 100% his own.

 

As for playing up the "heat of the moment", it's almost done for you. It's that final blast that ends up killing the villain instead of just knocking him out, or the one you take because you think the villain is still a threat. Those are just dramatic accidents and they play themselves out without any sort of mechanic necessary.

 

As for the element of a character acting against his own moral judgements(perhaps judgements enforced by a Psych Limit), I think it's best to look at the character's Psych Limits. In a stressful situation, you might threat the character as somewhat out of control, and perhaps vulnerable to taking certain actions. Treat the character (only for this purpose) as having an EGO of 0, and have him act solely upon the dictates of his Psych Limits. Play up the inner struggle of the character wrestling between what he feels is necessary and what he feels is right, but unless there some massively strenuating circumstances, he'll always act in line with his Psych Limits.

 

Example: In a game a ran a few years ago, I had a villain who experimented on humans in hopes of perfecting a sort of super serum. The primary results of his experimentation were a number of unstable mutants with varying degrees of power, several of which were insane and suffereing from delusions. Occasionally his subjects came out okay, but most ended up becoming supervillains the heroes fought during the game.

 

For one particular character, this villain was the bane of her existance. He had experimented on her family, turning them all into mutants, herself included. Some of the family contracted a bizzar cancer, some died. Some went powercrazy and started killing people for the fun of it. She got out, got away, and eventually used her powers for good, and always with the fear that one day the negative results of the experiment would catch up with her. She also learned about the villain's other experiments, about the torture, pain the suffering he had inflicted on so many, including some who became her closest friends. As some point, she had sworn this man's death at her hands (well, her sonic scream, but close enough).

 

Though we never actually played the game long enough for that confrontation to happen, her player did ask me what would really happen should her character find herself in a possition to end the life of her personal nemisis. The character had a Total Code vs Killing, but truly thought that this person should die. The question was, did her hatred of this man override her Psych Limit?

 

I told her no, that it would not. Should she find herself face to face with him after a long fight, with him at her mercy and only a shout away from having his brain scrambled by sonic waves, her Psych Limit would, eventually, after a long personal struggle and perhaps a lot of mental dialog, prevent her from killing him. What I suggested would happen is that she would face him, struggle for a while and end up screaming at whatever innanimate objects stood behind him then collapse into tears lamenting on how she cannot bring herself to put an end to all this pain, but eventually resign her as having done the right thing, knowing that he'd be locked up in a maximum security prison deep in the Arizona desert where he could harm no one...

 

...until Dr. Destroyer broke him out for a special project.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

This is Roleplaying, no mechanic is needed.

 

If you feel there is one - Dust Raven's example of using Psych Lim's already in place should handle it.

[Lucius]

Heat of the Moment

 

Require player characters to have pscych lims, and enforce them.

 

If that's not enough, check out the game Pendragon.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thought it would be a thread about environmental control...

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I do believe that all actions of a character are 100% in the player's hands. The only exceptions are when that player has given his character a Psych Limit, which restricts his actions in some way. Even then, it's the Player that's making he choice to place that restriction on his character, and thus the actions of the character are still 100% his own.

 

 

Pure truth.

 

The character doesn't really exist. It is simply an icon/extension of the player. All choices made are choices made by the player. If the player says "That is what the character would do" it is really the player saying, "I am interested in exploring the Story of this character and the repercussions of the choices he makes, thus I chop off Dark Seraph's head because I'm thinking it will make for a cool game."

 

What you seem to be asking, Robyn, is "How do I push the players so they have to confront some moral issues and drive Story that is dramatic and thematic?"

 

If that is the case, don't look at mechanics that try to force the character to act in a certain way... think about how you can encourage/reward the PLAYER for acting in a certain way.

 

The player needs to recognize some kind of benefit... more fun, influencing the story, more spotlight, earned luck chits, extra EXP, whatever... for making dramatic decisions with their characters. This can be tough if you run with classic '80s era use of disadvantages.

 

Example: Capt. Courageous has a CVK and has fought Super Psycho for years, barely stopping his big plans and seeing lives slaughtered all around by the villain. In their climatic battle, Super Psycho is stunned and starting to fall over a cliff edge to certain doom below, and Capt. Courageous has a chance to reach out and grab him... saving his life and putting the villain in jail. Now... maybe both the player and the GM feel, "Man, Super Psycho really needs to buy it... this is the end... it needs to be powerful stuff," but by the rules, the player is obligated to save the villain because if he doesn't he isn't "role playing his character right" and the game says you should give him less EXP for not being in character. Now the player is being punished for the kind of role playing they want to do, and might really enhance the story.

 

What you want to think about is, "How do we as a play group reward players for making dramatic decisions that enhance Story, explore theme and drive plot?" How do we encourage the player to say, "Capt. Courageous let's him fall. He knows he could save him, but can't bring himself to do it. As a player, I want Super Psycho to die, with Capt. watching... and then I want to explore what happens to Capt. Courageous as he has to come to terms with his decision and the repercussions."

 

Now everyone at the table is laughing and ooohing and aaahing about "How cool is that! Serious story implications! Sweet!"

 

Remember, think metagame. It is not a bad thing. Think about rewarding the players for the decisions that are interesting and make the play better... rather than worrying about ways to limit decision making and force a mechanistic kind of play.

 

Just my opinion.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

This is Roleplaying, no mechanic is needed.

 

If you feel there is one - Dust Raven's example of using Psych Lim's already in place should handle it.

My thoughts exactly.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I do believe that all actions of a character are 100% in the player's hands. The only exceptions are when that player has given his character a Psych Limit, which restricts his actions in some way. Even then, it's the Player that's making he choice to place that restriction on his character, and thus the actions of the character are still 100% his own.

 

As for playing up the "heat of the moment", it's almost done for you. It's that final blast that ends up killing the villain instead of just knocking him out, or the one you take because you think the villain is still a threat. Those are just dramatic accidents and they play themselves out without any sort of mechanic necessary.

 

As for the element of a character acting against his own moral judgements(perhaps judgements enforced by a Psych Limit), I think it's best to look at the character's Psych Limits. In a stressful situation, you might threat the character as somewhat out of control, and perhaps vulnerable to taking certain actions. Treat the character (only for this purpose) as having an EGO of 0, and have him act solely upon the dictates of his Psych Limits. Play up the inner struggle of the character wrestling between what he feels is necessary and what he feels is right, but unless there some massively strenuating circumstances, he'll always act in line with his Psych Limits.

 

Example: In a game a ran a few years ago, I had a villain who experimented on humans in hopes of perfecting a sort of super serum. The primary results of his experimentation were a number of unstable mutants with varying degrees of power, several of which were insane and suffereing from delusions. Occasionally his subjects came out okay, but most ended up becoming supervillains the heroes fought during the game.

 

For one particular character, this villain was the bane of her existance. He had experimented on her family, turning them all into mutants, herself included. Some of the family contracted a bizzar cancer, some died. Some went powercrazy and started killing people for the fun of it. She got out, got away, and eventually used her powers for good, and always with the fear that one day the negative results of the experiment would catch up with her. She also learned about the villain's other experiments, about the torture, pain the suffering he had inflicted on so many, including some who became her closest friends. As some point, she had sworn this man's death at her hands (well, her sonic scream, but close enough).

 

Though we never actually played the game long enough for that confrontation to happen, her player did ask me what would really happen should her character find herself in a possition to end the life of her personal nemisis. The character had a Total Code vs Killing, but truly thought that this person should die. The question was, did her hatred of this man override her Psych Limit?

 

I told her no, that it would not. Should she find herself face to face with him after a long fight, with him at her mercy and only a shout away from having his brain scrambled by sonic waves, her Psych Limit would, eventually, after a long personal struggle and perhaps a lot of mental dialog, prevent her from killing him. What I suggested would happen is that she would face him, struggle for a while and end up screaming at whatever innanimate objects stood behind him then collapse into tears lamenting on how she cannot bring herself to put an end to all this pain, but eventually resign her as having done the right thing, knowing that he'd be locked up in a maximum security prison deep in the Arizona desert where he could harm no one...

 

...until Dr. Destroyer broke him out for a special project.

 

I can see your point, but I am of the other school.

 

All in the interest of drama and a great story that all players can share, and of course in my opinion [coloured by the fact that I am an actor]:

 

Firstly, what I aspire to in playing a role playing game is that [eventually] the character's actions are his own, not the player's. The character reacts according to his back story and psych lims, not the player's. The best characters are really no longer '100% in the player's hands."

 

Secondly, psych lims are guidelines that come from somewhere in the character's back story. They are not immutable. If I want a Psychological Rule/Limitation that I can't break, I would play a video game wherein the controls do not allow me to take certain actions. Of course any breaks must have character justification within the drama and context of the story.

 

Thirdly, I believe that great drama such as facing your final nemesis is one of the main things that should allow you to break your Psych Lims. You must understand though, I believe it has to be earned in character - the character must go through a development and finally through conflict come to a realization that allows her to break the psych lim. That doesn't necessarily mean that psych lim is gone, just that it may be temporarily overridden in the face of great drama.

 

My focus is foremost on telling a great story, with great and memorable characters - great and memorable moments, and I will not allow any mechanic to stand in the way of that.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Firstly' date=' what I aspire to in playing a role playing game is that [eventually'] the character's actions are his own, not the player's. The character reacts according to his back story and psych lims, not the player's. The best characters are really no longer '100% in the player's hands."

While I agree with this in theory, in practice it sometimes becomes a question of whose vision of the character we're talking about. As a player, I like to think I'm pretty good at playing in character. So I kinda resent having actions forced on me just because the GM thinks my character should act a certain way. The GM gets a whole universe full of NPCs to control; he shouldn't also get to dictate the actions of the one character I get to control.

 

As a GM, I find that there are some players who are good at playing in character, and some who simply suck at it. For the former, no problem: they can get inside the character's head enough to know how that character would react in that situation, so they don't need my help. For the second... I do my best to nudge, cajole and "Would-Marcus-really-do-that?" them in the right direction; I like to think I'm pretty good at that too. But in the final analysis I feel it has to be the player's call.

 

Thirdly' date=' I believe that great drama such as facing your final nemesis is one of the main things that should allow you to break your Psych Lims. You must understand though, I believe it has to be earned in character - the character must go through a development and finally through conflict come to a realization that allows her to break the psych lim. That doesn't necessarily mean that psych lim is gone, just that it may be temporarily overridden in the face of great drama.[/quote']

Very well stated!

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Going back to the original question, I agree with leaving it as role-playing, rather than building in a mechanic for it. Good players won't need such a mechanic, and bad players will only hate and resent it.

[Mike W]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I don't think I'd put in a separate power like that. I'd have them make an EGO roll and adjust it for their Psych Lims. You've got Code vs. Killing, that adds a +2 modifier in favor of the character making the roll; if you've got Vengeful you make it -2 and so on.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

The character doesn't really exist. It is simply an icon/extension of the player. All choices made are choices made by the player. If the player says "That is what the character would do" it is really the player saying' date=' "I am interested in exploring the Story of this character and the repercussions of the choices he makes, thus I chop off Dark Seraph's head because I'm thinking it will make for a cool game."[/quote']

 

That's one gaming philosophy, and a very common one. However, I play (and GM) by the one that the "characters" existed separately; that what we call a "character" is simply our attempt to simulate, through a single individual, the events that took place in a fully realistic (internally realistic, that is; consistent) world, by recreating that person as accurately as possible. Historically speaking, the first two sentences above are then impossible; except to the extent that we can metaphysically declare all other people to be extensions of ourselves, even the "real" ones. In practice it makes for a very similar game, but for some reason the theory is uncomfortable to accept, for some players.

 

The only differences, really, are in the encouraging of "collaborative play" and understanding of each other's characters; there are two Stories told in a campaign, the Surface story which is made of the events that happen publically, with external actions by the characters, just as visible to the characters as it is to their players; and the story with Depth, which is known only to the players, and becomes a much more fleshed-out story thanks to including the "off-stage" scenes. Some GM's keep the Depth hidden from their players, and this is understandable where those players are not good enough at roleplaying to keep their player knowledge separate from their character's knowledge; but I believe that the richness of these stories is valuable enough to seek out mature players, try to train/convert inexperienced players, and try to run those sorts of campaigns.

 

The understanding of each other's characters is where, just as you described here:

 

How do we encourage the player to say, "Capt. Courageous let's him fall. He knows he could save him, but can't bring himself to do it. As a player, I want Super Psycho to die, with Capt. watching... and then I want to explore what happens to Capt. Courageous as he has to come to terms with his decision and the repercussions."

 

Now everyone at the table is laughing and ooohing and aaahing about "How cool is that! Serious story implications! Sweet!"

 

The player is describing his character's internal motivations to the other players, not just the GM (as would be applicable in cases where the PC is very secretive, and does not allow other people to have even the slightest hint as to their feelings or motivations). This can also be done through "not going off to a separate room with the GM" when you're plotting, in campaigns where the PC's play at intrigue against each other.

 

The "collaborative play" is both a cooperative technique and a protective mechanism. The first comes from realizing that, as a single person, there's no way you can fully understand and simulate another person (your PC), so, in the same way as players might work together to build a base for the whole group, the other players are tapped as resources to provide insight and advice on how the character thinks and feels. The second comes after you wake up the morning after a game session and realize that you were so drunk last night, you totally screwed up your character's plots, mannerisms, everything. When correct emulation is the goal, and other players know your character almost as well as you do, it becomes appropriate to ask them to keep you in line if your own desires or state of mind affect your ability to accurately roleplay the character.

 

Think about rewarding the players for the decisions that are interesting and make the play better... rather than worrying about ways to limit decision making and force a mechanistic kind of play.

 

I consider it a mark of good roleplaying that I can distinguish between ideas for what my character could do that come from my knowledge of the character, and ideas that come from my own desire to see something interesting happen in the game. I consider it a mark of good control that I can keep myself from pursuing the latter, unless in line with the latter (interesting is still good, just make sure that you can develop the appropriate connections between the character and their actions as you report them).

 

As for a "mechanistic" kind of play, my campaign setting currently uses a melding of the modern with The Dying Earth: the philosophy of its inhabitants is that, with the sun going out any day now, little is of grand importance and they may as well live for the moment, accepting what comes. Since my campaign is set in the modern day, though, the sun is still at a healthy age, so I've come up with different reasons why everyone accepts that their fates are but twigs tossed on the wind of chance. I also use the mechanics from The Dying Earth, and their main function is to govern persuasion! The main arena of contention (or "combat") is conversation, where PC's attempt to talk each other and the NPC's into or out of their possessions, contracts, etcetera. If an NPC makes their roll, and you fail yours, you are then convinced, and must roleplay your character as if they truly believe what they were told.

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

It's all very well and good to fantasize about how you're going to go up to the villain, force him to his knees, cuff him, and drag him off to jail amid the cheers of a joyous city; but, after a long fight that you barely live through, come face to face at least with the nemesis you've chased for so long, that has visited atrocity after barbarous atrocity on your friends and the innocent citizens . . . all you really want is to smash his face in.

 

The question I've come here to ask is, do you?

 

I want to put in a campaign mechanic that will threaten, at inconvenient times, to overwhelm a PC with emotion. How strong of a (NND, I'm assuming, since it is, after all, the character's own desires) Mental/Presence attack should this be, for various influential factors?

 

You would use a Presence attack. All the usual modifiers would apply and if the villain achieves a +20, then the hero will try to hospitalise the villain.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Or any number of Interaction Skills such as Persuasion.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

You would use a Presence attack. All the usual modifiers would apply and if the villain achieves a +20' date=' then the hero will try to hospitalise the villain.[/quote']

 

I like this one... very nice.

 

 

On to more philosophical things...

That's one gaming philosophy, and a very common one. However, I play (and GM) by the one that the "characters" existed separately; that what we call a "character" is simply our attempt to simulate, through a single individual, the events that took place in a fully realistic (internally realistic, that is; consistent) world, by recreating that person as accurately as possible. Historically speaking, the first two sentences above are then impossible; except to the extent that we can metaphysically declare all other people to be extensions of ourselves, even the "real" ones. In practice it makes for a very similar game, but for some reason the theory is uncomfortable to accept, for some players.

 

The only differences, really, are in the encouraging of "collaborative play" and understanding of each other's characters;

 

Not uncomfortable... incongruous. I used to think like you describe above. Simulationist concepts of "this imaginary world and character exist outside of me" kind of thing... but if true, then the idea of collaborative play shouldn't even come up. The idea of play at all is incompatible with simulationist thinking... because play recognizes that the reality is the social interaction of the play group and it's desires, not the imaginary settings and chraracters that are the abstract game pieces.

 

Simulationism and collaborative play are not just incompatible... they can't even exist together. Anecdotal, but I'd say nearly all dysfunctional play that is not a case of player vs. player personalty issues... is a clash between simulationist desire and collaborative play desire. This is probably the single greatest issue that has to be addressed in RPG play... though most people don't grasp it and fumble about with game mechanics and genre choices and such as fixes which are merely addressing symptoms not root cause. Even when you do understand this dichotomy and the conflict that arises around it, it is very hard to reconcile because there is a natural desire for both (at least in all the players I've known).

 

The "collaborative play" is both a cooperative technique and a protective mechanism. The first comes from realizing that, as a single person, there's no way you can fully understand and simulate another person (your PC), so, in the same way as players might work together to build a base for the whole group, the other players are tapped as resources to provide insight and advice on how the character thinks and feels.

 

I can't tell whether you are saying you approve of this, or are saying you don't like this kind of play. The above is exactly what I'm a proponent for, but this is, in no way, simulation. This is collaborative play in which players are giving input as to what they desire to see take place in the imaginary world. That internal consistency you speak of has nothing to do with simulation... as much as it has to do with an imaginary element (ex. There are dragons in this world!) is agreed upon as "fun" and matches the desires of the play group. Just because the group has to agree that an element "makes sense" for the consistency of the experience... this doesn't mean that said element truly exists and always has existed as is now being simulated.

 

Displacement of our desires and emotions and imagination into fabricated worlds and characters and then interacting with others who are doing the same this is a fascinating and unique dynamic that makes Role Playing what it is... but it doesn't mean that those fabricated worlds and characters are real.

 

I consider it a mark of good roleplaying that I can distinguish between ideas for what my character could do that come from my knowledge of the character, and ideas that come from my own desire to see something interesting happen in the game. I consider it a mark of good control that I can keep myself from pursuing the latter,

 

This is where I have to ask, "Really?" Are you truly willing to say, "I have to do X instead of Y, even though it is going to make me, the player, hate the game. I'm going to be personally miserable and not have fun at all, but it is what the character would do!"

 

I simply don't buy that. While players may have characters make bad tactical decisions that the player KNOWS are bad... or the character choose the wrong thing when the player KNOWS it is wrong... etc.... this is NOT because the player doesn't want to do those things... just the opposite. It is the player saying, "Well... that is what the character would do!" because heart of hearts, that is what the player wants to have happen as well.

 

Even to temper the above example... are you truly saying that it is best to choose an action that you, the player find uninteresting, unengaging (not miserable, just blah) rather than pursue what you the player think is interesting and fun? I can't believe that at all.

 

No one actively chooses to make themselves miserable. We choose what gives us satisfaction. Likely what you are saying is not "I have to simulate this, despite the fact that it is unfun and makes me not want to play this game." What you are likely saying is, "I enjoy making decisions within the confines of the fabricated character mindset. I enjoy how "the character" may make bad decisions. The event of those bad decisions is what I (the player) desire to explore."

 

Now... there will always be times in a game where we (as players) conform our decisions to the consistency of the imaginary game world and we aren't happy about it. But in a good game, those times should be rare compared to when playing within the confines of that imaginary game world are engaging and fun. If the player is truly not enjoying the play experience they won't keep playing.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

. However' date=' I play (and GM) by the one that the "characters" existed separately; that what we call a "character" is simply our attempt to simulate, through a single individual, the events that took place in a fully realistic (internally realistic, that is; consistent) world, by recreating that person as accurately as possible. Historically speaking, the first two sentences above are then impossible; except to the extent that we can metaphysically declare [i']all[/i] other people to be extensions of ourselves, even the "real" ones. In practice it makes for a very similar game, but for some reason the theory is uncomfortable to accept, for some players.

 

Interesting.

I design character's backgrounds and personalities to react in exactly such a way as to be "what would be fun for me as a player to play" - When I feel seperate from the character I don't enjoy the game, it's like watching a movie - someone else in controlling it. When I feel connected to, and then am controlling the character to my deisire of what I want to see, then the game comes alive for me.

 

I'm not acting a role - I'm being the character. I want immersion and connectedness. Not seperation.

 

Or to put it succinctly.. Accuracy be hanged, I want to have fun.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I can see your point, but I am of the other school.

 

All in the interest of drama and a great story that all players can share, and of course in my opinion [coloured by the fact that I am an actor]:

That explains the difference of opinion. I'm a writer.

 

Firstly, what I aspire to in playing a role playing game is that [eventually] the character's actions are his own, not the player's. The character reacts according to his back story and psych lims, not the player's. The best characters are really no longer '100% in the player's hands."

From my perspective, there is little difference between the two, except that the player has knowledge the character doesn't. That difference is essential to telling a story or else the character's actions will be about as exciting and entertaining as everyday reality, and probably will less of plot.

 

Secondly, psych lims are guidelines that come from somewhere in the character's back story. They are not immutable. If I want a Psychological Rule/Limitation that I can't break, I would play a video game wherein the controls do not allow me to take certain actions. Of course any breaks must have character justification within the drama and context of the story.

I agree that a Psych Limit is never immutable. Characters, at least good ones, grow and develop and change. However, this change rarely happens at the drop of a hat and it is simply bad role-playing and worse storytelling to have a character ignore key elements to his (albeit changing) personality just to suit the current circumstances.

 

Thirdly, I believe that great drama such as facing your final nemesis is one of the main things that should allow you to break your Psych Lims. You must understand though, I believe it has to be earned in character - the character must go through a development and finally through conflict come to a realization that allows her to break the psych lim. That doesn't necessarily mean that psych lim is gone, just that it may be temporarily overridden in the face of great drama.

This is where I most vehemently dissagree. I've never been satisfied by a hero (of any type) that breaks his code (whatever it is) just to make for a dramatic scene. If it were a movie or a book, I'd call it bad writing. If the story was written in such a way that forced the character's hand (through cohersion rather than something like Mind Control), drove him temporarily insane or something similar, it would make for a dramatic and movie scene. But when Never Kills Heroman finally confronts his nemisis and just offs him with no pretense more than a "please don't make me shoot you" police drama, I don't buy it. It's fake and everybody knows it's fake.

 

My focus is foremost on telling a great story, with great and memorable characters - great and memorable moments, and I will not allow any mechanic to stand in the way of that.

Agreed, 100%. I suppose we just disagree on whether or not certain mechans actually stand in the way.

[Curufea]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

It sounds like your just changing the superhero game from four colour to one of the more modern subgenres where morality is in more shades than just two.

It should just be made a campaign setting goal. And you can reward players with an extra XP if they choose to roleplay it.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Interesting.

I design character's backgrounds and personalities to react in exactly such a way as to be "what would be fun for me as a player to play" - When I feel seperate from the character I don't enjoy the game, it's like watching a movie - someone else in controlling it. When I feel connected to, and then am controlling the character to my deisire of what I want to see, then the game comes alive for me.

 

Totally agree with this sentence.

 

I'm not acting a role - I'm being the character. I want immersion and connectedness. Not seperation.

 

Getting way off topic, but I think many would argue that what you describe above (and I agree with) is NOT immersion at all. That immersion means losing yourself and any sense of the metagame and existing within the imaginary space. That being conscious of your desires as a player is the antithesis of immersion. Not saying I disagree with you... just the the term "immersion" is difficult to define... perhaps indefinable... yet may be the crux of the RPG experience, depending on your personal sense of immersion.

 

Or to put it succinctly.. Accuracy be hanged, I want to have fun.

 

Unless of course that you find your fun in being accurate.

 

As to having fun... damn skippy... that is the whole point!

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I like this one... very nice.

 

 

On to more philosophical things...

 

 

Not uncomfortable... incongruous.

 

Is there some setting that will let me fix how, in replies, anything inside the quote tags of the post I'm replying to are omitted?

 

I used to think like you describe above. Simulationist concepts of "this imaginary world and character exist outside of me" kind of thing... but if true' date=' then the idea of collaborative play shouldn't even come up. The idea of play at all is incompatible with simulationist thinking... because play recognizes that the reality is the social interaction of the play group and it's desires, not the imaginary settings and chraracters that are the abstract game pieces.[/quote']

 

I don't see why the two can't coexist. Just as you explain below, it is possible that "accurate simulation" will be "what the player wants to do". It may be a one-sided relationship (the player receiving their emotions and socializing voyeuristically, through the character), but it's not parasitic: even when the player doesn't (can't) give anything back to the character, the player doesn't leech emotions from the character.

 

I can't tell whether you are saying you approve of this' date=' or are saying you don't like this kind of play.[/quote']

 

:mutters again about missing quoted material:

 

The above is exactly what I'm a proponent for' date=' but this is, in no way, simulation. This is collaborative play in which players are giving input as to what they desire to see take place in the imaginary world.[/quote']

 

So you reject, then, that it is possible for players to all possess (and share) insights upon what desires and feelings and thoughts a "real" person had?

 

I set forth that this is not only possible, but happens all the time in our world

 

That internal consistency you speak of has nothing to do with simulation... as much as it has to do with an imaginary element (ex. There are dragons in this world!) is agreed upon as "fun" and matches the desires of the play group.

 

Or we could agree that it matches our desires for a realistic recreation, even if it isn't "fun".

 

Just because the group has to agree that an element "makes sense" for the consistency of the experience... this doesn't mean that said element truly exists and always has existed as is now being simulated.

 

You acknowledge, then, that a smaller section of that group (the individual) would also be unable to perfectly reconstruct what once was?

 

Displacement of our desires and emotions and imagination into fabricated worlds and characters and then interacting with others who are doing the same this is a fascinating and unique dynamic that makes Role Playing what it is... but it doesn't mean that those fabricated worlds and characters are real.

 

What you seem to be describing is the reverse of role-playing . . . where the characters act out the role of their players. I'm thinking of RP'ing as emulation to the point where we can extract their desires and emotions, house them in our imaginations and in our real bodies, then interact directly with each other as if we were the characters.

 

This is where I have to ask' date=' "Really?" Are you truly willing to say, "I have to do X instead of Y, even though it is going to make me, the player, hate the game. I'm going to be personally miserable and not have fun at all, but it is what the character would do!"[/quote']

 

Isn't this what we do when we accept that our characters have just died?

 

And, in any case, my response would probably be the same - to stop playing. Either my character is dead and I must, or the game is no longer fun for me and I am not inclined to participate anymore. But I think you exaggerate too far, presenting a false dilemma:

 

Even to temper the above example... are you truly saying that it is best to choose an action that you' date=' the player find uninteresting, unengaging for you as the player (not miserable, just blah) rather than pursue what you the player think is interesting and fun?[/quote']

 

First of all, I consider it a mark of control that I can, not that I (always) do. Secondly, there are many situations in which I can see actions that would lead to a better story for the campaign, but not for my character personally. Thirdly, and most relevantly to the paragraph just above, I can see many ideas with different levels of "coolness"; just because I keep myself from pursuing the best idea, does not mean I have completely abandoned all coolness.

 

Even the goth types are enjoying being miserable.

 

I would counter that the goth types are enjoying how miserable their character is; much humor, after all, comes from bad things happening to other people. Unless you meant the characters, not their players, when you said "goth types"

 

What you are likely saying is' date=' "I enjoy making decisions within the confines of the fabricated character mindset... where "the character" may make bad decisions, but that is merely a representation of my (the player's) desire to explore the Story the comes out of that decision."[/quote']

 

No. Close, but no. The character's decisions, as expressed by me when I am playing the character, are not caused by my desire to find out what happens to that character next - the character's decisions are permitted by it. And even then, only in the context of my playing that character - if I am no longer interested in finding out what will happen to the character next, and I stop playing that character, the GM (and other players) will be fully within their rights to continue figuring out what decisions the character would have made.

 

Now... there will always be times in a game where we (as players) conform our decisions to the consistency of the imaginary game world and we aren't happy about it. But in a good game' date=' those times should be rare compared to when playing within the confines of that imaginary game world and engaging and fun. If the player is truly not enjoying the play experience they won't keep playing.[/quote']

 

Agreed, on all three points.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Or to put it succinctly.. Accuracy be hanged' date=' I want to have fun. [/quote']

 

Well put. There are certainly games (and probably most of them are of this nature) that are for the purpose of having fun, enjoying social interaction, etcetera. But for people who want (to try) something else, there is sometimes less acceptance; it "isn't really roleplaying", or "will never work out", "can't be done", etcetera. Much as unrepentant munchkins are sometimes ostracized from play groups until, by chance, they happen to find a group that likes such things, the gamer sub-niche of "let's try serious recreation" is also regarded with wariness.

[incrdbil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

 

I want to put in a campaign mechanic that will threaten, at inconvenient times, to overwhelm a PC with emotion. How strong of a (NND, I'm assuming, since it is, after all, the character's own desires) Mental/Presence attack should this be, for various influential factors?

 

I can't imagine that to be a terribly popular game mechanic; unless the character is violating a psych limitation and triggering ego rolls, suddenly dictating the player must act a certain way, against the players wishes, or even if they are noncommittal about it, is intruding on the players exclusive territory. It may be the groups story, but it is the PC's character. Rolling some dice or consulting a modifier chart isn't going to make your players happy if they are adamant that their character isn't going to do something.

 

I'd err on the side of the players free choice; they are free to voluntarily roleplay a character losing it and doing something they may later regret, but I'd leave that choice with the player.