Heat of the Moment

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

ZP: We're saying two separate things here. You're saying Robyn is right, that we can infer the actions people will take based on experience.

 

I agreed.

 

What I'm saying is I would never make it a game mechanic. While I would - as you do in your example - point out glaring inconsistencies, I would not make the big decision for the character, or dilute their RP experience by having them roll dice in "the heat of the moment" to determine if they would, or would not, pull the trigger. No way.

 

So yes, Robyn is right, that's absolutely doable, no question. I agree that it can be done and that we do it every day. I agree that the same mechanics could be applied to a fictional character.

 

I would never use that mechanic.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I'm being careful to not make any assumptions here. This is why the questions have to be asked.

 

Ironically, the reason I find it necessary to ask such questions is based on the intrinsic value of creative projects, and our deepseated need to have our creativity free of external controls. What is this source that so strongly emphasizes freedom from controlled behavior and the "fun by itself" value of our creative efforts?

 

 

Interesting. Okay. I can sort of see that. I don't see that creativite projects have any intrinsic value, in and of themselves, but in the message they give or the emotion you feel when you exposed to them. A poem is just words on a page, and you can read them and have no reaction - or you can be moved to tears - the value is in the emotional or intellectual reaction, not in the process.

From a creation point of view, yes there is satisfaction in creating, not any outside reward for such, but the knowledge that you have done something. But in an improvesationaly co-orperative interaction such as gaming, I don't see that kind of satisfaction... it is the emotional or rational reaction to the creation being made that is at the center of gaming for me; the same kind you get when you read a poem you really emjoy or an essay that you understand.

Hence for me, the "fun" is in the reaction to the events, rather than in the creating of them.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

By now' date=' if we're at the finale, the player should be the only voice in that decision. Not the dice.[/quote']

 

By now, if we're at the finale, and the player still hasn't acknowledged the element of uncertainty, I will be asking them where it is. But, two points.

 

First, I pointed out earlier that the characters will have access, in-game, to means by which they can eliminate that element of uncertainty for various elements of their personality. This is, in fact, the very same mechanic by which they can resist mind control and Persuasion attempts; but with a different SFX than you might be thinking. They can still have their mind changed so that they now want to do something that goes against their prior wishes, but their Integrity will still prevent them from acting on it. Or this might be how the SFX already does work, come to think of it; I was going to handle it as an enhanced EGO score (only for taking actions which go against that trait), but it just occurred to me that this is functionally identical to requiring an EGO plus X roll to make them do something.

 

Second, the element of uncertainty is not a constant risk - it is just what leads us to occasionally incorporate some dice rolling into the situations for which we do not know how the character would react. The player is fully welcome to say, at any time, "Hey, I'm not entirely sure what my character would do under these circumstances, but I love both the possibilities, so instead of having to make up my mind one way and leave the other behind, I'm going to roll to find out what happens." And that'll be their dance with chance for the day. (Or whatever length of time - they can do it more often, if they'd like!)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

K. But is the player fully welcome to say: "I know precisely what I would do here. I'm blowing his ****ing brains across the ****ing wall." Or, is he invited to say: "Now that I'm here... and I see how pathetic he is... I can't do it. I blast holes in his knee caps and crush his hands with the butt of my gun." Or. "I realize now I was wrong, he's right, I've lived my life in vain. Goodbye. - BOOM."

 

Any of those could be valid, in character choices. I reiterate, I understand what you're saying, and I can see (and have a player who) would sit there and hem and haw for thirty minutes deciding what his character would do. But I wouldn't force a roll on him.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

K. But is the player fully welcome to say: "I know precisely what I would do here.

 

If he's acknowledged the element of uncertainty in the past, then yes. If he's been a long time since such things, though, I'll ask him to cross-reference the decision with something that would grant him such certainty.

 

If a player goes too long without including uncertainty in their roleplaying, I may end up giving them just what they want: a character that is trapped by their nature.

 

Of course, I'm trapped just as much by my role as a GM, to accurately portray the game world; and if their characters aren't doing anything that could lead to their transformation into a lower level, verging on Avatar status, I can't simply say it happens. I'll probably have to just pull the player aside for a talk, pointing out the relatively minor decision points that they can roll for. If they're still having trouble making up their mind, I can offer to decide for them - but I'd use dice, because using my knowledge of the setting would backfire, neutralizing the element of uncertainty.

 

Any of those could be valid' date=' in character choices. I reiterate, I understand what you're saying, and I can see (and have a player who) would sit there and hem and haw for thirty minutes deciding what his character would do. But I wouldn't force a roll on him.[/quote']

 

I'm very happy with players who devote major contemplation time to figuring out what their characters will do. That's one of the reasons a PBeM campaign appeals to me - the players have ample time to sit back and figure out what their character would do, and the campaign won't move forward without them.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

So... are you attacking a certain 'false certainty?' In which a player may have been in a position to make a moral decision but always chooses the 'most right' path? I find myself lost in your implementation. If I'm free to choose... and I know who the character is, backwards and forwards... then the mechanic only exists for people who can't make up their minds?

 

That seems excessive. It would be better to force them to make an RP decision, rather than let the dice decide for them. That's why it's role playing.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

ZP: We're saying two separate things here. You're saying Robyn is right, that we can infer the actions people will take based on experience.

 

I agreed.

 

What I'm saying is I would never make it a game mechanic. While I would - as you do in your example - point out glaring inconsistencies, I would not make the big decision for the character, or dilute their RP experience by having them roll dice in "the heat of the moment" to determine if they would, or would not, pull the trigger. No way.

 

So yes, Robyn is right, that's absolutely doable, no question. I agree that it can be done and that we do it every day. I agree that the same mechanics could be applied to a fictional character.

 

I would never use that mechanic

 

I apparently either missed something, or subconsciously chose to focus on a single aspect of what Robyn was saying, then. I don't see a need for a mechanic to determine the character's actions by die roll, and I definitely wouldn't agree with forcing the player to use such a mechanic.

 

Psych Lims chosen by the player are one obvious exception here: if the character has been given Code Against Killing at the total level, the GM would be well within his/her rights to demand an EGO roll for the character to kill someone. That's because the player has already agreed that under specific circumstances, the character may not act as desired--it's still a player decision.

 

Zeropoint

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Psych Lims chosen by the player are one obvious exception here: if the character has been given Code Against Killing at the total level' date=' the GM would be well within his/her rights to demand an EGO roll for the character to kill someone. That's because the player has already agreed that under specific circumstances, the character may not act as desired--it's still a player decision.[/quote']

 

Yes, this is effectively what I'm saying.

[tesuji]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

'ris a delicate issue to be sure and usually i find people usually going out on the extremes, like discussing how it applies to every action, might as well send the players home and run the game yourself etc...

 

I think it might be a case of genre as well.

 

A couple non-extreme cases to ponder where a Gm might want to have a mechanic determine player character actions...

 

STARTLING: A character is hiding in a box in a room when something suddenly makes a sudden great noise or the box gets overturned. Does the character shout or otherwise exclaim in surprise or shock, giving away his hiding? No, coins are secured and he is held fast but he can still "yelp" or otherwise speak out to give away his position. Naturally a player says "of course not. I am hiding. no one would speak out when hiding." Yet we all know unplanned yelping when loud nosies hit happens all the time IRL and in fiction. What if this is a "teenage interloper" style horror mystery game?

 

FLIMFLAM: A fast-talking con man hits the clerk up for change as he buys his soda and pack of smokes with a 50 and by the time he is done the clerk has GIVEN HIM more money than she should so he walks out with 75 bucks instead of his 50 and the smokes and soda to boot. No slieght of hand ot pick pocketing wad done, he just confusedand distracted her and got more money than she should have given. Of course, the player says "no, my character can do basic math and gives correct change. he will never say "i give too much money away."" But this con is effective and so much so that businesses pay people to teach their clerks how to avoid it. What if this is a street level campaign where grifting and cons make up a good deal of the flavor?

 

STEALING THE KISS: The handosme pirate is in the cell and the fine well todo proper lady is gloating over it but after a few moments of banter and successful seduction skill rolls she finds herself closer to him than she had intended and he steals a kiss, which she protests loudly, slapping him, blushing and storming otu... with a telltale pause and look back as she leaves. The rogues smiles and... slowly pulls the hairpin he took from her during the kiss and begins to work on the lock. Of course, the player says "i stay away from him, never getting within arms reach." What if this is a swashbuckling campaign where such roguery is in vogue?

 

are any of these cases ones where you would consider a mechanical resolution?

 

Would a stealth roll be needed to establish "i dont say anything"

 

Would a profession clerk, mathematics or concentration roll be needed to establish "i give correct change"?

 

Would an ego roll be needed to establish "i keep my distance?"

 

Would any or all of these be Ok to resolve as opposed rolls vs the fast talk or maybe persuasion skill for the flimflam or the seduction skill for the roguish prisoner?

 

Could these perhaps be established as global genre disads" in the campaign docs at campaign start or just left to be "understood?

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

DAH. Now we're talking about two separate things. Let me clarify what I'm saying without speaking for anyone else.

 

My understanding is that Robyn has/will use a mechanic that is based on prior player action and will use that mechanic "in the heat of the moment" to see if a person does as they intend. I say, simply, "I see where you're going, but you're not taking me with you." I'm not getting into the deep absolute arguments of what is and is not fair or valid, I have a basic stance and I'm sticking to it. I never said Robyn is 'wrong' for doing it that way, i said I consider it poor conduct to take that major decision out of a player's hands. That's the core discussion here.

 

Your post, Tesuji, deals more with EVENTS and character actions, rather than the desperate desire of a character to win their inner struggle over what to do or not do in a desperate moment. Hence.

 

Con man? Not this mechanic, it's an opposed Skill vs. Skill roll. If he fails, he gets correct change. If he fails by a LOT, he gets caught. That's simple to do and simple to model. That's not what we're discussing here.

 

Being startled: In HERO this is a PRE attack. Counter with a PRE defense/EGO defense.

 

Getting kissed: PRE defense and/or player choice.

 

TOTALLY different situation than what we're discussing here. Valid topic, wrong thread.

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I apparently either missed something' date=' or subconsciously chose to focus on a single aspect of what Robyn was saying, then. I don't see a need for a mechanic to determine the character's actions by die roll, and I [i']definitely[/i] wouldn't agree with forcing the player to use such a mechanic.

 

Zeropoint

 

Would you drop the characteristic of Presence then? It doesn't have much utility without the ability to affect people's actions by die roll.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

That's because the player has already agreed that under specific circumstances' date=' the character may not act as desired--it's still a player decision.[/quote']

 

That's very close to what I'm saying. I just allow a bit more leeway about the exact circumstances, which translates into more freedom for the player - they still have a chance to change their minds about what the character is like, instead of having every decision stand.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I consider it poor conduct to take that major decision out of a player's hands. That's the core discussion here.

 

I would like to raise the question, then, of whether this sort of decision is always major, by nature, or if it was just the particular example I chose? If there can be such a thing as a "minor" case of the player not being absolutely sure (in advance) of what their character would do, is it still poor conduct to impose a campaign rule that, once or twice per session, the player should choose one such situation to roll for?

 

Surprises about what your character is like lead to renewed curiosity, to exploration and investigation. I see many ideas for character development being inspired by this.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Would you drop the characteristic of Presence then? It doesn't have much utility without the ability to affect people's actions by die roll.

 

I don't really see that as the same type of situation that this thread is discussing--we have Mind Control, which can allow an NPC to dictate a PC's actions via game mechanics, and no one is claiming that THAT should be dropped. Presence attacks are in a lot of respects similar to Mind Control (especially for very high levels of PRE), and are to some extent subject to player decision as well: if you want a character who is easily affected by Presence Attacks, you can sell off some of your PRE. If you want a character who shrugs them off, you can buy more PRE.

 

I wouldn't allow any sane level of Presence to cause a player character to act in a way that drastically opposed the player's wishes. I wouldn't allow insane levels of Presence without a really good justification. Reasonable levels of Presence may influence a character's actions to some extent, but won't cause them to act totally out of character.

 

I'd certainly never let a mere Presence attack dictate whether a PC decided to kill someone or not. Whether the PC hesitates for half a phase before engaging Dr. Destroyer, sure.

 

Zeropoint

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Would you drop the characteristic of Presence then? It doesn't have much utility without the ability to affect people's actions by die roll.

 

I thought Presence was more of an "elan" sort of thing, that would reflect how much people sat up and took notice of you when you walked in the room?

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If there can be such a thing as a "minor" case of the player not being absolutely sure (in advance) of what their character would do' date=' is it still poor conduct to impose a campaign rule that, once or twice per session, the player should [u']choose[/u] one such situation to roll for?

 

And, if the player has the option of reflecting their uncertainty in a minor situation, but they choose to use it for a major situation (when they didn't have to), does this reflect on the mechanic itself or just that player?

[Zeropoint]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I would like to raise the question, then, of whether this sort of decision is always major, by nature, or if it was just the particular example I chose? If there can be such a thing as a "minor" case of the player not being absolutely sure (in advance) of what their character would do, is it still poor conduct to impose a campaign rule that, once or twice per session, the player should choose one such situation to roll for?

 

Well, it's definitely more of a sticking point when it's a major issue. If it winds up being something like, "They don't have your favorite ice cream flavor. Roll to see what your second favorite flavor is", that's not likely to cause anyone to flip the table over.

 

On the other hand, at what point is it appropriate for the GM to state, "Your character's attitude/desire is ______" without the player's consent? Is it really any different to do it by die roll?

 

Surprises about what your character is like lead to renewed curiosity, to exploration and investigation. I see many ideas for character development being inspired by this.

 

I completely agree. However, I don't think that randomly rolling for the character's attitudes is necessary for this. Pretty much every new character I create develops a lot of new detail in the first few sessions of play, and not all of it is what I would have expected. I've even had characters in stories I write behave in ways that I didn't initially intend, and there was no die rolling involved there.

 

Zeropoint

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I thought Presence was more of an "elan" sort of thing' date=' that would reflect how much people sat up and took notice of you when you walked in the room?[/quote']

 

But that affects their actions. If you can beat their PRE and EGO by 20

then they can't act for one full phase. If you can beat them by 30 then they are supposedly totally cowed. His choices are pretty much limited to surrendering, running away, or fainting. If he attacks it'll only be because he thinks he can't get away and surrender won't be accepted. (And since his DCV is 0, he'd better make the attack count.)

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

David: Again, you're off topic here. We're not talking about existing game mechanics. We're talking about Robyn's mechanic which changes the nature of the player-side decision making process. That's the core issue here.

 

Robyn's mechanic (which my understanding of is changing, but hey) is saying (IIUC) that you could be locked into a course of action, or you COULD make a roll to get out of it, or that roll COULD force you back into it... or you might do what you want, or you might not. That's not RP for me, basically.

 

The ice cream question is really the same thing; I'm being very black & white on this. "Do you want banana nut or mint chocolate chip?" "Er... DM, my character wanders around the store for a bit." "Okay, make a roll to see what ice cream you want." I would never do that. Robyn is, in part saying that the player could decide to make the roll - which is also inherently broken to my way of thinking. Let's be clear.

 

Robyn's idea is totally valid, and I'm sure would work for whatever Robyn has in mind. But I would never incorporate it and would rebel vigorously against it. I would do this because my character - my choices in how he/she is portrayed and the decisions he/she makes - are sacrasanct. You cannot now, or ever, make me 'roll a die' as a means of making decisions.

 

CAN a character suprise you? Oh, hell yes, but it comes from being in character, not from reacting, in shock, to a die roll tossed at the whim of a GM, or even with player consent. Could the player, on his own, with no prompting from me decide his fate on a roll of the dice? Er... sure, I guess, if he wanted too, and I would disagree with it just as strongly (and have, at times). Doesn't make it wrong, means I'd never let it near my character.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Well' date=' it's definitely more of a sticking point when it's a major issue.[/quote']

 

I ask that we set that example aside, then. My intent was to create a writeup where the uncertainty of the character's future was highlighted, not to make the question about major issues.

 

I guess I just have that dramatic flair

 

It's worth noting, too, that by the metaphysics of the campaign "Free Will" is generated by the constant push and pull of a trillion tiny little patterns that, in the end, leaves causualty to just throw up its hands and give up, saying "You can do whatever you want."

 

On the other hand' date=' at what point is it appropriate for the GM to state, "Your character's attitude/desire is ______" without the player's consent? Is it really any different to do it by die roll?[/quote']

 

If some form of Mind Control were being used, this would be appropriate. But, since this sort of thing only takes place sans die roll "as plot device", I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

I don't think that randomly rolling for the character's attitudes is necessary for this.

 

I think that "true" randomness (inasmuch as dice can be random), or at least a step above and beyond what we can get from trying to decide whether our normal choice or a reverse psychology or double-reverse would be appropriate to generate "random" outcomes, must therefore evade the input of the players' (and GM's) knowledge of the character. To truly be outside their prior experiences with the character, they need to avoid letting their preconceptions affect the process of determination. (Of course, since we still have to design any tables that would be rolled upon, we're still not escaping the dilemma, but I've tried out a system where low rolls are "most likely" and high rolls are "least likely", with the exact details being improvised each time.)

 

Pretty much every new character I create develops a lot of new detail in the first few sessions of play' date=' and not all of it is what I would have expected.[/quote']

 

Like any relationship, it's nice to keep things "fresh"

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I think that "true" randomness (inasmuch as dice can be random)' date=' or at least a step above and beyond what we can get from trying to decide whether our normal choice or a reverse psychology or double-reverse would be appropriate to generate "random" outcomes, must therefore evade the input of the players' (and GM's) knowledge of the character. To truly be outside their prior experiences with the character, they need to avoid letting their preconceptions affect the process of determination. (Of course, since we still have to design any tables that would be rolled upon, we're still not escaping the dilemma, but I've tried out a system where low rolls are "most likely" and high rolls are "least likely", with the exact details being improvised each time.)[/quote']

 

But there's no such thing as random. So nyah. Still, this seems like a fantastic amount of work to do something that should be player driven. You sound like my friend Mike, who gets into these extremely wound up inherently complex arguments about causality and wonders why I stare at him and say "Dude, just eat the damn cake."

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Repped when it regenerates . . . what, does this thing give you 2 every 48 hours or something when you're still new?

 

Robyn's mechanic (which my understanding of is changing' date=' but hey) is saying (IIUC) that you could be locked into a course of action, or you COULD make a roll to get out of it, or that roll COULD force you back into it... or you might do what you want, or you might not.[/quote']

 

Yep, you got it : . . .

 

I would do this because my character - my choices in how he/she is portrayed and the decisions he/she makes - are sacrasanct. You cannot now' date=' or ever, make me 'roll a die' as a means of making decisions.[/quote']

 

. . . I would, however, put it a little less strongly on the "making players roll the die" side. No player should be made to roll a die at any particular time, but they would be asked to please utilize the mechanic once or twice per game session.

 

Also, the ice cream session wouldn't happen like that. If the question of what ice cream the PC likes isn't even marginally significant to that character, the mechanic wouldn't apply to that; the details that haven't come into play yet are in a state of abeyance, they are left alone until the player (or GM) needs them.

 

Interestingly, this gives the player plenty of room to "adjust" the character's "established" details; if it hasn't affected the game yet, we still treat it as an "unknown", whereas in other games this might be considered a "retroactive change" to the character.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

But there's no such thing as random. So nyah. Still' date=' this seems like a fantastic amount of work to do something that should be player driven.[/quote']

 

We can't get random, true. But we can go a step above and beyond what we've got already, which will have to do.

 

You sound like my friend Mike' date=' who gets into these extremely wound up inherently complex arguments about causality and wonders why I stare at him and say "Dude, just eat the damn cake."[/quote']

 

Sounds like my kind of person.

 

:looks:

 

Unfortunately, you're in Virginia, which probably means I can't meet him to see if he would be interested in the game

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

He wouldn't be interested anyway. He's primarily a LARPer. he exists in my tabletop game to generate an element I can't get anywhere else.

 

A human element, uncontrolled by dice. Just sayin'. If I thought the dice were necessary, I'd've done this long ago. There's a REASON I don't think the dice are necessary. Mike is among those reasons.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Whiskey Tango? You want the players to roll dice to decide significant aspects of their characters' attitudes/actions?

 

As far as I'm concerned, what MY character thinks, feels, and desires is MY decision (unless and until some form of mind control is involved).

 

I extend the same respect for creative integrity to my players.

 

I might roll on my character's Psych Lims without prompting in a situation where they apply, but I'm not going to roll a die to see whether I pet a strange dog or kick it.