Heat of the Moment

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Now you've got it, ZP. That's why I'm so adamant about it. I say let the character do the surprising, not the dice. Robyn feels different, and I respect that. From over here. Where my character won't get die-rolled into shooting at a civilian.

[David Johnston]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Now you've got it' date=' ZP. That's why I'm so adamant about it. I say let the character do the surprising, not the dice. Robyn feels different, and I respect that. From over here. Where my character won't get die-rolled into shooting at a civilian. [/quote']

 

I don't see how that's possible.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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

 

Note the modifier. I would accept any application where the detail was marginally significant. If it doesn't even manage that, the player is rolling for a detail that has nothing to do with the game, and is basically just rolling dice to get out of using the mechanic. That's cheating; if they don't want to use the mechanic, they should state this openly, and we can work something out (which might result in, basically, them not wanting to play the game as is; in which case, some level of cheating is understandable, but still not acceptable, on the grounds that they could have anticipated the results of being honest about it, and not wanted to stop playing).

 

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

 

Noone is saying you have to.

 

If you don't want to do that, don't choose to do it, it really is that simple.

 

If you can't bring yourself to do it at all, in an entire session, then we've got problems. Let's use an example of this mechanic in play, though (from before its conversion to the HERO system).

 

I stay in the booth and finish my drink before following them out of the club. On my way out, I - hmm, would he be aroused by the dancer's fluid movements, swiftly changing in direction, or repulsed by the jerky, erratic twitching of their limbs? I can see it going both ways, but the question is nonessential at this time, though it could matter later, so my matrix numbers are 3 and 7.

 

(The matrix is a 10x10 grid of numbers between 1 and 10, the player has one axis and the GM the other, each intersection is one roll on percentile dice. This lets a single matrix be used for a long time without having to worry about players learning its contents or manipulating the mechanic's outcome.)

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I don't see how that's possible.

 

Brittney Spears is a civilian, right?

 

If it was your character's first encounter with Brittney, though, and you the player actually felt it was appropriate to have some sort of response, but there was nothing in the already established patterns of the character to give a clue one way or another - this mechanic wouldn't be used. It's only for those situations where the character has conflicting patterns, the player isn't sure what to do, and the player chooses to use dice to resolve the question.

 

Now, if, on the other hand, your character had just been subjected to a Presence Attack by Brittney Spears, and was caught halfway between an urge to kiss her and an urge to puke all over her shoes for how overdone her prettiness was, the mechanic would become available as an option.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Repped when it regenerates . . . what' date=' does this thing give you 2 every 48 hours or something when you're still new?[/quote']

 

You get 4 or 5 a day. And you have to rep 9 or 10 other people before you can rep the same person again. I think those are the numbers.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Woah! Did I blink? It's like I nodded off and woke up in a Kevin Smith film...

 

Okay, I've only skimmed everything past post 45 or so, is it worth catching up at this point or whould I move along to another thread?

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Woah! Did I blink? It's like I nodded off and woke up in a Kevin Smith film...

 

I keep on telling people that Kevin Smith is dead, but then they get all mad and yell at me

 

Okay' date=' I've only skimmed everything past post 45 or so, is it worth catching up at this point or whould I move along to another thread?[/quote']

 

There have been a few misunderstandings along the way but we've got most of those cleared up now. If you're trying to understand what's going on then Thia's posts express the disagreement with such a mechanic well, while Zeropoint's are a concise reformulation of the idea behind it. (Well, one of the more influential ideas behind it, anyway.) If you were hoping to figure out where the debate stands at this point, the only misunderstandings still not resolved are between me and RDU Neil, to my knowledge; I may not stand with everyone else when it comes to whether or not to use such a mechanic, but we agree that our choices are a matter of personal taste.

 

To clear something else up (that may not have been apparent), I can and have played without such a mechanic. It's just that, when designing my own settings, I have the chance to give it everything that meshes with my vision of the ideal game, even to adding mechanics that complement the theme of the campaign. The players I've garnered interest from are fascinated by the weird things I've added, so far, and want to see how they turn out, and I'm inclined to give them as much of it as I can. I'm just not going to stop coming up with more ideas because the play group might have to drop a rule or two we can't all agree on before playing. If that needs to happen it will, but in the meantime I'll make sure there are so many odd ideas that they can all have plenty of fun. If the type of player that Thia described in "Mike", being of the inclination towards lengthy philosophical musings, can have "fun" in the traditional sense.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I keep on telling people that Kevin Smith is dead' date=' but then they get all mad and yell at me [/quote']

Ares is dead, but Kevin Smith will live forever!

 

 

 

There have been a few misunderstandings along the way but we've got most of those cleared up now. If you're trying to understand what's going on then Thia's posts express the disagreement with such a mechanic well, while Zeropoint's are a concise reformulation of the idea behind it. (Well, one of the more influential ideas behind it, anyway.) If you were hoping to figure out where the debate stands at this point, the only misunderstandings still not resolved are between me and RDU Neil, to my knowledge; I may not stand with everyone else when it comes to whether or not to use such a mechanic, but we agree that our choices are a matter of personal taste.

 

To clear something else up (that may not have been apparent), I can and have played without such a mechanic. It's just that, when designing my own settings, I have the chance to give it everything that meshes with my vision of the ideal game, even to adding mechanics that complement the theme of the campaign. The players I've garnered interest from are fascinated by the weird things I've added, so far, and want to see how they turn out, and I'm inclined to give them as much of it as I can. I'm just not going to stop coming up with more ideas because the play group might have to drop a rule or two we can't all agree on before playing. If that needs to happen it will, but in the meantime I'll make sure there are so many odd ideas that they can all have plenty of fun. If the type of player that Thia described in "Mike", being of the inclination towards lengthy philosophical musings, can have "fun" in the traditional sense.

 

As long as everyone at the table agrees on the use of whatever mechanic you've come up with, and has fun using it, I see no fault in using it. Personally, I'd never use such a mechanic, but that's only because it goes against my philosophy of game play. There is an unwritten list of things I'll never do or use in a game I run, including "player characters are never affected by a PRE Attack and NPC cannot use Interaction Skills to influence the reactions of player characters" which I feel a mechanic such as this is in line with. But that's me. Other people play differently, and I'm sure they have just as much fun.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

The wheels on the Palindromedary go 'round and 'round... hi Lucius.

 

That seems fairly well settled then. It's a valid construct if you're the designer and everyone buys into the design. Just not one I would use, enforce or consider enforcing.

 

Apologies for any confusion over the ice cream bit; I just wanted to find something non-confrontational that illustrated the point. And, you never know, in my campaign choosing an Ice Cream Flavor can be a major crux.

 

Also, on being die-rolled into shooting civilians. I could reasonably create a gun-bunny who's been chasing Mr. Mean over the last 17 sessions, and finally spot Mr. Mean in a crowded street. Because he came looking for me. We RP. He bails. I reflexively pull my pistol... and hold my fire.

 

"AH!" Says the Matrix. "You hold your fire THIS TIME, but before I've seen you fire into a crowd. And this guy brutally murdered your boyfriend." We'll have a homosexual gun-bunny for variety. "I want you to roll to see if you can, in fact, keep from taking shots at your fleeing adversary. Failure means you do fire into the crowd."

 

Now we go back into real mechanics, and should the roll fail, and I do fire into the crowd with a .45, odds are good someone is going down.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

The wheels on the Palindromedary go 'round and 'round... hi Lucius.

 

It has wheels?

 

I've checked Lucius' public profile for links, and gone back as far as the forum Search will let me looking for his earliest posts, but I still can't figure out what the Palindromedary is.

 

Also' date=' on being die-rolled into shooting civilians. I could reasonably create a gun-bunny who's been chasing Mr. Mean over the last 17 sessions, and finally spot Mr. Mean in a crowded street. Because he came looking for me. We RP. He bails. I reflexively pull my pistol... and hold my fire.[/quote']

 

This is the point at which the GM, and the other players, might start protesting. But, in the end, they're just giving advice and feedback; the ultimate decision is up to you. If, however, their advice sounds good to you but doesn't thoroughly persuade you against such a course of action, you then aren't convinced one way or another. At that stage the mechanic becomes an option, because your character is in a conflicted situation where multiple factors are pushing and/or pulling her in more than one direction.

 

"AH!" Says the Matrix. "You hold your fire THIS TIME' date=' but before I've seen you fire into a crowd. And this guy brutally murdered your boyfriend." We'll have a homosexual gun-bunny for variety. "I want you to roll to see if you can, in fact, keep from taking shots at your fleeing adversary. Failure means you do fire into the crowd."[/quote']

 

Think of the mechanic like food. Unless your character has Life Support, they need to eat every once in a while, preferably something like two or three times a day, but less frequently will also keep him alive. If he goes too long without eating, his stomach might unexpectedly growl at him, but it's not going to force him to suddenly leap upon the surrounding civilians and tear chunks of raw flesh from their bodies, cramming them into his mouth. (Unless that's how he feeds. Which might explain why he was forcing himself to go hungry for so long. But, if he had less esoteric dietary requirements, he should still be eating occasionally.)

 

(Or if he was a disfigured mutant who couldn't go out in public to get a job, and had a terrifically strong Code Against Stealing, food or money with which to buy it, then he might be starving to death, too. But that's less likely to end up in attacking innocent civilians, and in most cases, it works, so I'm going to stop coming up with exceptions to my own example . . . well, at least, I'll stop typing them )

 

My point is, the dice are only consulted when the player elects to take that option. In other words, the player chooses to roll the dice; the dice don't roll themselves (whenever they feel like it) and tell the player what to do, the player rolls the dice and listens to them.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

It has wheels?

 

I've checked Lucius' public profile for links, and gone back as far as the forum Search will let me looking for his earliest posts, but I still can't figure out what the Palindromedary is.

Two answers:

 

1) Look at his avatar.

 

2) Not even the Palindromedary knows what a Palindromedary is.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

My point is, the dice are only consulted when the player elects to take that option. In other words, the player chooses to roll the dice; the dice don't roll themselves (whenever they feel like it) and tell the player what to do, the player rolls the dice and listens to them.

 

 

So how is this any different than Disadvantages and the like? This is exactly how we play them out in the game.

 

Player confronted with situation... makes choice.

 

Group responds positivel or negatively to that choice. The response is based on the social contract of that game... what the group consensus of acceptable is for that character in that world in that situation. There is no single right answer, but a broadly painted swath of possible/probably actions... some more acceptable than others.

 

Positive reaction from group... game moves forward. Negative reaction, player is asked to revise his choice, options debated, player defends choice as appropriate/interesting... new consensus on what is plausible and fun for all involved* is arrived... game moves on.

 

Player is stuck with "Hmm... yeah, option 1 was my gut instinct, but option 2 really makes sense..." THEN dice can be brought out to break the tie... player and group agree that either option is possible/plausible AND group feels that either option is fun and enjoyable... dice are rolled and we go with that result.

 

This is standard play procedure right now (as far as I can tell) without any special mechanics or anything. Player is reminded, "Hey... you have a Code vs. Killing" and responds with "Ok, you are right... " or "Nope... not today... this has gone too far..." and there is discussion. In some cases the player can truly see either one being the option, so then the dice are rolled. The player is willingly giving up control for dice because either decision is "accurate" and plausible and everyone is willing to play out how the dice dictate.

 

SOP as far as I'm concerned... so why the need for some new mechanic at all?

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

It's starting to sound like a circular argument, though, with each statement simply pointing to the next in line for its proof. If people always, no exceptions, roleplaying for the fulfillment of their values; and you are willing to accept that "accuracy" can be a value; and you believe that what is "accurate" cannot be defined by anything except what is "fun"; and you equate "fun" with "fulfilling a value"; you essentially are designing a word puzzle where "accuracy" is robbed of all its meaning and there can be nothing but "fun" and "values". Where does it all begin? The approach taken by a player will determine that answer. Either "fun" came first, and it's fun all 'round; or "accuracy" came first, and accuracy created fun.

 

To my mind, accuracy doesn't have any real meaning. It is simply the word you are using to describe what you value in a game. I can do my best to understand examples of what would feel "accurate" to you in a game, the better to support your desired play. I'm just acknowledging that accuracy as a some kind of achievable absolute doesn't exist, and what I'm really trying to do is support the elements of a game that you find fulfilling or fun.

 

I'm suggesting that even if everyone comes to the table claiming they want "accuracy" in a game... there can be no perfect achievement of accuracy... there will only be consensus on "close enough."

 

You appear to be saying that in certain situations, accuracy means players simulating behaviors and thoughts that are "random" and unchosen. (Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that actually doesn't matter for this argument.)

 

If the above is true, and you and I both state we like "accuracy" they your expectation is that I will comply with your concept of random, unchosen behavior out of player control. But what if that doesn't fit my idea of accuracy? What if I think that is the biggest load of hogwash, and doesn't mirror reality at all? In fact, it is inaccurate as hell!

 

Suddenly we are both fighting over accuracy, as if one of us is correct, and the other isn't. One view of accuracy has to win out. Unlikely, using this argument, any consensus can be built.

 

In fact, we've already established that we both agree that humans have imperfect perceptions and understanding of the real world... so any sense of "accuracy" is inherently imperfect and likely to be conflicted.

 

With that in mind, arguing "I game for accuracy" does become meaningless... because accuracy is purely a subjective concept. What COULD work, though, is discussing, "What do I find fulfilling? What examples would I find interesting and fun?"

 

This is something we can discuss. This is something that isn't up for argumentn, because we are starting from the premise of "this is what you want, so how can I accommodate that" and vice versa. If you explain your technique for "accuracy mean moments of decision making taken out of players hands mechanically" and I think that sounds fun... we are good to go and it has nothing to do whether I think it really is "accurate" or not. I've agreed that what you find fun, I can also find fun... let's game!

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

This is standard play procedure right now (as far as I can tell) without any special mechanics or anything. Player is reminded, "Hey... you have a Code vs. Killing" and responds with "Ok, you are right... " or "Nope... not today... this has gone too far..." and there is discussion. In some cases the player can truly see either one being the option, so then the dice are rolled. The player is willingly giving up control for dice because either decision is "accurate" and plausible and everyone is willing to play out how the dice dictate.

 

SOP as far as I'm concerned... so why the need for some new mechanic at all?

 

I'm not a HERO system expert here - that's why I'm asking for help. In the old system (the one I'd be using if my players would stop moving out of town), it would be a new mechanic. I'm looking at converting to the HERO system, though. So now I need to be asking "How do we do this in HERO?".

 

If we can already do it, great. I just want to make sure that the elements of the campaign which are, to me, the most important, can be replicated in HERO before I go ahead with a full conversion.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

[continuation of previous post]

 

I think that, by your sigline, what I'm after could be placed in the Levels of RPG Development as "Game Rules: The specific and variable application of Mechanics that define the play of the game.", so it may help to think of this as a "game rule" instead of a "mechanic".

 

[/continuation of previous post]

 

You appear to be saying that in certain situations' date=' accuracy means players simulating behaviors and thoughts that are "random" and unchosen.[/quote']

 

Accuracy is actually quite simple. Whenever you perceive, through simulation, the behaviors and thoughts of someone you know, it may become desirable to manually control the simulation so that those behaviors and thoughts are different from what you know they "would" be. This is the mechanism by which many fantasies take place; you know that the guy from the office would never give you the time of day, but you can - for the purpose of your daydreams - entertain the simulation where he looks at you with his smoldering eyes and offers to give you a backrub. You are, however, causing the simulation (your perception of him) to differ from the original. When such differences occur, they are inaccurate.

 

But you never really "know" someone else; your perceptions do not tap directly into their minds or hearts. You just have information about them, however that information may have been acquired, and the "original" is the immutable data; every extrapolation we make from the original data takes place in our "simulations", and our success at "accuracy" can be seen by how few contradictions there are between the "original" and the "simulation".

 

(Maybe I'm wrong on that' date=' but that actually doesn't matter for this argument.)[/quote']

 

That seems to be one of the main factors preventing us from reaching an understanding.

 

Take, for example, the "approach from reality" concept I've been trying to explain to you. You basically admit that you don't see how it is at all relevant, so you're going to ignore it. I, on the other hand, am saying that I include it precisely because it is relevant. Now, let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it is relevant. If you accepted this, and listened to what I was saying, there might not be any argument, you see what I'm sayin'?

 

It's basically impossible to introduce any new data to a discussion if one side refuses to consider its relevance. Nor can you even make a proper rebuttal to the idea of it being relevant until you've followed the idea through to the conclusions I've based upon it, and it saddens me that you're not even trying to behave as if I might have something new to offer you from this discussion.

 

If the above is true' date=' and you and I both state we like "accuracy" they your expectation is that I will comply with your concept of random, unchosen behavior out of player control. But what if that doesn't fit my idea of accuracy? What if I think that is the biggest load of hogwash, and doesn't mirror reality at all? In fact, it is inaccurate as hell![/quote']

 

We'll never get anywhere with this if you don't accept the approach from reality as a valid avenue of exploration. I can say, for instance, that player control is an unprovable argument here (akin to the existence of God) because we cannot investigate the degree of correlation between our own thoughts/feelings and the perceptions of such by some extradimensional entities that are our "players". But you won't be able to perceive, understand, or agree with the comparison until you start looking at the parallels between my "approach from reality" and your "traditional roleplaying". Until that happens, you will continue to think that I am describing some concept of "players" that can only be related to "roleplaying" as you understand it, in the context of "gaming", and therefore impossible to exist in reality because we have no "players".

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If we can already do it' date=' great. I just want to make sure that the elements of the campaign which are, to me, the most important, can be replicated in HERO before I go ahead with a full conversion.[/quote']

 

AH-HA. Okay, let me simplify this! If you don't own the book, that's creating some of the confusion. If you own the book (the revised rules) and you flip to the section on "Character Disadvantages" you'll find precisely what you're looking for. A pre-built mechanic in the form of Disadvantages (not to be confused with limitations) that dictate character behavior under duress.

 

You may have seen us mention these in prior posts; character disadvantages are part of the contract that the player makes with the character upon design; in order to get all of their points (we'll say a heroic starting 150) they must have 75 points in disadvantages. These include things like alcoholism, itchy-trigger finger, dare-devil and so on. Each one presents an RP challenge for the player, and the system automatically rewards him for taking it - they get points back to flesh out their concept.

 

In a desperation situation - such as "Do I turn him into a grease stain?" - you may very often look at a characters psychological disadvantages (or commonly referred to as 'psych lims.') If they have 'hesitant to kill' as a limitation, then they may relent, even if the most logical choice is to kill him. It's on that foundation that one could then say "No... no, I'm going to make an EGO roll. I want this guy dead." The player then controls the option and rolls the bones. In effect, he has too, because the psych lim says he can't simply 'make a choice' but has to go with the contract of the character sheet.

 

So yes. That exists. Is that what you're looking for, or something else?

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

AH-HA. Okay' date=' let me simplify this! If you don't own the book, that's creating some of the confusion. If you own the book (the revised rules)[/quote']

 

I've got 4th Edition . . .

 

Does that count?

 

Each one presents an RP challenge for the player' date=' and the system automatically rewards him for taking it - they get points back to flesh out their concept.[/quote']

 

This sounded outright cool for a minute, before I realized you meant the points given during character creation for taking the disadvantage. I thought for a moment you meant that disad would give them points every time they made a decision in its favor, which would be pretty damn cool

 

The player then controls the option and rolls the bones. In effect, he has too, because the psych lim says he can't simply 'make a choice' but has to go with the contract of the character sheet.

 

So yes. That exists. Is that what you're looking for, or something else?

 

I'm actually thinking of a slightly broader concept, one which wouldn't require the player to stat their character's entire personality (basically, reducing it to numbers, which, though I believe can be done in approximations {to indicate probability for large groups of people}, is a daunting task at best when it comes to the finer points of any individual). I'd like a "conflict" to be recognized from more than just what is written down on the character sheet and gives them points; I want it to include anything that is known about the character.

 

I like the "points in game", it nicely reflects the "tagline" system in The Dying Earth (players would draw 1-3 taglines from a hat when the game began, then earn experience in-game for using them in an appropriate and amusing way). There's not much parallel between working out a way to use a given line in play, and finding a way to make your Disadvantages enter play, but I'll have to think about this one.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I have no idea. I've touched 4th, but that's when it was superheroey and didn't really appeal to me. 5th Rev. appeals to me because it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a template.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I have no idea. I've touched 4th' date=' but that's when it was superheroey and didn't really appeal to me. 5th Rev. appeals to me because it doesn't pretend to be anything other than a template.[/quote']

 

I have an all-in-one bundled copy; Champions (the Super Role-Playing Game) and HERO System Rules.

 

In the index they appear to be separate, just two books in one cover.

[schir1964]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I've got 4th Edition . . .

 

Does that count?

The Disadvantage mechanic is included in Hero 4th Edition. Read that section for more clarification.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Game mechanics serve no other purpose than to inspire your story and characters in not necessarily predictable ways. They exist to add a factor of randomness, but certainly don't have to be the final determining factor. The GM is well within their rights to change or even outright ignore a roll if they don't feel it fits.

 

Life is not always predictable, nor are a character's actions always predicatable.

 

Yes, a character is usually predictable, as most people are, [determined by factors such as how we see ourselves, how other's see us, and how we think our past deeds have affected us] but there is always room for randomness and unpredictability. In nearly all cases, however, getting to that unpredictability is a 'reasonable action' according to the situation and the characters involved.

 

Otherwise we are subject to a break in that reality which is jarring and serves only to remove us from the storyline. If you are emulating Star Wars for instance, and suddenly Q shows up, it would take a large amount of suspension of disbelief in order to accept. If Q showed up in the reality in which he's already been established, Star Trek TNG, however, we could all sleep well knowing that the status quo has been upheld.

 

Everything within the game's reality needs to fit with the laws that we have set down, otherwise the pizza dude shows up at the door of the Cave and all hell breaks loose.

 

In my games, I love that element that makes the player temporarily go 'wtf mate? That's not making sense to me right now!' I love even more when they get to the point where it all does make sense. I love to unveil the big picture a pixel at a time, but it all fits the underlying reality I[/we] have created for the game.

 

So I neither let the dice, nor the character's actions become the pizza dude... unless of course I can find a way to allow the pizza dude to join the reality that we're setting down.

 

That unpredictabililty that the die roll gives us sometimes allows for games which are far above the norm.

[KA.]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I think a mandatory 'Team Member' package deal, that includes a 10 pt. Psych Lim "Does Random Things" would do fine.

 

Just call them The Plasmoids.

 

"Rather than punch the villain, the character totem spirit that is currently inhabiting me is going to fix a toaster."

 

Sorry, I've been up all night and reading this thread is giving me a headache.

 

I think that Robyn can find a way to recreate the 'Random Actions' mechanic within the Hero System.

 

And if the group is able to play Hero in a way that satisfies them, then that is a good thing for the system.

 

To me the whole concept just sounds a bit pretentious.

 

It sounds like your group has gotten so swept up in the affectation that your fictional characters are 'real', that you enjoy saying:

"My character is so real, even I don't know what it is going to do in every situation.

As a matter of fact, I want the rules to force me to not know what my character is going to do sometimes.

That proves how real it is!"

 

Sorry if this comes off as hostile, I really don't mean it that way.

 

But, when you get to the point where you believe that your characters have a distinct reality of their own, and that they are somehow 'communicating' their ideas and feelings to you, and that they are just as 'real' as people who occupy physical space, then you are exiting Role Playing and taking the ramp marked Schizophrenia.

 

Having seen a few people who have been there, I have no interest in even reading the brochure, much less taking the trip.

 

KA.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Jumping back in here after spending all of Saturday and Sunday morning at work:

 

Robyn, it looks like I misunderstood what you were getting at. If you're having the players roll to determine things about the character that are, in and of themeselves, unimportant, but could have important implications later, that doesn't sound so bad. I'd still prefer to make those decisions myself, but you mehcanic wouldn't stop me from enjoying, or playing, an otherwise good game.

 

Just to make sure we're on the same page: this is for things like "do you prefer blondes, brunettes, or redheads?" It doesn't really matter, in most cases, and none of the options are really going to fail to fit into a character concept. However, when the platinum blonde femme fatale shows up to seduce the character later, that preference could determine what kind of bonus she gets to her seduction roll.

 

 

On another point: the game may not directly reward a player for roleplaying his or her disadvantages, but a good GM will. If the character has a psych lim, and the player is rolling against it every time it comes up, that is NOT "roleplaying your disadvantage" (unless you're roleplaying the character trying to overcome it). If someone who took Code Against Killing is trying to kill someone every session, stopped only by failed EGO rolls, the GM should consider penalizing them for bad roleplaying. Furthermore, it becomes clear that the player took the disad just for the points, not because it fit the character concept.

 

Zeropoint

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

ZP: Nope, you're still missing the point. This really is about determining what someone would do in the heat of the moment in which - as KA puts hostily, but accurately, instead of doing what I want - i.e., grease stain the villain - I'm going to fix this toaster, because it's more suprising.

 

The conversation has gone in loops, and while I think KA goes a touch overboard with the whole schizophrenia thing, what he's saying is at least largely in line with my way of thinking. It's a character, let it be a character, and let it be a character I control since it's part of my psyche anyway, i.e., I created him. And as KAOS and I both agree, even if YOU were to create MY character, he becomes mine as soon as I sit down (see: Writer/Actor Dilemma, around page 4 I think).

 

My examples were intentionally built to reflect both a level of meaningless - the ice cream cone - and the dangerous of absurdity (the Allegory of the Cave). In the Allegory of the Cave, if we all believe that the shadows on the wall are true, then when the door to the theater opens and the light comes in, we rebel and kill the interloper. Reality is perception is one of the lessons we can take away from that. If as KA says we start investing too much reality into our fantasy, the line can get too blurred for some, which is unhealthy.

 

At the end of the day, you simply have to ask yourself is a mechanic which states that the contract as you've written it for your character can be called into question at GMO, then you won't really have a problem here. The mechanic, near as I can tell and have said, and had Robyn agree with me, is to determine the chance of you 'sticking to your guns' or relenting; to determine whether you give in to your dark side or holster the pistol. That's what it does. I said "Psych lims!" and Robyn said "Not necessarily!" and I went, "Well... ****, then I have no idea what you want, but at least 50% of what you want already exists."

 

Part of what Robyn was trying to establish was whether a mechanic that can 'push' a character in a direction exists already. It does, those are Psych Lims. Not necessarily the brass ring in this case, but the foundation is there, you simply need to provide a sliding scale mechanic to get where the author is going. Do I agree? If you're going with the psych lims the player bought, yes. I think a roll to determine if you're going to take a drink, Mr. Alcoholic, is entirely appropriate. Do I think a roll to determine whether I finish the story-arc based on random decision is appropriate? No.

 

One of the other subpoints Robyn made is that the rolling should always be in the players hands - as I said, what flavor of icecream do I want? But that wasn't the core of the discussion, the mechanic is to be used only in dramatic situations where things matter. And if you do NOT do this, then yes, you are going to be subject to a GMO. Which again, is totally fine if that's the defining element of the game proper. And again, not fine, and never will be fine, for me.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Okay: Thia, KA., I agree with you that the character's actions should be decided by the player, ESPECIALLY significant ones like killing/not killing the villain at the end of a story arc.

 

There seems to be some sort of fundamental disconnect between what Robyn is thinking, and my way of thinking. I suspect that even if I did fully understand him, I still wouldn't agree on this issue.

 

Therefore, I am bowing out of this conversation. Not because I think it's pointless, or because I think that anyone involved is stupid or evil or immature or anything, but because I don't think I have anything further to contribute.

 

Zeropoint