Heat of the Moment

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

In my games' date=' 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.

 

Exactly . . . I have a house rule called "the Metagaming Influence" which, in retrospect, was another of those mechanics I put into place which are really nothing more than a formalization of what every sane gaming group already does . . . but, I think I'll keep it as a rule, since I remember now why I did it: because of those rules lawyers who insist that you can't do anything if it's not explicitly spelled out in the book.

 

The effect was to allow me, as GM, to over-rule any player in their description of the campaign world or of their character (or their character's actions), based on information that I had not made available to them before. The reason I called it the "Metagame Influence" rule was that this information could have been unknown to them either because I simply hadn't had a chance to tell them yet, or because the influences were due to some larger part of the world and the plot which was keeping itself secret (in other words "I know it doesn't make sense for these politicians to be acting like this, and I can't tell you whether it's because of pressure from above or something else, but that is how they're behaving; you'll just have to trust me on this, for now."), and naming it for the former wouldn't have resulted in nearly such a cool name

 

In the case of the former, the passing of time in-game would take a short break as I filled in the player on what they hadn't known, whereupon the player says something like "Oh, I wouldn't have done that if I had realized . . . " (when I've just revealed a difference from the situation that would be expected in the real world), and then we resume with some alteration of past actions, and the player proposes other actions after reconsidering, in light of the new information.

 

In the case of the latter, my invocation of this rule would be my promise that, eventually, the reasons would become available later on as in-character knowledge. I deem this a good balance since, normally, "metaplot" reasons would only become available to the players

 

So I neither let the dice' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I'm reminded of "Reno 911", with the LARP/tabletop gamers

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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.

 

There is a difference between "real" and "realistic".

 

Most people either don't realize or don't acknowledge this difference, however.

 

But' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I'm guessing, since you even suspect this about me, that you're just skimming through the threads and perhaps reading more deeply through RDU Neil's posts; if you actually take the time to read my words on this, you'll find that I specifically brought this up (for the first time) in the context of being "if I were inclined to satire". At later points, when RDU Neil suggested that he might actually be taking it seriously (and this for something that I'd never even said in the first place! Just pointed out how similar such an argument would be to his own), I explicitly stated that I did not mean or believe in any such thing.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

If you're having the players roll to determine things about the character that are' date=' in and of themeselves, unimportant, but could have important implications later, that doesn't sound so bad.[/quote']

 

How important it is depends on when the players decide to utilize the mechanic. I won't prevent them from using it when I feel that it's too significant a decision, but I would object if they were in the middle of combat and suddenly announced that they wanted to roll for whether their character liked pumpkin pie or lemon meringue better. Unless they made it marginally significant, of course; for example, if they wanted to throw a pie in the villain's face, they could announce their plan and, presuming there was actually a bakery nearby, rush in to pluck one from the shelves. At that point, it's a rushed decision, the player knows that the character has eaten both types in the past but doesn't want to take time in the middle of playing through the fight to figure out which their character likes best, but also knows that a preference would probably influence which the character saw and reached for first; so, the mechanic would then be appropriate there. The implications later on might not be important, either; the character is sitting down at a table with his date, and the waiter comes to take their order for desert. Instead of hesitate when asked what type of pie he'll have, the player can respond immediately and with confidence.

 

Just to make sure we're on the same page: this is for things like "do you prefer blondes' date=' brunettes, or redheads?"[/quote']

 

To expand the example from an earlier post, your character is exiting the club and gives a friendly smile toward a blonde dancer, hoping to meet up with her later if they can defeat the villain quickly. Then you go "Wait a minute, my wife was blonde, but my childhood sweetheart was a redhead; which color do I like more? Was the color of my wife's hair a factor in my attraction to her or did I marry her for other qualities?", and, since you have conflicting indications, the mechanic becomes available.

 

On another point: the game may not directly reward a player for roleplaying his or her disadvantages' date=' but a good GM [i']will[/i].

 

It's when they have conflicting Disadvantages that I'm thinking about, and I've been wondering how to handle Variable Point Disadvantages to balance it, but all in all I've not yet seen a way to implement it that isn't more trouble than it's worth.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

ZP: Nope' date=' you're still missing the point. This really is about determining what someone would do in the heat of the moment[/quote']

 

I made the initial example very strong to clearly get across the "conflict" idea, but I think people are holding on too much to their impressions of that one example.

 

in which - as KA puts hostily' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

No, this is incorrect. The only possible outcomes are those which are already indicated by prior knowledge about the character - by what has already been established. In that case, you "want" (in a sense) to do both of those things, but you can only do one of them. KA's example would only be valid if the character actually "wanted" to fix a toaster.

 

At the end of the day' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

Since I'm establishing at the outset that the character contract includes those character details which aren't written down as Disadvantages, the question isn't Game Master Over whatever, which I am guessing is what you're trying to abbreviate here; the player has an obligation to acknowledge the potentially greater-than-has-come-into-play-to-date influence of previously discovered facets of their character.

 

I said "Psych lims!" and Robyn said "Not necessarily!" and I went' date=' "Well... ****, then I have no idea what you want, but at least 50% of what you want already exists."[/quote']

 

I find it ironic that the rest of you have been protesting my dicing of what should be roleplaying, and here I am trying to argue that details which are established only through roleplaying should be able to overpower details which are bound into the game rules

 

Part of what Robyn was trying to establish was whether a mechanic that can 'push' a character in a direction exists already. It does' date=' those are Psych Lims.[/quote']

 

I don't like the idea of taking every little detail we know about the character, however, and writing it in as a Disadvantage (what, 1 point apiece?). It's just making things too complicated.

 

But that wasn't the core of the discussion' date=' the mechanic is to be used only in dramatic situations where things matter.[/quote']

 

I've been trying to describe a "sliding scale" of significance, where some things are "only marginally significant" (i.e., not very dramatic) and others are "highly significant" (i.e., very dramatic), and an implied infinite range in between, but somehow everyone seems to be seeing only "things matter" and "things do not matter", and if what I'm saying isn't one of those, switching it to the other.

[radioKAOS]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Exactly

snip!

because of those rules lawyers who insist that you can't do anything if it's not explicitly spelled out in the book.

 

Yeah, I have a solution for those players as well... I just don't play with them. The last session I ran we totalled somewhere in the area of 10 rolls for 3 players and myself. Rules be damned if they stand in the way of our fun.

 

The effect was to allow me' date=' as GM, to over-rule any player in their description of the campaign world or of their character (or their character's actions), based on information that I had not made available to them before. The reason I called it the "Metagame Influence" rule was that this information could have been unknown to them either because I simply hadn't had a chance to tell them yet, or because the influences were due to some larger part of the world and the plot which was keeping itself secret (in other words "I know it doesn't make sense for these politicians to be acting like this, and I can't tell you whether it's because of pressure from above or something else, but that is how they're behaving; you'll just have to trust me on this, for now."), and naming it for the former wouldn't have resulted in nearly such a cool name [/quote']

 

I call that 'being the GM' - and I, as GM have Ultimate Power Over the Universe!!!

 

 

In the case of the former' date=' the passing of time in-game would take a short break as I filled in the player on what they hadn't known, whereupon the player says something like "Oh, I wouldn't have done that if I had realized . . . " (when I've just revealed a difference from the situation that would be expected in the real world), and then we resume with some alteration of past actions, and the player proposes other actions after reconsidering, in light of the new information.[/quote']

 

Once in a while that happens, but I prefer to address it immediately, so that we're all on the same page.

 

In the case of the latter' date=' my invocation of this rule would be my promise that, eventually, the reasons would become available later on as in-character knowledge. I deem this a good balance since, normally, "metaplot" reasons would only become available to the [i']players[/i]

 

The players just need to trust their GM. The players have control over one thing in the gaming universe, and that is their own characters. It is up to the GM to be everything else.

 

I'm reminded of "Reno 911"' date=' with the LARP/tabletop gamers [/quote']

 

I'm wearing boots of escaping.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Yeah' date=' I have a solution for those players as well... I just don't play with them. [/quote']

 

It makes it sad to think of all the munchkins out there who would potentially be great roleplayers, if we'd just give them a chance . . . I may be a hopeless idealist, but I've seen them change, so I like to be tolerant of the players who have a different style of play. Of course, then I have to find ways of GM'ing a group that consists of several different types of player, without rigging up unique house rules to individually handle their differences.

 

That's why I like this mechanic. It lets the people who want to use it for major decisions, use it for major decisions; and the people that don't want to, can opt to use it for something else entirely. One simple little rule, so many ways that different people can use it to have what they want. It doesn't serve everyone, but most players will be able to find an acceptable point along the spectrum for themselves.

 

Once in a while that happens' date=' but I prefer to address it immediately, so that we're all on the same page.[/quote']

 

I did mean "immediately" for addressing it out-of-game, but what I meant by "taking a short break" was that time wouldn't pass in-game while the player was learning something new. Characters shouldn't have to be locked out of play while things continue happening without them, just because I needed to let their players know about something that hadn't come up before.

 

Besides, without the GM, it's sometimes difficult to have events progress in game, so, in a sense, we have to be on pause

[Dust Raven]

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.

I don't think Robyn is trying to create "random action" but rather "involuntary (re)actions" or "actions outside the character's conscious control". Each result is reasonable, and for the post part a predictibale or understandable action, just one that may or may not run against the character's normal tendencies. And of course, such abnormal actions would only occur during abnormal circumstances.

 

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.

 

I really can't say if that's what going on here. Personally, I haven't been able to follow the past 100 or so posts concerning the subject. If something like that was implied, it might just have been a misscommunication concerning the definition of "reality", which has been up for debate for thousands of years.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

It makes it sad to think of all the munchkins out there who would potentially be great roleplayers' date=' if we'd just give them a chance . . . I may be a hopeless idealist, but I've [i']seen[/i] them change, so I like to be tolerant of the players who have a different style of play. Of course, then I have to find ways of GM'ing a group that consists of several different types of player, without rigging up unique house rules to individually handle their differences.

 

I have to agree with you there, but only because I was a munchkin/rules lawyer once who eventually found himself in a group of role-players. I adapted, grew, matured, whatevered and now role-playing is what drives my games. There's still the min-maxer/point efficiency expert in me that forces me to make sure each character sheet accuratly (and fairly) represents the character's abilities, but now such traits are working to create a more dynamic game rather than a crunch-fest of powergaming.

 

Of course, my GM at the time never had a rule such as yours to keep me in my place. Instead, he just calmly explained to me that he was the GM, not the rulebook. I had to be reminded a few times, but it eventually sank in.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Of course' date=' my GM at the time never had a rule such as yours to keep me in my place. Instead, he just calmly explained to me that [i']he[/i] was the GM, not the rulebook. I had to be reminded a few times, but it eventually sank in.

 

One of the first games I was in had a player who was arguing with the GM as I tried to create my character. The first time, the GM asked "Tom. Who's the GM?", and Tom (not his real name, I'm using 'Tom' to protect him from identification) said "You are." The second time, the GM looked up from his books and said "Tom, roll 6d8 instead of 10d8 for hit dice." The player looked up and said "What? Why?" and the GM interrupted him by repeating, more firmly, "Roll 6d8 for hit dice." Tom got the hint and shut up, rolling 6d8 (or at least I assume so, since I was too busy with my own character to try and figure out what everyone else around the table was doing). I took the hint too, though.

 

One of the nicer things about The Dying Earth was the number of "core gaming assumptions" that it spelled out in the rules, after reading through so many other gaming sourcebooks that didn't mention anything of the sort (even a little note from the makers of the game saying "we don't care how you do it"). For example,

 

(In answering your question, Alex is fulfilling another of the GM's roles, as interpreter of the rules. The GM, not the rulebook, decides how his game runs. If he doesn't like a rule, he can change it. However, he should warn you in advance that he's done so, so that you're not making assumptions based on rules he's altered or eliminated.)

 

But letting the players know about rules that have been eliminated and altered isn't such a big problem, even when the rules have been heavily modified from their original form;

 

Your GM will have read the entire rulebook and can teach you detailed rules as needed. Like Alex in the example above, he'll do best by telling you what you need to know as you need it, as opposed to recapping the entire rules set at the beginning of the first session.

 

The rules in TDE were amazingly simple; roll 1d6. If you got a 3 or above, you succeeded.

 

There were complications (like bonuses or penalties to the roll), but nothing complex. You just had to remember that there were no "naturals"; if the GM asked you to roll with a 3-point penalty, she was essentially telling you that the task was impossible, but seeing if you were so dense at math as to attempt it anyway

 

I also loved The Overarching Rule of Efficacious Blandishment:

 

The overarching rule of efficacious blandishment is the most important rule in the game. The overarching rule of efficacious blandishment states that a character who tries to do something outside the letter of the game's other rules may do so, provided that the player convinces the GM that this action falls within the spirit of the story. Thus the only true circumscriptions on your actions are maintained by the twin poles of your persuasiveness and your GM's gullibility. When arguing the merits of the Dying Earth roleplaying game, in person or on the Internet, respond to individuals who complain about certain rules with the standard reply, "Your argument is flawed. The overarching rule of efficacious blandishment lets you disregard the rule about which you complain so bitterly." Experienced roleplaying gamers may claim that the overarching rule of efficacious blandishment is scarcely original to the Dying Earth game. In fact, they might argue, in all roleplaying games players and GMs may mutually agree to disregard rules to better fit a given situation. However, gamers so often forget this that we feel secure in claiming it as our own sterling innovation.

 

The Dying Earth game is, in many ways, about creating the most amusing story. If good fun is what you're after, and you're willing to sacrifice realism and strictly enforced rules for it, you'd probably enjoy just reading the book if you can't find a game in your area

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Some days I get it, some days I don't.

 

Dude, just eat the damn cake.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Two answers:

 

1) Look at his avatar.

 

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

 

According to Lucius, it's a two-headed camel.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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

 

 

From my perspective, there is little difference between the two, except that the player has knowledge the character doesn't.

And, as far as I'm concerned, a player cannot be a good player until he or she is able to refrain from acting on knowledge that the player has but the PC doesn't. Almost everybody I play with will, for example, be willing to walk a character into a trap that the character has no way of knowing exists, even if the player knows about the trap.

 

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.

 

Let us say for a moment, that Nemisis has killed, maimed, tortured or otherwise harmed innocent after innocent, and in other ways damaged Never-Kills Heroman's state of mind. Does it make more sense, dramatic or otherwise, to allow Never-Kills Heroman the possibility of breaking his code this one time for this one villain, or for the GM to insist, "Nope, you've got a total Psych limitation against killing--you won't make that attack. Do something else."

 

Should the decision affected by the GM's knowledge of what the player is likely to do with a character that has violated a "Total" psych lim?

 

As a GM, I am far more likely to be flexible in this case to the PC who's player has consistently played within the character's disadvantages than to a player who takes them less seriously. If I think that the player is likely to try to play the character afterwards as if nothing unusual had happened, I am less inclined to be flexible. In short, I agree that it is wrong for a Never-Kills PC to

just off someone with little pretense. In short, I feel that there must be some pretense, and some tension post-action.

 

As a player, I am likely to find this a somewhat difficult decision, and am likely to make a modified EGO roll before even proposing to attack the Nemesis with something that I expect is likely to kill him. But since my characters typically have moderate or strong psych lims, and nemesii are rarely this deserving, this rarely occurs.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Since the "player" is the one "playing" the character, yes; they're the only one(s) who can give the final report on the character's intentions, thoughts, feelings, actions, and all the rest. But there are different ways of roleplaying, and some players (and GM's) believe that the role of a player does not come with just power. It also comes with responsibility. A responsibility, namely, to play that character accurately. Which may mean taking advice from other people.

I strongly agree with most of this. I tend to think of my characters as 'me' in a different skin (and usually with different skills, abilities and often, motivations) and in a different place. The character is mine, just as the world is the GM's. The character is my interface to the GM's world. The GM of course has the right to limit what is possible within his or her world, but beyond that, the character is mine. If the GM starts telling me what my character would or would not do, he has chosen to interfere with my side of the interface. When the GM decides that the world is insufficient and that he must play the characters as well, .... If he wanted to play solitaire, he should have stayed at home.

At the crux of The Dying Earth's mechanics is the rather un-Western belief that our feelings of control over our own choices is just an illusion' date=' and the true governing power is more chaotic than we would be comfortable with. But, on the other hand, that's one of the traits that people from The Dying Earth have that significantly differ from our world; they [i']realize[/i] that their lives are merely leaves tossed on the stormy seas of chance, and yet still manage to keep a positive outlook on things.

I know that my feeling of control over my choice is an illusion. Too many times I've done things I decided not to do and often failed to even start to do something that I decided to do. I've seen this in others as well.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I agree, the desire of the GM alone should not be the deciding factor. If the group as a whole agrees that there is uncertainty, and has agreed upon a mechanic by which to represent it, then the player can roll for their own character . . . in much the same way as most other mechanics are used.

 

 

There must be an awful lot of Goblin Hordes running around in that world

 

I think that what you think you read was not what Thia thought Thia wrote.

 

But if I'm wrong, you're right, that is a lot of Goblin Hordes.

[DangerousDan]

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.

 

In the middle of combat, no player should get a whole half hour to make a single decision. As a GM, I will after a significantly smaller period of time, conclude that the character is unable to decide (since the player can't the character obviously can't) and proceed with the next DEX rank. This is almost guaranteed to get a decision out of the player eventually. Occasionally, it is the villain's next action that spurs a choice.

 

As a player, if I'm that conflicted, I'll often try to make a decision, but if I cannot in a reasonable period of time, I'll tell the GM that I cannot make up my mind, and tell him that I'm holding my action until I can. This allows my character to freeze in indecision without stalling everybody else.

 

If another GM were to allow a single player to hold up a combat for a full half hour, I'm not above starting another game with the remaining players.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

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?

 

 

 

..., 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

It is a fine thing for a player to choose to randomly roll dice to determine a character's attitude. It is quite another thing for the GM to insist on it without good reason.

 

Can a GM have good reason to require a dice roll? Certainly. For example: suppose a character feels he needs to stab himself with a knife. (devising such a reason is left as an exercise) Even if this is a decision easily made, it is not one easily carried out. A GM has good reason to require an EGO roll before allowing a character to carry out this decision.

 

Can a GM require a character who has a "Code Against Killing, Total" to make an EGO roll to snuff out the most evil villain he has yet met? Sure, because the player has already committed to that being a very difficult decision to make. If the character was "Reluctant to Kill, Moderate" it would be a far different thing.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Surprises about what your character is like lead to renewed curiosity' date=' to exploration and investigation. I see many ideas for character development being inspired by this.[/quote']

 

I agree with that sentiment, but it is never a problem I've often had. When I have difficulty deciding which of two actions my character will take, I'm not above choosing to roll dice to push the decision one way or the other. If I don't like the dice' decision, I choose the other option. If I don't like that one either, I decide not to decide. The technique works pretty well in real life too, with the toss of a coin instead of a dice roll.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Exactly . . . I have a house rule called "the Metagaming Influence" which, in retrospect, was another of those mechanics I put into place which are really nothing more than a formalization of what every sane gaming group already does . . . but, I think I'll keep it as a rule, since I remember now why I did it: because of those rules lawyers who insist that you can't do anything if it's not explicitly spelled out in the book.

 

That brings up one of the things I like about the Hero system: there is a whole (small) chapter that gives you permission to change any of the rules. Essentially, even in a room full of rules lawyers, the GM is explicity the judge. The players can of course, overrule the GM by refusing to continue to play, or by choosing to play under a different GM.

 

 

The effect was to allow me, as GM, to over-rule any player in their description of the campaign world or of their character (or their character's actions), based on information that I had not made available to them before. The reason I called it the "Metagame Influence" rule was that this information could have been unknown to them either because I simply hadn't had a chance to tell them yet, or because the influences were due to some larger part of the world and the plot which was keeping itself secret (in other words "I know it doesn't make sense for these politicians to be acting like this, and I can't tell you whether it's because of pressure from above or something else, but that is how they're behaving; you'll just have to trust me on this, for now."), and naming it for the former wouldn't have resulted in nearly such a cool name

 

In the case of the former, the passing of time in-game would take a short break as I filled in the player on what they hadn't known, whereupon the player says something like "Oh, I wouldn't have done that if I had realized . . . " (when I've just revealed a difference from the situation that would be expected in the real world), and then we resume with some alteration of past actions, and the player proposes other actions after reconsidering, in light of the new information.

 

I've heard this called "Ret-conning" for retroactive con-something or other. Many GMs do something like this, but most of the people I know try to keep it to a minimum.

In the case of the latter' date=' my invocation of this rule would be my promise that, eventually, the reasons would become available later on as in-character knowledge. I deem this a good balance since, normally, "metaplot" reasons would only become available to the [i']players[/i]

 

 

 

I'm reminded of "Reno 911", with the LARP/tabletop gamers

[RDU Neil]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I agree with that sentiment' date=' but it is never a problem I've often had. When I have difficulty deciding which of two actions my character will take, I'm not above choosing to roll dice to push the decision one way or the other. If I don't like the dice' decision, I choose the other option. If I don't like that one either, I decide not to decide. The technique works pretty well in real life too, with the toss of a coin instead of a dice roll.[/quote']

 

This is the crux. You still decide, as the player.

 

The way I see it, if real life people can be surprised by their own desires and actions (which I agree they can) then it follows:

 

- players are real human beings

- players make the decisions regarding their characters

- players will therefore be surpised by some of the decisions they make in playing that character

- thus you have those "random" events and surprise twists coming out organically, by allowing the player to just play

 

Back to my original point... as long as there is some reward system for th PLAYER so that they are encouraged to go with their gut and make decisions that aren't perfectly reasoned and factored and analyzed.

 

Many people don't play this way, because many/most traditional games don't support this. Players are punished for rash acts and taking chances. "You didn't say you looked for traps! Save vs. poison!" That is an inculturated mindset that will often have players second guessing everything they do... never just going with the flow of character and allowing for intuitive decisions.

 

Some games may try to mechanize something that forces/changes the character to act outside of these normally regimented ways... and all I'm arguing is that the focus on the character is missing the point. The focus should be on the player, and finding ways to encourage them to open up and be "random" (if that is what you want). Disadvantages... at their best... are cues for the player to shift out of their normal train of thought with that character. They don't have a built in reward system, other than they give you more starting points, but it would be a piece of cake for a GM to create a "You get more EXP when you invoke your disads!" kind of thing.

 

The point being, if you want "play your charcter accurately" as your desired play experience... find someway to reward the players for doing this (whatever it means for the group) and you'll get it more than if you try to take control away from a player. While we are not perfectly in control of ourselves in real life... in a role playing game, someone HAS to be in control. If not the player, than the GM or other players, so the dynamic is vastly different. Losing control in real life can't be simulated in a game, because in a game the only other option is that control was taken by someone else.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

And' date=' as far as I'm concerned, a player cannot be a good player until he or she is able to refrain from acting on knowledge that the player has but the PC doesn't. Almost everybody I play with will, for example, be willing to walk a character into a trap that the character has no way of knowing exists, even if the player knows about the trap.[/quote']

I'm referring to cases such as Spaceman Bill is at the stardock checking in his ship. The player of GunBunny George believes it would further the story if he met Spaceman Bill as soon as possible, and so tells the GM he would like to be down at the stardoc as well, perhaps looking for a job offworld. Not only that, it just so happens it's Spaceman Bill he runs into first.

 

The trap thing is definately a no-no, as is running around the bunker to shoot the three snipers hidden there just because you say them possitioned on the map.

 

I will allow a character to decide he "just happens" to run into the room where the guards are all facing away from him, but the character must still act surprised to see them (and likely lose a Phase while both sides become aware of each other).

 

 

 

Let us say for a moment, that Nemisis has killed, maimed, tortured or otherwise harmed innocent after innocent, and in other ways damaged Never-Kills Heroman's state of mind. Does it make more sense, dramatic or otherwise, to allow Never-Kills Heroman the possibility of breaking his code this one time for this one villain, or for the GM to insist, "Nope, you've got a total Psych limitation against killing--you won't make that attack. Do something else."

 

Should the decision affected by the GM's knowledge of what the player is likely to do with a character that has violated a "Total" psych lim?

Well, if I as the GM state, or acknowledge the players judgement, that his character's mind has been damaged, even temporarily, by the evil of his enemy, I'm more likely to be lienient. I do expect the character to react appropriately for a character with those psych limits once he's come to his senses though. A character with a Total CVK isn't gonna accept his own actions easily and will have to come to terms with them.

 

As a GM, I am far more likely to be flexible in this case to the PC who's player has consistently played within the character's disadvantages than to a player who takes them less seriously. If I think that the player is likely to try to play the character afterwards as if nothing unusual had happened, I am less inclined to be flexible. In short, I agree that it is wrong for a Never-Kills PC to

just off someone with little pretense. In short, I feel that there must be some pretense, and some tension post-action.

 

As a player, I am likely to find this a somewhat difficult decision, and am likely to make a modified EGO roll before even proposing to attack the Nemesis with something that I expect is likely to kill him. But since my characters typically have moderate or strong psych lims, and nemesii are rarely this deserving, this rarely occurs.

 

I generally agree and play much the same way. Though I do have a fair share of characters with Total psych limits.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

I think that what you think you read was not what Thia thought Thia wrote.

 

But if I'm wrong, you're right, that is a lot of Goblin Hordes.

 

Err . . . did I place that underneath the wrong paragraph? I thought I put it after a quote of Thia saying that, every time she sits down in the GM chair, she creates a Goblin Horde.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

Can a GM have good reason to require a dice roll? Certainly. For example: suppose a character feels he needs to stab himself with a knife. (devising such a reason is left as an exercise) Even if this is a decision easily made' date=' it is not one easily carried out. A GM has good reason to require an EGO roll before allowing a character to carry out this decision.[/quote']

 

This seems like a stronger form of what I've been asking about; aspects of a character's personality that are not taking up points on their character sheet can still have some force in the game, opposing or affecting their statted traits. Unless we want to design a "base human package" for the Physical and Psychological, the Dependencies on air and the society package for "hatred of murderers, rapists, and Jehovah's Witnesses" (which would of course vary with society, inevitably costing a different number of points depending on your character's upbringing and current beliefs).

 

I may have mentioned that I am strongly opposed to this

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

That brings up one of the things I like about the Hero system: there is a whole (small) chapter that gives you permission to change any of the rules.

 

Small, eh? No wonder I haven't seen it yet.

 

Here's a challenge for you: try to find the Saving Throw Table in the Nightspawn sourcebook. I and the GM for NB tried, each searching the entire book page by page someplace around 3-4 times between us, and couldn't find it. We both knew that it was there; we remembered having seen it; we just couldn't find the damn thing.

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

This is the crux. You still decide, as the player.

 

The way I see it, if real life people can be surprised by their own desires and actions (which I agree they can) then it follows:

 

- players are real human beings

- players make the decisions regarding their characters

- players will therefore be surpised by some of the decisions they make in playing that character

- thus you have those "random" events and surprise twists coming out organically, by allowing the player to just play

 

That's certainly a legitimate way of doing it. However, I argue that it is possible that the "unexpected" may include a subconscious influence (one the player is not aware of), an active selection for choices matching a player desire that does not overlap with the stated priorities for the campaign. This won't always happen, and might never happen for some people, so it's reasonable to play your game and take your chances. But for those who aspire to a still-higher level of roleplaying, who realize they can't prove that their decisions are unaffected by their own subconscious, or who are simply at a low level currently and don't think they are capable on their own (even on the conscious level) of keeping all the layers separated like that, dice are a good choice.

 

Why? After all, dice are arbitrary; what if the decision they make wouldn't have been the right one? Thankfully, that matter is already settled for us; one of the Axioms of the game is that dice reflect what really happened in the game world. With the possible exception of really implausible fumbles, we don't roll the dice and go "Hey, wait a minute, I don't want to miss that orc; let's say I hit it instead."

[Robyn]

Re: Heat of the Moment

 

[Edit: since, at the time of posting, Lord Mhoram's original post appears to have vanished, I am going to recreate it here before my reply.]

 

Apr 3rd, '06, 11:35 AM

Lord Mhoram

HERO junkie

Join Date: Feb 2003

Location: Ogden Utah

Age: 39

Posts: 1,642

Rep Power: 91

 

Re: Heat of the Moment

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robyn

But for those who aspire to a still-higher level of roleplaying, who realize they can't prove that their decisions are unaffected by their own subconscious, or who are simply at a low level currently and don't think they are capable on their own (even on the conscious level) of keeping all the layers separated like that, dice are a good choice.

 

 

Okay, I'm going to play Ms Manners.

 

 

That sounds like "One-ture-way-ism" implying that the style of roleplaying you aspire to is inherently better or truer that what other people play.

 

For example I might say :

 

The highest level of roleplaying to be those where the character and player are completly inseperatable and never use dice to control the outcome of in character decisions. The goal is perfect connectedness - where the player, and character in play, are indistinguiable from each other; using all information (gaming choices, player personality, player subconscous, character design). So what you describe is a lower level of roleplaying.

 

end example.

 

Or I might say - For my playstyle the intent of the game is character immersion to the point where the choices of the player and the character are indisgiusable from each other, no matter what the source.

 

See the difference.

__________________

In 96 hours, Jack Bauer has killed 93 people and saved the world 4 times. What have you done with your life?

Last edited by Lord Mhoram : Apr 3rd, '06 at 11:38 AM.

 

 

Okay, I'm going to play Ms Manners.

 

 

That sounds like "One-ture-way-ism" implying that the style of roleplaying you aspire to is inherently better or truer that what other people play.

 

A poor word choice, I agree. I originally had that written as "accuracy", but then I remembered that "accuracy" was a word under contention for the meaning. Since we (RDU Neil and I) still hadn't come to an agreement about what "accuracy" meant, I thought about it and realized that all of the other words I would use ("realism", etcetera) were also under contention, I couldn't be specific. I used "roleplaying" to indicate the general type of activity I was speaking of.

 

I really would like to use "accuracy", but since RDU Neil has stopped responding to my points on that matter, I can't yet. I don't know if he is formulating a reply and I can just wait, or if he's ignoring it completely. I did declare several times, and with increasing emphasis, that the question was important, and explicitly asked him to answer the question, so I'd like to know either way. If you're amenable, we can simply agree to use "accuracy" as I'd originally preferred, and disregard RDU Neil's arguments surrounding the term until such time as his position becomes better stated than "unstated"; currently it looks as if his position is "I know with an utter certainty that the question is not relevant, therefore I have no reason to examine any evidence that allegedly might contradict my beliefs."