Robyn

Re: OK, now I'm beginning to understand the stats a bit...

Re: Heat of the Moment 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?

Re: Heat of the Moment 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?

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? 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.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Re: Heat of the Moment 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.

Re: Heat of the Moment

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? Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator

Re: Heat of the Moment

Re: Heat of the Moment No, they're separate. It's like this: :fiddles with ASCII art: I need a real drawing program. Start with a real person, your Significant Other; now, ask yourself this: what do you know about them? Do you have an idea of how they would feel in a given situation? Are there any of those situations in which you would feel differently? If so, can you nonetheless empathize with your SO by imagining how your SO would feel in that situation? Continue with an imaginary person, your character; then, ask yourself this: what do you know about them? Do you have an idea of how they would feel in a given situation? Are there any of those situations in which you would feel differently? If so, can you nonetheless empathize with your character by imagining how your character would feel in that situation? Both of these (your SO and your character) can be considered "roleplaying" to the extent that you understand them, because the methods used to come by that understanding overlap as I described above. There are additional techniques for a real person, that cannot be used in roleplaying; and there are additional techniques for roleplaying, that cannot be used for understanding real people; but for this technique, there is no difference. The "very little" difference comes from those extra techniques, because (as I said) there is a chance you will be able to "check in" with the real-life person to confirm the accuracy of your simulation. If they're dead now, or won't talk with you, you have to go off of less data, though; if they're an idol or pop star, perhaps you will be able to buy their videos and read their interviews in magazines. For major historical figures, you should be able to read biographies and/or their published works, etcetera. For everyone else in the real world, and for most characters (the largest exceptions being Batman, and the rest), you have much less to go off of. Patterns also indicate a certain statistical likelihood that people will do something despite what they would rather not do. This is why I like the idea of an EGO roll; characters with above-average willpower should be in the higher end of that statistical bell curve, for the population; the thing is that, ultimately, we have several intersecting axes of probability. There are their established patterns of character behavior, and their relevant attributes, and the wider statistics that someone of their willpower would, in such a situation, break from the established patterns. In other words, we have uncertainty. Rolling dice is a way of handling the outcome which maintains the larger element of uncertainty. Good, because I've done it, and I don't want to pull out my notes There must be an awful lot of Goblin Hordes running around in that world All I'm doing is asking about a mechanic to add to that repertoire. That's precisely what I want to keep - I just happen to think that it's not human to always know exactly who we will be.

Re: Heat of the Moment That helps immensely, yes. In that same sense, we "enjoy" work, even at jobs we don't particularly like, because the exact actions we take at work, even if unpleasant, are nonetheless one of our "values" (within their full context, of giving us money which we can use to survive and obtain other things which we deem valuable). 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. No, I brought it up only to illustrate a point; that, when we put forth any belief that deals with dissent by saying "You just don't realize how it really works because your lack of enlightenment blinds you to the truths that refute your groundless theories.", it tends not to sound very impressive to the unenlightened All of which you built an excellent argument for Pointing out the origins of some of the people who, later on, were roleplayers. Yet, your arguments fall to pieces the moment they face a player who came from "simulating real life" to "roleplaying". I don't think they "interact", either, but that doesn't seem like the vital part of your argument here; that is, I don't see how it would matter even if they did interact. (Intersect, yes.) What they do is overlap. The techniques used in both are extraordinarily similar, to the degree of being all but identical; I have pointed out several real-life examples where, epistemologically, they are indistinguishable from roleplaying. (I would have said, here, that they were like the methods used in roleplaying - but I accept what you said earlier about "joy" and "attaining a value" being equivalent.) That depends entirely upon the situation. However, as I have pointed out, there is no difference in technique regardless of whether the "original" is/was real or not. But my argument is that "what happens during the roleplaying experience" is not as fixed as you seem to think; that it directly depends upon the approach, the origin, of the people who do it. See my paragraph about "circular arguments". Please try to ignore the "spiritual" example, I raised that point only to show how silly such things are. Apparently you are already experiencing for yourself some of the difficulty in taking seriously the person who says such things I have been arguing for the lack of such an "other" plane for the thoughts and feelings of others, both in reality and in gaming, to show that the techniques for figuring out what thoughts and feelings would be in either are fundamentally the same. I'm just sayin' . . . There's got to be a difference between starting out with "what everyone agrees on" as the measure of plausibility, which pretty much becomes "anything goes", so long as you can talk others into going along with it; and "as it works in reality" to determine the standard of realism (kinda redundant, that, semantically), which provides an objective point of reference, instead of one that can change with the mood in your group. But do you do this by accepting that some of them might have different ideas of "accuracy" than you, or by insisting that they have the same ideas as you do and just don't realize it yet? That's at the heart of the matter, here. Do you let them create a simulation of someone that isn't them, or do you insist that they're just exploring their own ideas, emotions, thoughts, and desires, with the simulation a way to externalize the concepts they're exploring without having to admit that these concepts came entirely from their own selves? We're speaking about different recognitions, then. I'm speaking about "their differences" in the sense of what about them is unlike you, not just their desires. I'm speaking about recognizing that their minds work in a way that yours doesn't.

Re: Heat of the Moment Before trying to answer that, I need to check a few premises: what is a "leisure" activity? Why must there be some sort of "reward"? Is there always a reward, and payment for jobs is one of them, or is the money received from working merely the lack of "punishment"? The nature of human motivation aside, there is also the question of just what constitutes a "leisure activity". Some people write poetry for their own pleasure. Others write it for a living. Some do both, writing for their own pleasure and/or for practice at their real jobs. When does something become a "leisure activity"? Is it exclusively defined by the presence and/or absence of the aforementioned "rewards" and/or "punishments"?

Re: Size Powers Question

Re: Size Powers Question The problem is that if I do want the benefits from increased density, even if only to counteract the then-nonsensical reductions that Shrinking causes for my statistics, I have to pay a lot more points for it. Shouldn't there be a simpler, more straightforward way of doing this?

Re: Killing Epiphany Sounds like the Sword of Shannara to me. I heard Vash singing the Genocide Song . . .

Re: Heat of the Moment If I understand you correctly, From your response, I think you do. Which makes it fun that you disagree; it's an honor to be conversing with someone who disagrees with me, with what I'm actually saying, instead of disagreeing with some idea that they have (existing only in their own minds) of what I must be saying. If I were inclined to satire, I could take your previous posts and reword them to explain how "roleplaying" is really just this way by which we can spiritually "tap into" the minds of those in another reality, and most of us are too egocentric to believe that the information we're coming up with came from anywhere but our own imaginations The argument would be just as difficult to disprove as your own The mechanics, to make this clear, are only to reflect how we cannot really know our own characters; they keep things mixed up, reminding the players to be doubtful of what they really "know" about the PC's (the characters, of course, rationalize things to themselves and go on believing they have never acted in an odd manner). The group dynamic you describe is exactly as I would have it be. I rate accuracy not just by the external behaviors, but the internal thoughts, feelings, etcetera. There is a difference between overwriting an imaginary "reality" with uncalled-for details, and excising inappropriate details from a bloated "reality" that never should have had them in the first place. The difference is in perspective; if we accept uncertainty, we accept that we might be wrong, and we don't fixate on the current imaginary reality as "everything here must remain that way". Okay, perhaps we have a difference of vocabulary here. In the past, you've defined "realistic" as "what is fun/enjoyable to the group", rejecting my attempts to distinguish them, but here you use "plausible" in contrast with "interesting and fun", as if "interesting and fun" go above and beyond this "plausibility". I can't tell if you've been ignoring or simply missed all my exposition of how people can value accuracy without necessarily holding what they're doing to be either fun or enjoyable, but I don't think we can go any further unless you can be convinced to accept that simple fact. It happens in real life, and as I've been trying to show you, it can happen in roleplaying too. [Yes, I am stating my beliefs with the strength of fact, because I "know" that real live people do start out with accurate emulation of scenarios/people but nothing else akin to roleplaying, and then segue into roleplaying. But then again, you, RDU Neil, also "know" that the character is nothing but a middle man and there is no way to measure "accuracy" save by what the groups finds fun/enjoyable; why should the statements I make now, based on what I "know", be any more questionable than the statements you have made, based upon the same "knowledge"?] We can call the roleplaying you describe "The One And Only True Way", and all the rest of us just poseurs, but that's a derogatory term that would discourage all us poseurs from swelling the ranks of the "True Roleplaying" subculture. And swelling is exactly what we do; just as I could, upon seeing that there were other ways to roleplay, try out those styles as well, so too can these players learn to roleplay just as you do, RDU Neil - but they won't get there as you did, and you're liable to just scare them off if you don't welcome their differences for what they are. [2nd edit: "as such" to "what they are".]

Re: Size Powers Question

Re: Powers that come into effect only as you're hurt? In 4e, only offensive powers could be taken with Damage Shield, but it might be possible to bypass that with a Linked power (Aid/Succor, only whenever This Attack is used). This would help with stats, and could also be used to enhance existing attacks of a related SFX (all powers in one Elemental Control?), but for new powers I think you'd have to go with a Limitation on the power and buy it up front.

Re: Heat of the Moment Tell me about it. I've been keeping a list ever since #51, and it keeps telling me I can't do that. Spread it around some more? I would, if they'd bloody let me

Re: Heat of the Moment

Re: Heat of the Moment

Re: Heat of the Moment Yes--but that has nothign to do with what I was talking about--pure internal decisions of character actions. Where the low-level rules affect your character's thoughts and feelings, it is relevant. For example, I came up with this mechanic to reward roleplayers without punishing those who didn't: If you do not define your character's personality and way of thinking, you are "Joe Normal"; you are not, as a player, required to figure out how your character's mind operates, but if you don't declare it to be otherwise, your character has no thoughts or feelings different from the generic masses. This also neatly takes care of any "pre-game" versus "in-game" veto issues. The players must establish any uniqueness their character has before play begins; this is the chance for me, as GM, to have a long back-and-forth session with them to discuss what the campaign world is like and help them come up with a character that they will enjoy playing, who (and this is the priority, the condition of highest and first importance) will fit into the campaign setting.

Re: Heat of the Moment

Re: Heat of the Moment Neither does a boyfriend, then It doesn't matter whether the "other person" is imaginary or not; we don't have empathic conduits stretching between us. We only have our perceptions of other people, telling us what they appear to be feeling, and on the lowest levels that's just information. A portrait, or emotional profile, of another person. Imagine the standard symbiotic relationship. A (with XXXXY) and B (with XYYYY) are attached to each other, B receiving (1X) from A and A receiving (1Y) from B, so that now A has (XXXYY) and B has (XXYYY). Now imagine the standard parasitic relationship. A and B are attached to each other, but while A takes Y from B, B gets nothing from A. In all cases, what they receive is what they wouldn't normally be able to get. It doesn't matter whether X, Y, or Z is "stability", and you're mistaking fiercely repressed anger for a peaceful calmness, because you're "receiving" something based on your perception of them, not how they "actually are". (What you derive from your impressions of other people may coincidentally be what they possess, but what you get is not based off of - or drawn from - what they have.) Such relationships are not parasitic, because you can extract whatever you wish from your perception of them without reducing what they actually have. It's basically virtual resources, in the same way as software can be duplicated to create additional "goods" without requiring even more raw material. This is also the principle that lets us read books to obtain ideas that we wouldn't have had otherwise, without causing degeneration in the quality of the story therein. The character, when different from ourselves, enables us to come up with emotions and thoughts for that "virtual mind" inside ourselves that we wouldn't have been able to normally. It's just like constructing an impression of our boyfriends/girlfriends, whether we base that off of direct interaction, historical accounts, TV (for our favorite pop icons), or the verbal description of some talented storyteller. Must all soldiers, then, find the atrocities they are forced to commit in defense of their country and loved ones to be "fun" or "enjoyable" in some way? Some of us do things solely for our own pleasure. Some of us recognize a higher purpose (or "lower", from the hedonist's viewpoint). Mine is the truth* - it is "realistic" because that's closer to the way things really are (or, at least, really would be), and because I experience a sort of displeasure (though its lack does not really qualify as a value) from seeing that things are unrealistic. *edit#2: clarification - I recognize "the truth" as a "higher purpose" They become your own at the moment you choose to let them do so - which you may, since dispassionately working out what someone would do, in a logical diagram, may tell you what they are likely to do, but if what you're after is feeling those emotions as your own, you need to try to recreate them somehow. If that means altering a compartment of your own mind to resemble theirs, to become something other than your natural self, then so be it. It may be that you are incapable of such techniques, or that they just didn't work for you; but, really, is that any reason to declare that they don't work for anyone? That, essentially, everyone else's mind works just as yours does, with all inherent limitations and underlying rules of operation? If the character would have only one legitimate option, then we have no choice; we can refuse to continue playing, or we can allow their own nature to trap us into doing the only thing they would do. But we cannot simply make something up, based on what we want, if such an option is not already available, not if we want to maintain our accuracy.

Re: Heat of the Moment Replying to these out of order - reply to RDU Neil forthcoming after this quickie. That is up to the player to decide. That is where we disagree, though perhaps only through timing: that sort of decision was made, for me, before acquiring a sense of ownership about any particular character. Since there was no specific player associated with any specific character yet, I had to look for a theoretical answer; "objectively" speaking, is it realistic? The realism came from comparison with "reality"; it happens in the real world, so it would be realistic in a game world too. In practice (as opposed to theory), we don't want to give up control over "our" character, but it might have been easier for me because I'd known not to see it as entirely "my" character since before I even got attached. Approaches from the theoretical side can be just as valid, but tend to give different results, I've noticed.