Robyn

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

Er' date=' Combat Luck *is* resistant defense. So, no the boxer doesn't have this, just high PD, as Schwarzwald said.[/quote']

 

I think Thia was using "Combat Luck" as the name of the SFX for +3 PD/+3 ED, not the official Talent by that name.

 

There is, however, one thing Thia said that I don't understand:

 

15 The Power of 10 Men: 20 STR; No Figured Characteristics (-1/2)

 

I assume the 15 is for cost, but how do we get there from a 20 STR? It seems like 20 with -1/2 would cost 10?

Re: Heat of the Moment

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

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

Re: Heat of the Moment

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

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

Re: Heat of the Moment

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

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

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

Re: Heat of the Moment

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

 

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

Re: Heat of the Moment

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Re: Heat of the Moment

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Re: Heat of the Moment

Wow.

 

If those are questions you are asking, then our assumptions about what and why to game are so far apart that I don't think I can see a way for meanful communication.

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

Take another example: I build a character who is a total gun-bunny. GM approves said character... then goes on to present adventure after adventure where my character is sans guns or using guns is a poor choice' date=' or gun use is punished rather than rewarded... then this is poor playing on the GMs part. A player has a responsibility to complement the GM's game world, but the GM has a like responsibility to provide opportunities for the player to fulfill his desires about why the character is being played in the first place. If Gm approves a gun-bunny character, the GM is responsible for providing opportunities for the gun-bunny to do his thing.[/quote']

 

Situations like this are why I've been planning to request "concept stories" from each player for their characters, of "fantasizing" scenarios they can envision which would be a shining moment for their character. I can then try to put at least one of those in each session (or adventure, if I end up running a PBeM-style campaign where sessions aren't easily definable).

 

Players' desires and the characters they build shape the shared imaginary world as much as they conform to it.

 

Thus' date=' taking Robyn's idea that there is a standing effect mechanic that is constantly being applied to every action the player tries to take via the character...[/quote']

 

Oh, for cryin' out loud . . . no, this is not what I was saying. I'm not repeating myself for something this absurd; see my post above, to Thia.

Re: Heat of the Moment

This is where I disagree. I'm inferring from this argument that you're ultimately lumping the two people - the character and the player - into the same thing.

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.

You're further asserting that we can mathematically determine how people will act. I watch "NUMB3RS" all the time, and sure enough, it's led me to believe that there are mappable patterns of behavior. I can buy into that without too much difficultly.

 

But those are patterns based on large numbers and massive amounts of evidence. Okay, says, the counter-argument, I have a character history and two years of this campaign under my belt.

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.

Draft me a mechanic that "determines" what I'm going to do next. Fine! That's likely doable (albeit a royal PIA). But that's not really the question I'm asking.

Good, because I've done it, and I don't want to pull out my notes

As a DM' date=' my task is NOT - EVER - to determine the OUTCOME of events by directly manipulating player action. If they enough psych lims, sure, I'll force a roll if I have too, but I would never have the whole plot arc collapse, or worse, end the way "I want" because of a forced roll on a player side because they weren't acting in the way I saw fit.[/quote']

 

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.

 

I can create a Goblin Horde and I can create a crying child in its mother's arms. All these things I can do and do every time I sit in the Big Chair.

 

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

 

I know my vision of the character and I can act it out reasonably well and express that vision in mechanics and roleplay.

 

All I'm doing is asking about a mechanic to add to that repertoire.

 

Sure' date=' you can reduce everything to numbers.[/quote']

 

To clarify, I'm not talking about reducing everything to numbers, just about retaining an occasional random element for the sake of uncertainty. Reducing everything to numbers would be, well, like taking away the dice and working with a pure point-build system.

 

But why would you want to remove the human element that makes roleplaying what it is?

 

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

Does it help that I would equate fulfilling your "highest value" with "fun." That fulfillment is what I'm talking about... and perhaps my choice of words "fun" and "enjoyment" and "cool" detracted from that?

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.

That is the bottom line' date=' and it has nothing to do with an imagined reality of a character... it has to do with what you, Robyn, want in the game.[/quote']

 

Well stated.

 

I wonder if you don't truly believe this.

 

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

 

To me' date=' this is denigrating the human condition and consciously ignoring a shared metaphysical reality.[/quote']

 

What exactly does "metaphysical reality" mean, anyway? Metaphysics is the field of philosophy that addresses the nature of reality. It overlaps, and particularly strongly here, with epistemology; what do we know and how can we really know it?

 

We physically share three dimensions, but does this mean we also share a plane of thought and emotion? I contend that we do not. I hold that we have mental/emotional access to the shared physical plane, but that our minds do not directly reside there; we cannot transfer thoughts and feelings from the minds of others directly to our own, we can only reconstruct our best guesses at their thoughts and feelings within our own minds.

 

Huh... I would read this as "the point of the game is not accurately portraying a character' date=' but to keep the players guessing."[/quote']

 

The point (or single most important one, anyway) of any game (where we accept the uncertainty factor I described earlier), where it is to accurately portray the characters, requires that the players keep guessing. That they remain aware of the uncertainty factor. That the nature of the character remain a mystery to the player:

 

This is the curse of the conscious being. We live in an extant reality, but we can never know it completely... we are limited by our perceptions and ability to give meaning and value to things. There is a reality we all share that just "is" but it is in constant flux, and we will never know or understand it fully

 

All of which you built an excellent argument for

 

I don't see how the old "role playing vs. roll playing" argument is relevant here.

 

Pointing out the origins of some of the people who, later on, were roleplayers.

 

I don't presume your your origin at all.

 

Yet, your arguments fall to pieces the moment they face a player who came from "simulating real life" to "roleplaying".

 

As to your other comments, Robyn. I really can't respond. You keep using real life examples, when what we are talking about is role playing. I don't see how the two interact.

 

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.)

 

My question to you is "What is the "this" you refer to... and what is this "original" you speak of?" What is it that you are trying to simulate by which you judge your accuracy?

 

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.

 

I have no idea what this means' date=' or why it is relevant... but it is disturbing. [/quote']

 

Another possible origin for those who started roleplaying. Didn't you ever watch the NBC show "The Profiler", about a woman who had a great gift at getting into the heads of the psychopaths?

 

Again... it is not a matter of approach... it is a matter of "What is happening during the role playing experience?"

 

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".

 

I think you are arguing that you are somehow tapping into some extant "other" metaphysical reality and channeling that in your games.

 

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.

 

There exists history and ethics' date=' but our perceptions and values and communal agreement on these things change, and thus our reality changes.[/quote']

 

It almost sounds like you're saying there is such an "other" reality; our perceptions will not directly affect the physical reality we all share, nor will our perceptions directly affect other people's minds. This is because we are not "tapping into" them or "interacting on a shared plane", we are only playing with our own perception to create simulations of their minds. Their perceptions (and to some extent, of course, their physical brains) will determine the effect upon their own mind.

 

Now, retro-phrenology () aside, we can't directly affect their minds through the shared physical reality; we have to rely on presenting various inputs for them to perceive, and hoping our knowledge of them (through our simulation of how their mind works) is accurate enough that we will bring about the results we think we will.

 

What any of this has to do with role playing... I'm not sure.

 

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.

 

I have to support enough verisimilitude that it "feels real" to the group and therefore they get what they want out of the game.

 

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?

 

Whose internal thoughts' date=' feelings, etcetera?[/quote']

 

Of the Civil War reenactment guy you were describing in that paragraph. He could be lying there thinking to himself "My god, how could I have thought reenactment would be fun... and I find myself bleeding out in a muddy field... oh, how I miss my wife!", but it's then possible for him to still roleplay more "accurately", by not only acting (on the outside) but thinking (on the inside) as a soldier in the Civil War would, to the best of his knowledge, have been thinking.

 

Maybe I was unclear' date=' but everything I've tried to say supports this. A player is called out for role playing in a way that breaks the verisimilitude of the game... so they say, "Ok... yup... take that back. I want to support the plausible, convincing and compelling story so I change my action." That is conscious metagaming in order to maintain verisimilitude.[/quote']

 

In which case it isn't an attempt to assert one person's "reality" onto the group, it is a cooperation with - as you put it - "the consensus of the group". Having a mechanism in place which works the same for all players, and eliminates the risk of "subtle interference as payback" from other players (if it were just their input which were used to maintain the element of uncertainty by having the character sometimes be different than how the player had, up to that point, understood it), is a fair way of handling it, whether the GM rolls the dice or the players do.

 

If the character and imaginary game world were truly "real"... it would be impossible for the above to happen. The real character would never do anything that wasn't possible' date=' however unlikely. You'd have to accept every action/event as "true" because it existed. You would have to accept whatever comes out in the game because it just "is" and you are just conduits for it.[/quote']

 

That's the problem here, I think: you seem to be equating the metaphysical status of "real" with a direct conduit. I repeat that reality is real, and that other people are real - but that their realness does not enable us to accurately understand them, no matter how well we build our simulations.

 

And thank goodness for that. What's the point of dating if you already know everything about your boyfriend? There's no mystery in that relationship. There's no "exploring each other's lives".

 

By admitting you do metagame' date=' and do adjust decisions in order to make them "fit" you idea of accuracy... then you are admitting that the game world is imaginary and you change it to fit your desires. The decisions you make ARE the game world... ARE the character.[/quote']

 

If my idea of accuracy is to look at the "original source material", whether that be a real live person next to me or a personality described on paper, and adjust the simulation in my own mind to reflect this as closely as possible; then do my desires exist as one of Plato's "First Principles", directly causing the changes in the simulation, or do my perceptions of the original create my desires, thus controlling the changes?

 

This is patronizing' date=' but I'll be moderate in response.[/quote']

 

And it isn't patronizing to tell people that you know exactly what's going on in their own minds but that they just don't realize it?

 

Oy.

 

Where is radioKAOS when you need his sigline?

 

Recognizing players for what they are is exactly what I'm talking about. Recognizing that players want different thigns in order to find role playing fun/enjoyable/fulfilling. Recognizing that play works if the groups desires mesh... and play is disfuntional when those desires don't... exactly what I'm talking about. This has nothing to do with method or way.

 

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

Why would someone do something that they don't consider fun for a leisure activity? What is the reward?

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

Robyn' date=' I'm not sure what you mean by "statistic reductions" from Shrinking, if you're talking about the Shrinking Power. Other than reduced mass and height, and increased Knockback taken from attacks, Shrinking doesn't reduce any other Characteristics or abilities. Could you be more specific?[/quote']

 

Odd . . . checking my book, Growth affects characteristics, but Shrinking does not

 

Let me ask about the opposite, then. Let's say I wanted to distribute my character's weight by ballooning up so I would fall more slowly, but that would increase my size and decrease my weight and decrease my Body and resistance to damage.

Re: Size Powers Question

Your character is smaller (extra DCV), stronger and tougher from being more dense - actually a pretty good package IMO.

 

If you don't want the DI benefits - you don't want your character to be stronger just because he or she is more densely compacted - then John's suggestion above is one good way to go. You can simply say that for purposes of this construct, the character doesn't weigh any less.

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

::Weeps::

 

For a moment, I just had a hope this thread would have a cool character who killed by inspiring others with a revalation of such clarity that it shook their personal perception of reality to the core through horror or reaching a state of perfect bliss, making them drop dead on the spot.

Sounds like the Sword of Shannara to me.

I heard Vash singing the Genocide Song . . .

Re: Heat of the Moment

I just extend this stage of character development through the entire campaign. It never stops, really. Well, for me it doesn't. That's as a player; as Gamemaster, I have mechanics in place that will enable the characters to set certain Absolutes for themselves, that can never be violated, on a metaphysical level. It's just that they're available to the characters, not to the players, and therefore must be identified and implemented on an IC level.

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.

then I totally agree... up to the point of assigning those values to the character. Again' date=' I just cut out the middle man and acknowedge that those are values that the player does not want violated. How we demonstrate such qualities is through playing the charcter and setting the stages and creating scenarios... but the values that drive our decisions are those of the players.[/quote']

 

If the player's highest value is "accurate portrayal of the character" (and, again, I reiterate that the "accuracy" can be measured without any input from "personal enjoyment"), they can report on what the character would do; this is the extent of "making a decision". These decisions take place regardless of what the player wants - that is to say, the player's sense of what would be fun may coincide with that decision, it might or it might not, but that factor simply does not have any power to create options that would not otherwise exist nor remove options that would. Roleplaying is not, as you seem to be insisting, restricted in an absolute and immutable way to "what the player enjoys", with anyone who thinks otherwise merely deluding themselves by creating a "middle man", and yourself one of those enlightened players that realizes the truth of all roleplaying.

 

I may be laying it on a little thick, but hopefully you get the idea: there are more ways to roleplay than the one you currently acknowledge. I will explain the origins of one of those alternate methods, below.

 

A character to me exists as a sketch of an idea... a framework for some concept... and only in play do I discover the specifics of how it will play out. The character only "comes alive" when I give it voice and action in play.

 

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

 

Input from other players (GM included) who might say, "Hold on a second... up until now you've played Might Joe as a total fun loving guy who enjoys a good fight but never takes it too far. Suddenly he's all grim 'n gritty and trying to pull the head off of a bank robber! What's up?" That is completely legitimate and I had better have a good answer. Maybe that is when I say, "You are right... Might Joe is totally out of character and your PC is right to notice this. There is a maniacal look in Joe's eye you've never seen, before! What do you do?" or maybe, "Hey, you are right. I had a really sh!tty week at work... I'm just not in a good mood. I take that back, Joe just pokes the guy in the stomach and crumples his gun barrel while making a 'no-no' gesture."

 

That is the kind of in play, group dynamic that enforces accuracy as it exists within the game... not some mechanically enforced, GM edict.

 

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.

 

As to your other comments' date=' Robyn. I really can't respond. You keep using real life examples, when what we are talking about is role playing. I don't see how the two interact.[/quote']

 

One of my old GM's converted, over the course of several years, several total munchkins to devout roleplayers. He did this by recognizing where they were coming from, and meeting them "halfway" (well, probably more like "all the way", at least to begin with). He gave them exactly what they wanted - to run around a campaign world like mad, slaughtering its denizens (and each other) and pillaging whatever they came across. Over time, he also introduced some roleplaying elements, eventually getting them interested in RP for its own sake, not just as some flavorful complications to an existing game.

 

You seem to be presuming a single shared point of origin for all players in a roleplaying game. If we all came at it from the direction of "This is all in our imagination.", then yes, everything else would be derived from that premise; but, we're not.

 

Some of us came at it from "This is real, we need to get as close to the original as we can.", and we segued from there into roleplaying, because of the similarities (and because profiling a psychopath is damned depressing; using those skills to have fun is the only thing that keeps it manageable).

 

Some of us came at it from "Let's take out our aggression and rage in a harmless way." And, no matter where we came at it from, the realization that there is no single origin gave us the freedom to use any of those approaches.

 

Do we' date=' as the play group, accept the situation, events, characters and actions as plausible, convicing and compelling? If so, then it is "accurate" by all measure that matters. There is no absolute truth, no perfect state of "accurate and right" to be attained. Just what the group consensus feels is plausible, convicing and compelling.[/quote']

 

The logical extension of such an argument is that there is no absolute truth in any sense; no history, no ethics, just what your community agrees upon.

 

I really, really hope that you will reformulate your philosophy in light of the "based on reality" roleplayers.

 

The behaviors he exhibits are "accurate" in your terms... but not because he actually Instead' date='[/quote']

 

Could you please fill in the missing words so I can respond to what you were trying to say? Thanks.

 

Edit: I just saw your Edit

 

The behaviors he exhibits are "accurate" in your terms... but not because he actually lives their reality.

 

I rate accuracy not just by the external behaviors, but the internal thoughts, feelings, etcetera.

 

mechanically attempting to assert one person's "reality" on to a group simply doesn't work all that well.

 

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".

 

The only "reality" that exists is the one the group has decided is not only plausible... but interesting and fun.

 

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

Growth (and Shrinking and Density Increase) are for characters who have the ability to grow' date=' shrink, or become denser.[/quote']

 

What if I want both?

 

I compress myself into a smaller form, changing my size but not my mass. Should this be done with Shapeshifting linked to stat increases (only while Shapeshifted), or Shrinking with Density plus buying off the stat reductions from Shrinking?

 

Is that the kind of thing you were both speaking about, Lucius?

Re: Powers that come into effect only as you're hurt?

Kind of like the old Damage Shield adder in 4e (is that still in 5e? I can't recall)?

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

[sorry I've given out too much rep in the last 24hrs!]

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

When I play' date=' I'll spend weeks, as I develop my character, before I even really get them finalized on paper, running through lots of hypothecial situations and how that character would react - that way when I run into the situation, in game, I already know which way to jump that is perfectly in keeping with the character's personality.[/quote']

 

I tend to make characters with as much background detail and personality as I can figure out in the time it takes to work out their character sheet and insert them into the setting (working with the GM), and then do that sort of thing in my spare time.

 

This sort of "ongoing character development", with the details being worked out in play rather than all before we even start playing, is the basic concept between my PBeM-style GM'ing (even in a tabletop game).

 

You know how, when you're first telling your GM about the character idea, they point out that the PC can't have encountered this heroic team in that city at this date, because the heroic team in question wasn't even created back then, or was currently committed at another location? And how they'll say that your PC can't have met with an NPC involved in the gambling circuit through his visits to your brothel, because the NPC in question doesn't visit such places (just hint at it), but your PC can meet up with the group through this NPC instead? These aren't dealbreakers. They're little details that you don't think much of at the time, because your character concept is still "in development", and you're eager to play it. You're eager to figure out who your character is, and so the character is really in a constant state of flux, except that it's easy to miss these changes because they're not really important in the larger picture.

 

I just extend this stage of character development through the entire campaign. It never stops, really. Well, for me it doesn't. That's as a player; as Gamemaster, I have mechanics in place that will enable the characters to set certain Absolutes for themselves, that can never be violated, on a metaphysical level. It's just that they're available to the characters, not to the players, and therefore must be identified and implemented on an IC level.

 

I see every session as having this method, though; each exchange is open to input from both sides, the players learning more about the setting and me as GM learning more about their characters. But the more we all learn, the less interference is actually probable; I could tell my players everything about the setting from the very beginning, but this would spoil a lot of the surprises, and I want to run a "journey of discovery", where we begin playing right away and learn more about the world as we travel through it. So, at first, there are bound to be corrections, and then, as time goes on, we become just like any other playing group.

 

It starts out differently, but makes for a very similar game

Re: Heat of the Moment

For me' date=' this is what it comes down to. I have no control of the world - that is the GMs perogitive.[/quote']

 

Here's a question, then - if you were GM'ing, and the HERO setting called for a mechanic that would take some of that control away and give it to the players, how similar would your reaction be to what it is right now?

 

I have at least two such mechanics in place, possibly three (I'll have to think about the social aspect, and possibly check my notes, to be sure), to do exactly this. The desires of the PC's can directly influence their physical surroundings (a sort of Zen reality-manipulation power that only works when they aren't thinking about it; this prevents abuse), and [censored to avoid campaign spoilers].

 

Nothing in my notes for a social mechanic along those lines. Sorry about the censored part; I've put a great deal of work into setting up a system whereby the PC's can develop in any direction, with unique powers and disadvantages for each, and I want to keep their motivations pure and their knowledge innocent when it comes to choosing which way to go.

 

But I do control how my character reacts to things' date=' his opinions, personality, emotional reactions - those are mine. That is my connection to, and reason for playing said character.[/quote']

 

Not just control, then - you know your character.

 

I'm trying to increase the level of realism to reflect how we really don't know ourselves, because that will be a major factor in the campaign (besides, self-discovery isn't very acceptable when you already possessed certainty that you knew everything about yourself).

Re: Heat of the Moment

or "Your character can't fly, because your wings were made for Earth, and the gravity here on New Venus is too intense." There are certain laws of physics and other low-level rules by which the characters must abide

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.

Well' date=' it has been an interesting discussion. Good luck with your Dying Earth game.[/quote']

 

I'm hoping to convert it to the HERO system, though as I said, the one player who is fanatic about playing this with me (and has been privy to every single mechanic I've come up with over the last 5+ years) also hates the HERO system, with a passion

 

The system in The Dying Earth is one that meshes perfectly with the philosophical attitude of its inhabitants; if the HERO system can't match that, what good is it?

Re: Heat of the Moment

there is no way to gauge mechanically what makes one person act differently from another in a certain pressure situation; generally' date=' the person who can 'realistically' say to an 'accurate' degree (I really hate using these terms about an RPG decision) in the best way is the player.[/quote']

 

We (including "the player") can, though, observe from our own lives what really does happen in reality, and use that to replicate such patterns in the character. This is one of the ways in which RDU Neil and I are working from the same root premises, and our agreement on it is what forms the basis for productive discussion (whereas, in many cases, extensive discussion only narrows down the points of disagreement to fundamental principles that noone can compromise on). We both see that what the player recreates inside themselves, for a character, must be internalized, and that the patterns must be grasped by the player; but we apply that principle in different ways, coming to different conclusions. I believe, for example, that it is possible to isolate the character's personality within one's own mind, erecting a barrier or mental "shield" that prevents it from tainting one's own soul; and that we can understand the patterns abstractly without fully integrating their meaning, much as a scribe might copy over scribbles of a language they did not know, working with painstaking exactitude. We can, in short, describe human behavior mathematically. From there it is just a small step to expressing such equations in a mechanic

 

[Whoa, did I just hop back on topic for this forum? A long and winding road it was, too.]

 

If you take a character' date=' model if after a real life person (or make that character a representation of a real life person), then you've got more room to argue about accurate portrayals..but thats a vanishingly small subset of gaming, very much an exception to what, is percieved by me to be the standard.[/quote']

 

I don't think there's very much difference (though there is some) between a character that is a representation of a real-life person, and a character that is a just-as-detailed representation of a made-up oerson. For the real-life person, there is a chance of checking in with the truest form to confirm the accuracy of a simulation. For the made-up person, it depends on who made it up. Since the GM usually knows best the setting within which the character was developed (treating "development" in the same way, here, as we would say that a baby "developed" into a child and then "developed" into an adult, not in the traditional sense of "character development" as used to refer to fleshing out a character's background), they have some authority to correct the player's idea of what the character is:

 

"No, Bob, you may not play a Jedi Knight in my alternate-history Civil War campaign. There simply wouldn't have been anyone who grew up like that, in this setting."

 

For convention games where characters are "imported" from their home campaign worlds, or well-established settings like The Forgotten Realms, it's appropriate to say that the GM couldn't know more about the character than the player (which is not to say that they do, since they still might have studied all the books and the player know nothing). But for "homebrew" campaign worlds, where the setting is the GM's own creation and the players have no idea, they must accept the GM's veto on things. It is perfectly within a GM's right to say "Good luck with that character, but it doesn't exist in this world.", or "Your character can't fly, because your wings were made for Earth, and the gravity here on New Venus is too intense." There are certain laws of physics and other low-level rules by which the characters must abide.

Re: Heat of the Moment

No disagreement... but "accurate"... what does that mean? In the end' date=' isn't it going to be what the play group agrees they like?[/quote']

 

Only if we can't determine realism objectively, and since we can easily see that things happen in real life which aren't enjoyable or fun for us in any way, that seems unlikely. There are ways to determine what is realistic without coming back to what we like; for example, there can be a game based off of historical events.

 

In many cases two decisions may be "in character" and thus accurate and the player by himself or with group input has to decide which way to go... so it has nothing to do with accurate portrayal' date=' but what the group thinks is "cool" (and yes, there are a lot of ways things can be cool.)[/quote']

 

You're going a little bit too far here . . . yes, it does have something to do with what the player/group wants to have happen, but that doesn't mean it has "nothing" to do with accurate portrayal. It works like this: accurate portrayal gives you the available slate of actions from which to choose, personal preference comes into play then and only then, and can't give you more options, just help you choose between what "accurate portrayal" put there.

 

You lost me here. Give and take from the character? What does this mean? The character is an imaginary thing that has no emotions to give or take... nor ability to do so.

 

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.

 

Not at all' date=' but characters aren't real people. And I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything. I'm just not sure what you are saying here.[/quote']

 

It started when I said: "the other players are tapped as resources to provide insight and advice on how the character thinks and feels."

 

And then you said: "The above is exactly what I'm a proponent for, but this is, in no way, simulation"

 

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

 

And that's where we are. The theory of it I just explained above, in detail, so I won't repeat it here; but I will give a real-life example of it "in action". In the real world, we talk to each other about what we think of someone else, and what we've figured out about how their minds work ("Hey, I think I've figured out what's up with what's-his-name . . . "), and we use some of that (but not, trustingly, all of it) to develop our impressions of them. Of those impressions, though, we cannot accurately say that these are the other people; they are, in effect, a simulation. We think, in real life, about what other people are likely to do, how they might react, and we use that to modify our own actions, how we behave around them. We can utilize the same techniques for historical recreation ("How would this General have reacted, faced with this situation?"), or for emulating people our historical records have no proof of (i.e., "made up").

 

Characters aren't "real" people in the fullest sense of the word, but they don't need to be. They are, to the extent that they need to be for us to draw enjoyable emotions from them, "real" - and if that isn't sufficient, nor will regular human company be. (My sole disclaimer: irregular human company, such as a genuine telepath, would be an exception.)

 

You wouldn't continue with such "realism" if you didn't find it fun or enjoyable in some way. "Serious" can be fun... fun doesn't have to be whimsical and goofy.

 

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"

Again' date=' I'm kinda lost here, but no reconstruction in any manner by any number of people could be "perfect."[/quote']

 

You accept, then, that there will always be insights which we do not possess? It would seem to behoove us, then, in the search after truth, to integrate as much assistance as we can garner.

 

But, on a closer examination, such a reckless course would not always be the wisest course of action; the truth of an insight is often indiscernible, and attempting to reconstruct a puzzle with critical pieces missing could end up misrepresenting the original even worse than a complete absence of those contextless pieces would have. So, we exercise caution with the advice we listen to, and heed only that which best fits with what has already been established for the character.

 

I don't even know what perfect might be? Accuracy' date=' perfection, serious... these are all just "what your group finds cool and fun."[/quote']

 

Perfection is "no room for improvement". It exists at one end of the spectrum, and cannot be measured as a position in between both ends of the scale. Accuracy, on the other hand, can be. But, again, they need not be limited to "what the group finds cool and fun". I doubt, for example, that insurance agencies, architects, and the Natural Security Agency find much to be "cool and fun" in reconstructing exactly what happened during accidents, natural emergencies such as earthquakes and hurricanes, or terrorist attacks; but they do place a very high value upon the accurate simulation of those events, realizing that they need to understand them to prevent the like from happening again in future. Our motives may not be as influential to the larger world, but our personal focus does not limit our ability to think like that.

 

"They" don't exist... and any desires/emotions "they" might have are your own.

 

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.

 

Perhaps there is an altered state of mind achieved by the mental process of disassociating your own desires/preferences into an imaginary being' date=' then manifesting them in your own words and actions... a way of saying "It isn't me doing this" thus giving yourself a sense of freedom to explore those things...[/quote']

 

That must be the technique used by every criminal profiler who logically, mathematically, and dispassionately works out what the criminal is going to do and how they are thinking. They're not really trying to help people, by taking advantage of their ability to compartmentalize their own minds and understand someone else even without being anything like them, they're just psychopaths who are being used by the system to catch others like them

 

I'm just skipping the middle man and admitting that it is my own ideas/emotions/thoughts and desires I'm exploring.

 

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?

 

Not always' date=' and in the better games, no. In games I would call "good" I have found enjoyment in the death of a character whose death was "good Story" or fulfilled my own sense of sacrifice, or it just seemed appropriate from the milieu. There could be a sense of loss, but this doesn't mean it wasn't enjoyable or rewarding in some way.[/quote']

 

On the other hand, it is possible for this to happen in the natural course of the game, which is the point I was trying to make. So, yes, then - I am, personally, willing to say "I have to die instead of win this combat, even though it is going to make me, the player, hate this game. I'm going to be personally miserable and stop having fun at all, but it would be unrealistic for my character to survive after the damage he just took and the saves he just rolled!", and, what is more, in the past, I have been through just such experiences.

 

Exactly... but in all the above' date=' you the player have made a decision about what you think is cool.[/quote']

 

Since it isn't allowed to override the options that are made available through what would be "accurate" (and this, again, taking place before and outside of such consideration as what would have been "cool"), those decisions aren't as influential as you seem to think.

 

Even when you are in what you feel is full "sim" mode' date=' I doubt very much you 100% simulate every aspect of your character's life.[/quote']

 

That's because our personal schedules can't afford an even time ratio. We can't afford to spend 100% of our time playing, and we sometimes spend longer than the original event took just to play through it; combats are a good example of this.

 

On a more serious note' date=' I'm sure there have been moments when the GM says, "Ok... then we move on to the next morning," which is a situation where you decided not to simulate every aspect, but made a metagame decision about what was "cool" and worth playing out.[/quote']

 

Just because we don't explicitly articulate it, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. When we abbreviate time in such a way, we don't say that the night itself really passed in the duration of a few seconds, or that our characters ceased to exist for that time, or even that they did nothing; we simply incorporate the updates. It's the same principle as allows us to spend a few hours on a HERO combat that lasts for only a few seconds, only in reverse.

 

It's not the character making you do something... you are doing what you want through the character.

 

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.

The question, though, is whether it is realistic for a change in conviction to be taking place when your character has made up their mind about what they are going to do.

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.