Search results

Yes! At least some of the consequences can be such. So if there is always an option that does not affect the internal world of the character to choose, there is no problem!

This is a compromise thus perfect satisfaction is not guaranteed. It merely lowers the odds of the game being ruined in comparison to fixed consequence model.

Then they presumably either begrudgingly apply one of them anyway or quit playing the game.

Yes, it is at odds. That's why this is a compromise solution. But at least if there is several consequences to choose from , there is a higher chance that the player can find one that feels authentic to their character. But like you say, it of course is still possible that none of them are suitable.

So I don't use luck points or inspiration in my D&D, but I actually used something like you describe. (And yeah, it was meta.) We have divine favour points that can be gained by praying and making sacrifices in the temples. You would pray for a favour towards a certain task from an appropriate...

No it is not. Because the player would have to choose some impactful consequence, and we would have a list those choose from (or at least act as suggestions.) "This has no impact" would obviously not be an option. But it seems the only thing you're satisfied is the GM getting to dictate via the...

It is rather poor list of consequences if it is so easy to choose the one which is the least trouble. And if the point is to choose a consequence that matters, then if the situation would somehow render some of them inconsequential, then those cannot be chosen.

What I think would be a good mid-point design, is that there are these consequences, but it is the player who gets to choose which one applies in this instance. This way it is less likely that the effect would be something that they player would feel is inauthentic to their character.

About mind control magic. I am actually not fan of that either, though it is more tolerable, and as a GM I use it very sparingly. But the thing is that to me mechanics telling you how your character reacts feel like mind control. And if the thing being represented by the mechanics literally is...

At least to me, it is because as a player I want to be focusing to the PoV of the character, and make decisions that the character would be making and not some meta decisions. But like you say, the GM's role is completely different to begin with and these concerns do not apply.

"Actual rolepay" as in playing the role. But sorry if it came across as judgemental. It just feels to me that roleplaying games have so much other stuff that obscures that core. And that definitely goes for the D&D too. I thinks I crave some "back to basics" simplicity. I'm getting tired of the...

First, ideally it is the character making a choice, i.e I'm properly immersed. And second, my characters make bad choices all the time. In fact, if anything, they do so implausibly often. And third, "bad choices" that were just forced by rules have no weight, they are just the dice screwing you...

I don't need mechanics to assign negative mental consequences. Faithfully roleplaying a character to whom all sort of horrible things happen to already creates negative mental consequences. Then I choose something that makes sense and fits the character. And yes, sometimes such choices might...

Ideally I don't really pick, I just know how the character would react.

Same answer than always: because the internal mental model of the character says that this is what they'd do. How many times it need to be repeated before you believe people can do this?

Sure, but I don't think those are plausible actions in most circumstances. I see. But I think if it is a plausible reaction people still very plausible could choose it. I sure have, in a game, many times. Sometimes in the real life too. If the argument was that people are less likely choose...

I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

What I mean is that if the reaction is plausible, then certainly it is something someone could choose, no? Or do we want implausible reactions now?

With that I agree! One should not be shy to homebrew a game to be more of their liking. Though of course it is wise to choose a starting point that it is at least close to what one wants in order to avoid unnecessary extra work.

Not a fan. I want the player and character decision spaces to be aligned, I want the decisions to be made in-character. Metacurrencies obviously go against that.