Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Umbran said:

It is late, but let me see if I can construct one... I will use example presented before - the chaste knight is offered Excalibur in exchange for their chastity. We can call this... "The Maiden and the Sword".

On the face of this, it is just a hard question - and only hard in the sense of our having put a stake in the ground in claiming the character was chaste, and we often dislike being put in a position where we turn out to have been wrong. Even if there's a mechanical loss in no longer being chaste, there's a mechanical gain in having Excalibur. It is still just a choice.

But, we can re-position this, so that it becomes a challenge: "Knight, do you have what it takes to remain chaste *and* keep the realm safe?" This is not a choice. It is a test that one can pass of fail. It does not have a specific mechanic associated with it. This is a place where the core concept of the character (chaste protector of the realm) is challenged. If the character does not pass this challenge, they effectively lose one or both of those aspects - they are either not chaste, or not really a protector of the realm.

Click to expand...

I appreciate the attempt. I guess I'm stuck thinking - If that's his test - and the player is the one that has full control over his chastity then that part isn't really part of the test to begin with as it's never in doubt. Presumably for this test you would need something to entice the player to give up chastity (in which case we are back at my Excalibur example), or to force him via a mechanic to do so. Protecting the realm on the other hand I imagine has a test related to it that highly involves mechanics.

I'm eagerly awaiting [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s next post which promised some colourful social mechanics so I'd rather not have this thread end abruptly.

Umbran said:

"Fidelity" has two connotations. One is "strict adherence" - this is like a "high-fidelity recording". I don't think that's the sense meant here. The sense intended here is probably "faithful".

And that's important. Because if we use the first, then fidelity is, "You wrote that your character is Lawful Good, so you cannot take that action." Fidelity, meaning faithfulness, is more about making the character a real person - who can make errors and change over time..

Click to expand...

Yes, I mean faithfulness to what the unfolding fiction reveals about the character. Not accuracy. I was trying to build on what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] had said.

Ovinomancer said:

What I'm seeing is an argument that a choice can be offered that risks the player's characterization, but this fails at first contact because the player is making the choice about the characterization -- it's still exactly what the player wants. If you, personally, exhibit difficulty in making a choice to change your characterization, this doesn't make the choice special or suddenly a challenge -- you're still the only one exercising your 100% authority, and you cannot lose this or have it reduced (again, taking the initial premise for granted).

It's not that a choice can't be part of a challenge. A choice to enter a room full of monsters usually kicks off a challenge and becomes part of it, but that challenge isn't "do I decide to go in or not" it's "do I overcome this room full of monsters" and your choice is many-fold for how you might do this. I think that some mechanic is necessary for an RPG, because we have no other way to resolve uncertainty, and uncertainty is necessary for challenge to exist. Just as the chance to fail must exist or there is no challenge. And, again, you cannot fail to exercise your authority over characterization because you make a choice about your characterization.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

Those 2 sentences appear to contradict each other. Let me elaborate:

At first you say a hard choice isn't a challenge. Then you say you believe a challenge can be made without mechanics. What other method could possibly result in a challenge besides either mechanics or a hard choice?

Click to expand...

There's the example that's been given by [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION].

Here's another example, which is based on an actual play experience I had many years ago now. The basic structure of the example is not too different from [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s.

One of the PCs was a paladin. He was a member of an order devoted to the relief of suffering and freeing victimes of torture and slavery The system was Rolemaster - for those not familiar with it, RM uses crit rolls as its main mechanic for resolving hurt in combat; and it's very common for foes to be defeated in combat without being killed - they're knocked out, or disabled, or stunned, or whatever.

At 5th level the player of the paladin hit an NPC in combat, and then rolled a 00 crit - decapitation. It was the first time he had killed a person. It caused a crisis of faith: can I be the person of faith that I aspire to be, and be a killer?

There is no mechanical test that will answer this question. It's been prompted by a mechanical resolution process, but not one that was intended to make this particular question salient. Future action declarations will also matter: for instance, if the character sets out to avoid killing he might fail to do so because of the vicissitudes of action resolution.

It also illustrates what I said above about the need for multiple scenes. You can't establish this character, generate the crisis, and then see what happens, in a single short episode of play.

pemerton said:

One of the PCs was a paladin. He was a member of an order devoted to the relief of suffering and freeing victimes of torture and slavery The system was Rolemaster - for those not familiar with it, RM uses crit rolls as its main mechanic for resolving hurt in combat; and it's very common for foes to be defeated in combat without being killed - they're knocked out, or disabled, or stunned, or whatever.

At 5th level the player of the paladin hit an NPC in combat, and then rolled a 00 crit - decapitation. It was the first time he had killed a person. It caused a crisis of faith: can I be the person of faith that I aspire to be, and be a killer?

There is no mechanical test that will answer this question. It's been prompted by a mechanical resolution process, but not one that was intended to make this particular question salient. Future action declarations will also matter: for instance, if the character sets out to avoid killing he might fail to do so because of the vicissitudes of action resolution.

It also illustrates what I said above about the need for multiple scenes. You can't establish this character, generate the crisis, and then see what happens, in a single short episode of play.

Click to expand...

This is what I have been saying. Something happens outside of the control of the player that can have a profound effect on the PC. Now the hard choice is happening.

In this example, there is one difference from what I have been talking about, and one possible difference. The difference is the multiple scene aspect. I agree with that actually. Generally(not always) it will take multiple examples of the PC going one way or the other to determine the answer or demonstrate that initial answer is set in stone. The possible difference is whether or not you the DM forced the crisis of faith on the player or if the player chose it himself. Your example doesn't say.

I'm arguing that it's up to the player to decide whether a crisis of faith is happening. I can see it going either way. The paladin isn't torturing or enslaving those he is fighting, and those he kills won't be suffering any longer. In the example above, it was actually a fairly quick death, so suffering would be very minimal. The act might or might not spark a crisis of faith. In fact, I would think a longer combat with more wounds and an enemy that lives, would be more likely to spark the crisis, as cuts, bruises, broken bones, chopped off hands, etc. would inflict far more suffering on an enemy.

Ovinomancer said:

Actually, I think save or be charmed isn't much of a challenge, either. My argument has been that making a choice isn't a challenge if you can chose between all the choices. Even the unknown repercussions don't make it a challenge, just a guessing game. A challenge requires that something be staked and that you have a risk of losing your stakes. There's lots and lots of ways to do this, even without dice. In an RPG, though, it pretty much requires some kind of mechanic to determine the uncertainty, even if that mechanic is "DM chooses." I think that's a lousy mechanic, but there you go.

Click to expand...

Oh, perhaps I didn't see you original comment.

I seem to be working off quotes of your posts.

Sorry, that makes sense.

pemerton said:

Yes, I mean faithfulness to what the unfolding fiction reveals about the character. Not accuracy. I was trying to build on what [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] had said.


There's the example that's been given by [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION].

Here's another example, which is based on an actual play experience I had many years ago now. The basic structure of the example is not too different from [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]'s.

One of the PCs was a paladin. He was a member of an order devoted to the relief of suffering and freeing victimes of torture and slavery The system was Rolemaster - for those not familiar with it, RM uses crit rolls as its main mechanic for resolving hurt in combat; and it's very common for foes to be defeated in combat without being killed - they're knocked out, or disabled, or stunned, or whatever.

At 5th level the player of the paladin hit an NPC in combat, and then rolled a 00 crit - decapitation. It was the first time he had killed a person. It caused a crisis of faith: can I be the person of faith that I aspire to be, and be a killer?

There is no mechanical test that will answer this question. It's been prompted by a mechanical resolution process, but not one that was intended to make this particular question salient. Future action declarations will also matter: for instance, if the character sets out to avoid killing he might fail to do so because of the vicissitudes of action resolution.

It also illustrates what I said above about the need for multiple scenes. You can't establish this character, generate the crisis, and then see what happens, in a single short episode of play.

Click to expand...

Your example is fun play. I like it, and I enjoy when such things happen in my game. What I don't see, though, is how your example illuminates the discussion about choice not being a challenge or risk to characterization. You player decided that this crisis happened, and, absent a scene or scenes where this crisis is tested in a way that the player risks their characterization, it remains just a choice the player made about their character. The player could have, in this instance, chosen to not enter a crisis of faith for their character, and that would also have been fine. In other words, the play here is good, it's engaging, and I have no problems with it, but I don't see how it engages the aspect of my arguments that you've quoted -- it's still just a choice.

To clarify, I think choices like these are critical to the game. Players must have ownership of their characters such that they can make these kinds of decisions. It isn't risking the characterization in play, though, but, as I've said, this isn't necessary unless we're talking about a game where the player can and does risk this. I'm not familiar enough with RM to say either way.

Aebir-Toril said:

Oh, perhaps I didn't see you original comment.

I seem to be working off quotes of your posts.

Sorry, that makes sense.

Click to expand...

Tsk-tsk. Given your experience in the thread, you should know better.

Ovinomancer said:

Your example is fun play. I like it, and I enjoy when such things happen in my game. What I don't see, though, is how your example illuminates the discussion about choice not being a challenge or risk to characterization. You player decided that this crisis happened, and, absent a scene or scenes where this crisis is tested in a way that the player risks their characterization, it remains just a choice the player made about their character.

Click to expand...

I can see why you say this. But for me, this brings us back to [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION]'s remarks:


The absence of choice in the example I provided occurred at the point of the killing. At that point, thie player learns - without having any say over it - that his PC is a killer. At that point, playing the character with integrity generates the crisis. There were subsequent events, too, that played on the crisis. That's part of the GM's job (in my view) - once the pressure point is clear, the GM needs to work it, not relax it, so that the player isn't spared the consequence of what has happened. This isn't quite GM decides, but it's a definite demand on the GM that puts the GM in a very different role from (say) the impartial GMing of Gygaxian D&D, or the most common approach to Classic Traveller.

The example of play invovling Nighcrawler that I posted upthread is somewhat similar in these respects. Events unfold which are not fully under the player's control (due to the use of action resolution mechanics). And as a result, the player, playing the character with integrity, finds that the character is changed. (In that case, Nightcrawler discovers that he is not as romantic and perhaps not as devout as everyone, including the player, thought.)

I appreciate that this does not unfold the same way - in terms of the interplay of choice and mechanics - as what you've had in mind in your posts. I think it's also very different from the example of choosing chastity or Excalibur. In that example - as it has been presented - there is no moment of crisis. There is nothing that has happened to the character that forces a reconsideration of who s/he is.

Here is also another angle on it. As presented, the Excalibur choice can come down to mere expedience - and has been framed as that by some posters: is the short-term gain of the Excalibur power-up worth the long-term loss of (say) fellowship with members of the knightly order, or the king's respect, or whatever else is forfeited along with the chastity.

Whereas in the sorts of examples I am putting forward, expedience is not a consideration. The player is forced to choose a way forward for the character, and is not guaranteed to be able to succeed in the way chosen.

Ovinomancer said:

I'm not familiar enough with RM to say either way.

Click to expand...

RM is in many ways a D&D variant. But it has a few points that differentiate it from straightforward D&D of the era. The possibility of non-fatal victory in combat is one; aspirations towards a non-combat resolution system is another. The latter rests on a skill system which has - as a side-effect - the generation of PCs who are far richer in detail and hence implicit characterisation than an AD&D PC.

There are also some features of the actual resolution system which - while there is nothing like "fate points" - allows a player to decide in what sorts of ways his/her PC tries hard to succeed and what risks s/he takes, both when fighting and when casting spells.

So while it's easy to bundle RM into the pile of late-70s/early-80s ultra-sim games, it has these features that make it a distinctive vehicle for character-oriented RPGing.

When I look at a system like Burning Wheel, it has a lot of tech that RM doesn't: a system for metagame currency (Beliefs, and the fate points etc that are related to them); much much better action resolution (intent and task, let it ride, "fail forward"); and PC development that is much more tightly integrated with player choices. But the basic devices for putting pressure on the character, and driving change, are the same as what I've described in my examples of play.

Let me start off by saying I do not like viewing game mechanics through the lens of necessity. No mechanics are actually necessary. Anything can be resolved through consensus. That's what the online freeformers do. However, sometimes consensus is like boring and stuff.

I'm going to start with an example of a system that I consider to have the most impact on player agency of the games I like to play, , but also the richest in terms of representing highly dynamic characters. Exalted 3e's social influence system is built off of intimacies that represent a character's beliefs, philosophies, and relationships. They come in 3 strengths - minor, major, and defining. In order to convince a character (PC or NPC) to do something they would not otherwise do you must target one of their intimacies that supports what you are trying to convince them of. The strength of that intimacy determines what you can convince them to do. Regardless you cannot convince them to do something that would cause them to abandon a Defining Intimacy. They can also bolster their defenses with a intimacy of the same strength or better that they possess.

In play it works like this usually: Two parties are trying to convince each other that their course is right. They play a cat and mouse game trying to discover what the other values while concealing their own intimacies. Your first defense is your Guile which represents how well your able to conceal your emotions and motivations. Then the parties will try to bolster or weaken intimacies through social influence in order to put themselves in a position to convince the other party. This can become quite interesting if multiple parties are involved. Then finally arguments get made and attempts are made to persuade.All attempts to influence must go through Resolve which represents your ability to hold steadfast to your beliefs. This is modified by the intimacies at play. Even if successful you are forced to a Decision Point allowing you to point to another sufficiently strong intimacy and spend a Willpower to reject it. It takes a lot to convince someone to do something in this system, especially if they are built for the social game at all.

Here's what I like about this system:

• It allows for grand confrontations at court that are every bit as tense as the most pitched of battles.
• It can be used in the midst of combat allowing for a duel of wits that parallels the one on the ground. This is one of my favorite tropes.
• It allows multiple PCs to have meaningful impacts on social encounters by deploying different levels of expertise and supporting and bolstering each other against attempts to influence them.
• You can be changed through the course of a social encounter even if you ultimately succeed. Like wounds on the battlefield. You risk your beliefs by arguing for them.
• Everything you do must still be based on your fictional positioning.
• Sometimes the best person to socially engage in a situation is based on intimacies rather than who is the most socially gifted.