Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Ovinomancer · Jul 9, 2019

Maxperson said:
My concept is always at risk. I don't need a mechanic for that. Maybe others do. I don't.

No, it isn't. If you're the only one that decides, then the concept is never at risk. There has to be a loss of control for there to be risk, and you're refusing loss of control.

Umbran · Jul 9, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
But, some games have mechanics that allow players to risk their concepts and some that allow the GM to attack character concepts to begin with.

Example: because I mentioned it before, so it is handy now - FATE.

In FATE-based games, the core of the character concept is ensconced in Aspects - descriptive bits about a character that are available to be invoked for good or ill. Your character may be a Champion Boxer, so they may get a benefit when punching, but a detriment when caught in a grapple. Or, maybe your character has a "Heart of stone" - they have a benefit when resisting having their heart melted by maidens, but perhaps a detriment when empathy is necessary.

In conflicts, as previously mentioned, the player may choose to take Consequences, rather than Stress. There is one top-level consequence they can take it absorbs the most stress for you. The catch is that if you take it, it *replaces* one of your other aspects, permanently. Or, at least as permanently as any aspect is in the game - there are milestones at which you can change an aspect if you want. The point being that a conflict can change something essential about your character, altering the concept.

Maxperson · Jul 9, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
This is just asking permission, though, something that you've roundly rejected from the player side (ie, you've rejected that player propositions are just asking permission of the GM). So, yes, there is a difference. If you risk your characterization and the result of a failure is that you're offered a choice to go through with it or ignore the failure, then there's no real failure, here -- you risked nothing. And yet, you argue that this must be the case, that the player should never risk the character (making your own choices isn't risking the character). So, yes, there's a difference between failing and having the GM ask you if you want to suffer the consequences and failing and actually suffering the consequences.

I never said that there was no risk or real failure. Don't put your assumptions onto me like that. There are consequences for almost everything. If you don't understand something, ask me.

The result is that the knight is in love with the maiden. Period. This is a character truth at this point. If the knight chooses to ignore this and continue the quest, that's cool, we've learned something, but you better believe that's coming back around to bite them in the ass.

Spurning a maiden's love can also bit them in the ass, as can pissing off her father, not completing the quest or many other things that happen with what I am saying. You need to stop assuming that there are no failures and/or consequences for failure(or even successes) in D&D.

You're insisting that there can be no consequences for character unless the player agrees.

Nope! Never said or implied this.

Ovinomancer · Jul 9, 2019

Maxperson said:
I never said that there was no risk or real failure. Don't put your assumptions onto me like that. There are consequences for almost everything. If you don't understand something, ask me.

Spurning a maiden's love can also bit them in the ass, as can pissing off her father, not completing the quest or many other things that happen with what I am saying. You need to stop assuming that there are no failures and/or consequences for failure(or even successes) in D&D.

Nope! Never said or implied this.

You're missing my point, but that's partly on me for not being consistently explicit. There are no consequences to characterization. Your characterization is not at risk. Everything you mention here is external to the character -- and, I'm not, nor have I been, talking about that. So, I get you fine, it's you missing my points.

Aldarc · Jul 9, 2019

Maxperson said:
If it's left to a die roll or the DM's decision, there is no real test of character. The test comes from the player in the role of the PC being caught in a situation which tests his PC's character. He and the others at the table are only really going to learn what the PC is made of if the player makes the decision. If it's left to the die roll or DM to decide, the drama virtually vanishes.

There's a huge difference between me struggling with a decision for my PC, and clack, clack, clack! Oh, look. This time he's an ass, maybe next time he'll be noble. *yawn*

That depends on the point of decision. I don't think that the test of character rests in whether your heart melts or not, but in how you choose to respond to the fact that it did. The former seems like a psychosomatic reaction to an external stimulus, while the latter implicates the potential for having to make a moral choice.

Maxperson said:
Which is fully accomplished by, "The beautiful maiden winks at you, clearly favoring you with her affections." I don't need you to melt my PCs heart in order to put me in a position where I have to decide between possible love and the quest. Swearing a vow doesn't make my PC immune to love, so we will learn something about my character this way as well.

This discussion is not about whether or not Max needs someone "to melt [their] PCs heart in order to put [them] in a position where [they] have to decide between possible love and the quest." It's about whether or not other games exist where this can be a valid norm of play. Hint: it is.

GrahamWills · Jul 9, 2019

What I have learned form this thread is that when I run a game where some of the players are die-hard simulationists who need rules for everything the GM does, when I want to have someone fall in love, all I should do is this:

GM: The maiden winks at you ... what's your will / determination / mental resistance ?
Player: <number>
GM: <Rolls behind screen> your heart is melted by the wink.

So the interesting thing here is that if the GM is actually doing some sort of rule, everyone is happy. If the GM is not, then half the people are furious. But this is completely not observable, and so it boils down to "do I trust the GM to be fair?"

This is exactly the same situation as if the GM doesn't roll dice. If the GM says "The maiden winks at you and melts your heart" without consulting rules, it's the same thing -- do I trust the GM? If I do, then great, something fun will happen. If I don't, then I'm upset.

Consulting rules makes zero difference here. It's just a question of whether or not you trust the GM to set up the game to be fun. Adding a veneer of rules on top is just a comfort blanket for gamers who really like rules

dragoner · Jul 9, 2019

GrahamWills said:
Consulting rules makes zero difference here. It's just a question of whether or not you trust the GM to set up the game to be fun. Adding a veneer of rules on top is just a comfort blanket for gamers who really like rules

A lot of these discussion seem to boil down to who one is gaming with, someone called my group a "mini-UN" the other day, but bottom line is that we're all just a group of friends. Not running a fun game means the game grinds to a halt as people stop paying attention to it; too many rules is a problem, but also the question of if what happens is important, and is it important to the other players. Yes, we do do trust each other, or don't, but we know each other, and then we all know it has to be fun. It could be a divide vs casual gamers and not.

Umbran · Jul 9, 2019

Maxperson said:
Most of the time the party chooses where it wants to go and the sand(details) is filled in as they go or a bit in advance of where they are going. For example, the Tower of Magog may be shown on a map, but I'm not going to have spent the time to figure out exactly what it is ahead of the party deciding to go there. They won't be going most places in the sandbox, so it's a colossal waste of time to fill in everything.

Yep, sandboxes are impractical, but back in the day, lots of people did populate the whole thing. Even in outline, it is a lot of work.

The one thing a sandbox needs, beyond the fact that the tower exists, is how much of a challenge that tower is, and what the basic challenge consists of (is it a wizard, a dragon, or what?) Without that information, the GM cannot telegraph how hard it is, and PCs cannot make meaningful choices (which is what sandbox play has been argued to center upon).

In the style Ovinomancer is referencing, you don't even have an outline. The world description may b e a couple of paragraphs of flavor text, and everything else is generated à la minute.

Some game engines (like Cortex+) can generate much/most of the content out of die rolls and context.

Umbran · Jul 9, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
No, it isn't. If you're the only one that decides, then the concept is never at risk. There has to be a loss of control for there to be risk, and you're refusing loss of control.

I think he has you there, Maxperson. There's a difference between, "the concept is always open to change - when I choose it," and, "the concept is *at risk*."

Guest 6801328 · Jul 9, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Sure, if that's how you think characters are tested, I suppose it is boring.

Instead, picture the knight on a holy quest that has sworn a vow of chastity until the quest is complete. Then, a maiden melts his heart with a wink. The knight now has to decide between his love for the maiden and the importance of his quest, and, either way, we'll learn something about this character.

But even so, rolling a die or having the DM dictate a failure of chastity...or even just a temptation...is kinda boring. In my opinion.

When it gets interesting is when there's some actual temptation on the part of the player to succumb. Maybe sometimes, for some, just the story value is enough of a temptation. But for others a mechanical temptation might be needed. And I have to admit that I favor genuine trade-offs. (That is, the player of the knight knows that if he/she gives in to the temptation, there's some concrete benefit to be gained, and a concrete penalty to breaking the vow.)

But, either way, if the reaction is dictated by the GM, I've just lost interest in playing that game.

Upthread somebody pointed out that in reality we aren't in control of all of our thoughts/reactions/emotions...that the mind is a mysterious black box...and that having the DM step in and make that determination is therefore "realistic". (Or something like that.)

But we are not talking about how the player's mind works, we are talking about the character's mind. So, while the observation about the black box has merit, I believe the player should be in firm control of the black box, except when game mechanics determine otherwise.