Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[LostSoul]

LostSoul, that was really, really good, thank you. I am sold that a werewolf curse is an interesting element to add to D&D (if done well). Which leaves me to agree with the majority of your post, and moreso with some interesting ideas that hadn't occured to me. I'm still not sold on this part...

As I mentioned upthread, you have werewolf stories of a wolf in sheep's clothing, and then you have viking tales of berserkers in wolf's pelts. I think these are 2 incongruous elements put together Frankenstein-like to create the 4E werewolf curse. I think the very essence of werewolf stories is the fear and mystery of a hidden irrational bloodlust lurking inside men in secret until the full moon.

Thanks. I agree with you; I don't think that the werewolf curse is particularly interesting at the moment-to-moment level in play. I think it does some interesting things at the strategic level, which is why I like it, but I'd rather something... that grabs you.

I think it'd be hard to do in 4E.

I agree, except that:
1) as I think would be done in earlier editions, allowing the player to roleplay the berserk reaction is not taking control away at all, in fact, it's empowering the player to roleplay the werewolf role
2) Book of Vile Darkness' solution is not a gripping compelling fiction that gets me to buy into the New Werewolf. On the contrary, the New Werewolf has developed a sort of completely predictable Patellar reflex. For me, that is such a sin to treat a PC like a videogame character, it completely overshadows any good intentions or tactical options

The reason why I think it'd be hard to do in 4E comes down to two points: 1) the player's responsibility while playing and 2) the social contract of 4E play.

1) The reason why I think you can't just ask a player to role-play his PC as a werewolf in 4E is because you're creating a conflict of interest: advocate for your PC or role-play as a werewolf. These two responsibilities won't always conflict, but it's easy to see how they could, and that's something you don't want in a game.

In a game like FATE, where advocating for your PC means sometimes playing up the bad aspects of the curse, it works; in 4E, you don't have the FATE-point economy to help you along. A potential solution to this problem would be to give the PC a Quest that's something like, "When your PC gets into trouble - as defined by the DM - you are awarded with XP". Action Points might work out better. However, there's still a problem with that:

2) 4E is heavily built on the assumption of team play. A party that works well together is much more effective than one that doesn't. Giving players reasons to work against the team can pull the rug out from the other players who, generally, won't expect it because that kind of mechanic isn't present throughout the system. Including a mechanic that rewards individual play over team play isn't part of the standard 4E social contract.

The werewolf's curse is already a big change to expected game play, in that 4E generally assumes that a player will be able to create and play whatever PC he wants; this starts from point buy at character creation and follows through the choice of available Feats, Powers, Paragon Paths, or Epic Destinies. There are no mechanical limitations that describe how your Elven Fighter is going to change over time. Changing a PC by giving them this curse is a pretty big deal for a system, because suddenly you are no longer playing the PC you envisioned.

Getting back to the OP, here's how the New Werewolf might be roleplayed 'out of bounds':
1) player says 'screw this rule, can I roleplay out Stage 2 and 3?
2) the DM and the game system assumes it might trust the player to roleplay manually/freeform (at least in an advanced/mature game)
3) use random die rolls to help the player roleplay the berserkness ("I'm sorry I attacked you Bob, but I failed the Will save")

And perhaps this is just or more important...
4) if the other players cannot feel safe with the knowledge of the Stage 3 rule, if there isn't a predictable trigger condition, if it cannot be predicted and thus manipulated at the metagame level, then:
a) the afflicted PC can act 'out of bounds', thus being genuinely unpredictable and scary and thrilling
b) the other players' actions will likely be more in line with what the characters would do under those circumstances

That playstyle might not be for everyone, but that is the 'out of bounds' playstyle that appeals very much to me (and I think what Monte was referring to when appealing to earlier editions of D&D).

EDIT: Just confirming that Stage 2 and 3 refers to the 'knee jerk' reaction, and not Stage 4 which I agree the DM should probably more or less control the PC as an NPC on the full moon behind the scenes.

Can you go into more detail about the kinds of mechanics you're thinking about here? (Specifically, step 1) & 2)'s "roleplay manually/freeform" combined with step 3)'s "random die rolls".) I like where you end up in step 4), but I'm not sure how you get there.

 

[LurkAway]

1) The reason why I think you can't just ask a player to role-play his PC as a werewolf in 4E is because you're creating a conflict of interest: advocate for your PC or role-play as a werewolf. These two responsibilities won't always conflict, but it's easy to see how they could, and that's something you don't want in a game.

It would need to be introduced with caution, if at all. By nature, any roleplaying 'out of bounds' is potentially messy (like 'Should charismatic players have an advantage' thread) but this is the probably the most difficult of the lot.

2) 4E is heavily built on the assumption of team play. A party that works well together is much more effective than one that doesn't.

Mechanically and tactically, I'm sure this is the most true in 4E. Fictionally, I think teamwork was ideal in all editions (although some parties had dysfunctional squabbles, like in the Dragonlance novels, which was a plausible and often compelling narrative option).

Giving players reasons to work against the team can pull the rug out from the other players who, generally, won't expect it because that kind of mechanic isn't present throughout the system.

That's what happens when the game system insulates expectations so much and the mechanics are at the forefront. Isn't that what Monte's article is about; about empowering players to work outside those expectations if they would like to do so?

Including a mechanic that rewards individual play over team play isn't part of the standard 4E social contract.

I remember times when the DM might pass me a note with secret instructions. Perhaps my PC was privy to secret information, and so I would roleplay that. Or perhaps my PC was charmed and I had to roleplay that, despite the obvious conflict of interest. I don't recall wailing at the unfairness of it all while my world crashed down upon me. Sorry, I didn't meant to use hyperbole, and perhaps I'm being overly nostalgic for the 'old days', but I remember enjoying independent play of some sort from time to time or just knowing that it could happen, that anything might happen. I didn't need mechanical incentives to appreciate that.

Anyway, I think I'm going tangential, so getting back on track...

I agree with you; I don't think that the werewolf curse is particularly interesting at the moment-to-moment level in play. I think it does some interesting things at the strategic level, which is why I like it, but I'd rather something... that grabs you.

Inspired by season 2 of Misfits, here's my shot at something more compelling:

Most folk know that werewolves hide in human skin in secrecy, only to be unleashed on the full moon. Indeed, this is generally true for afflicted villagers and townspeople that lead mundane lives day to day, but there is the rare rumour, whispered by warriors after a battle, of an otherwise normal soldier who turns berserk on the battlefied. Sages suspect that great stress, fear, chaos and bloodlust may momentarily awaken the beast, the lunacy of war somehow akin to the call of the moon. Unlike a lunar transformation, this may manifest as a werewolf half-emerging from the side or back of the afflicted, like some beastly conjoined twin, lashing out anyone unlucky to be standing nearby. Then suddenly the werewolf is vanished, the soldier appears whole and normal, a nightmare abruptly come and gone.

EDIT: Maybe the 4E werewolf doesn't transform the human body into a wolf. Maybe the werewolf splits off or rips out of the human body. When the night is ended, it slips back into the human skin. Maybe PCs are powerful enough that they survive the transformation intact and can still act independantly (albeit weakened) of the roaming werewolf. Maybe alone, they'd be sleeping and unconscious, but can be roused by party members.

Can you go into more detail about the kinds of mechanics you're thinking about here? (Specifically, step 1) & 2)'s "roleplay manually/freeform" combined with step 3)'s "random die rolls".) I like where you end up in step 4), but I'm not sure how you get there.

Not to be disappointing, but I didn't have hard details in mind.

But OK, if the group can't handle a player roleplaying his inner werewolf for just one round and treating all creatures as enemies, and if I was stuck with Stage 2 or 3, I would at least change the trigger conditions. For example, Stage 2, attacking an ally when bloodied, is too predictable -- players will actually plan around that ("He's almost bloodied, better move out") even though the characters have no concept of when an abstraction like "bloodied" will occur or that the berserk behavior happens exactly when bloodied. So maybe it happens randomly once per encounter. Maybe it could happen at any moment of danger, including a life-threatening skill challenge or trap encounter. However the trigger, I would like it to be unpredictable enough that when it does happen, the players are just as taken aback as the PCs are in-game. Thus it's a compelling narrative and just not just a metagame tactic.

 

[LostSoul]

That's what happens when the game system insulates expectations so much and the mechanics are at the forefront. Isn't that what Monte's article is about; about empowering players to work outside those expectations if they would like to do so?

I don't agree. I think this happens when the game has a clear expectation about what you're supposed to do when you play it. I think Monte's article is about the game defining problems and the solutions to those problems; if a solution to a given problem does not fit into the game's definition, it's "out of bounds."

I remember times when the DM might pass me a note with secret instructions. Perhaps my PC was privy to secret information, and so I would roleplay that. Or perhaps my PC was charmed and I had to roleplay that, despite the obvious conflict of interest. I don't recall wailing at the unfairness of it all while my world crashed down upon me. Sorry, I didn't meant to use hyperbole, and perhaps I'm being overly nostalgic for the 'old days', but I remember enjoying independent play of some sort from time to time or just knowing that it could happen, that anything might happen. I didn't need mechanical incentives to appreciate that.

It's not that having a conflict of interest is unfair, it's poor design. A game that asks its players to do two incompatible things at the same time is not a very good game. If you're expected to role-play the curse that is actively trying to keep you from achieving your goals while role-playing your PC towards his goals, you'll have to make a choice between the two. You can't help but fail at what the game expects you to do.

[sblock=Tangent]A curse that doesn't expect you to role-play in any specific way but makes it easier to achieve your goals if you do certain things can work, as long as there are consequences.

My 4E hack doesn't care about your personality or how you role-play your PC. That's up to you. It does care if you achieve your goals or not; that's how you get the bulk of your XP, and it allows you to reach different Tiers. The system also cares about how you achieve your goals because the NPCs react to your actions.

In that system the curse might be as simple as a Daily Power that you can activate by eating a sentient being. Each time you eat someone, though, the people in town (that you & your allies rely on to get your Healing Surges back) are going to be more and more upset with your party.

The game expects you to go after your goals and gives you choices about how to do that, then responds to the choices you make. It never expects you to work against your goals, though you might make some bad choices and end up doing that anyway. That's where smart play comes in.[/sblock]

But OK, if the group can't handle a player roleplaying his inner werewolf for just one round and treating all creatures as enemies, and if I was stuck with Stage 2 or 3, I would at least change the trigger conditions. For example, Stage 2, attacking an ally when bloodied, is too predictable -- players will actually plan around that ("He's almost bloodied, better move out") even though the characters have no concept of when an abstraction like "bloodied" will occur or that the berserk behavior happens exactly when bloodied. So maybe it happens randomly once per encounter. Maybe it could happen at any moment of danger, including a life-threatening skill challenge or trap encounter. However the trigger, I would like it to be unpredictable enough that when it does happen, the players are just as taken aback as the PCs are in-game. Thus it's a compelling narrative and just not just a metagame tactic.

It sounds to me like what you're trying to do there is line up the player's choices with the choices of their characters. If a PC is cursed, and neither the PCs nor the players know when it will be triggered or what will happen when it is (to a certain point, keeping within the theme of the curse), then it's easier for the players to act as though they were their PCs.

That makes sense to me. I think that some people call that immersion.

You could do something like this: When the PC is in a violent encounter, each round at (some point) the encounter makes an attack (encounter's level +3 vs the PC's Will Defence). If the attack hits, the PC (does something).

That point could be:
start of round - informing other PC's actions
start of turn - informing the cursed PC's actions
end of turn - making the cursed PC's actions carry risk

That something could be... a lot of stuff, from an attack against adjacent allies, to an attack against everyone in reach, to a charge to the most damaged creature on the field. Even something like howling at the moon, granting CA until the start of your next turn could work.

Anyway, interesting discussion! Thanks for the reply.

 

[LurkAway]

I don't agree. I think this happens when the game has a clear expectation about what you're supposed to do when you play it. I think Monte's article is about the game defining problems and the solutions to those problems; if a solution to a given problem does not fit into the game's definition, it's "out of bounds."

I'm confused.. you indicated how 4E has certain social contract and mechanics based on those assumptions. Arguably, those assumptions and expectations are more obvious or codified (for lack of a better word?) than in previous editions. So for me, 4E does have 'clear expectations' of what I'm supposed to do when I play it. Therefore, I often feel like I want to roleplay out of bounds because I don't like the quality of the problem and the assumed solution (ie., stage 2 and 3 of the werewolf curse). I guess you'd protest that there's plenty of wiggle room in 4E for your all roleplaying needs and say that my goals are part of 'bad design'. For whatever reason (usually immersive ones, I guess), I still find it stifling and want to get out of bounds. Not sure if I actually contributed anything there that I haven't already written, but I was just confused how you tied that together.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm confused.. you indicated how 4E has certain social contract and mechanics based on those assumptions. Arguably, those assumptions and expectations are more obvious or codified (for lack of a better word?) than in previous editions. So for me, 4E does have 'clear expectations' of what I'm supposed to do when I play it. Therefore, I often feel like I want to roleplay out of bounds because I don't like the quality of the problem and the assumed solution (ie., stage 2 and 3 of the werewolf curse). I guess you'd protest that there's plenty of wiggle room in 4E for your all roleplaying needs and say that my goals are part of 'bad design'. For whatever reason (usually immersive ones, I guess), I still find it stifling and want to get out of bounds. Not sure if I actually contributed anything there that I haven't already written, but I was just confused how you tied that together.

You know how when you play chess you're supposed to try to win the game, and not - I don't know, try to make as many moves as possible? That's the kind of thing I mean when I say "play the game".

So that means I think that the rug gets pulled out from the other players when the game, which has been telling/expecting you to play it one way is suddenly telling/expecting you to play it in a different way. As if you're at a chess tournament and suddenly - in the middle of the tourney - you're being ranked based on the numbers of moves you made, not on games won.

What I understood Monte to mean by "out of bounds" was this: "Does the game present players with challenges that have pre-made solutions?" (I might add only pre-made solutions to that.) In "The Case of the Werewolf's Curse," the early stages have pre-made solutions (use a Move Action! shift! immediate interrupt!) but removing the curse doesn't. In that way it's an interesting example.

I think pemerton remarked about the possibility of allowing someone to subdue the effects of the curse by making a Diplomacy check. That would be "out of bounds" role-playing as far as I understand Monte's use of the phrase.

I really enjoy that kind of "out of bounds" problem-solving play. When I first started playing 4E I expected to see a lot of it, because I thought (and think) that 4E makes it incredibly easy to quickly and simply adjudicate any "out of bounds" approach to a problem your PC wants to try. I discovered that, in my games, I didn't see nearly enough of this, so I started writing a hack in order to get it.

As for bad design: I don't think that your goals are bad! What I think is bad, or poor design, is when the game forces players to make choices with two conflicting... ways of playing at the same time. An example: You're supposed to want your PC to win; the reward system of the game relies on it. You also have to determine, fairly and without bias, what the DCs for your actions are. You have to do two things at once that conflict with each other.

Another example: The game expects you to role-play your character to the fullest, to really attach yourself to your PC and invest a lot in your creation. If a course of action would get you in trouble, you're expected to do that if it fits with your PC's personality. It's also a really hard game, killing PCs left and right if they get into trouble, and the only way to gain XP to avoid getting killed is to achieve concrete goals (kill monsters, get loot). That might work for some sorts of horror games (though Call of Cthulhu, as far as I can tell, doesn't do this), but you can see how it might get annoying.