That's all well and good, but what happens when a player does not act in character. Can the DM veto such actions?
There are some game systems in which character points are rewarded not for completing a task, but for playing your character well.
As I've said in other threads, it occasionally happens. Sometimes the solution to a problem just clicks in your head. However, I personally feel it takes something away from the meaning of stats and character building (as well as possibly being unfair) if the guy who dumped his mental stats so he can make an uber melee machine starts overshadowing the person who invested character building resources into being an intelligent PC.
I find nothing wrong with the style of play in which the player's abilities are challenged instead of the PC's abilities. However, I much prefer to play in a game where in game decisions are based upon in game factors.
Like I said in the other threads though, I think part of the problem is when stats interact with classes in a manner like they do in D&D. If I want to play a Bard, I need a high Charisma score because that is my attack stat. Having that high score really has nothing to do with the kind of personality I want to give my character; it's something the system tells me to have because my class needs it to function. As such, as this conversation pertains to the more recent editions of D&D (and similar games,) I feel that it's more ok to allow for player abilities to matter because character abilities are less defined in a way which has a meaningful definition in the same way that stats might be defined in a different system.
There are games when the fluff of your character has a stronger relationship to the mechanical aspects of your character. In those games I would expect a player to make more effort to stay in character. And, yes, there are even games in which -if the player did not want his character to jump into a hole- you'd be required to make a control roll to determine if your PC could resist his impulsive nature and choose to not jump into the hole.
Example?
The one I'm most familiar with is GURPS, so I will use that. Let's say my character has the Greed disadvantage, and I've chosen a difficult control number (6 or less) for that disadvantage. There's a chest full of astral diamonds down one hallway, and the door which leads to 100% safety down another hallway. As a player, I for some reason decide I don't want to risk the diamond hallway and express that I just want to go down the safe hallway and leave. Being that have the greed disadvantage so severely (needing to roll under a 6 is pretty bad and implies that your character rarely resists the disadvantage,) I would probably be asked to make a control roll. If I succeed, my character fights off his natural urges and leaves; if I fail, the opportunity to score quick loot (especially of such a huge amount) overwhelms the character's sensibilities and he decides to go for the diamonds.
This is a crappy example, but it was only intended to illustrate that some games do address character advantages/flaws versus the player's advantages/flaws. Though I feel I should also add that -in the case of GURPS- you are never required to take disadvantages. It's a way to get more character points; however, getting those extra points come with a trade off.
in the woods. And Dragonlance sucks.
