Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[hawkeyefan]

All of them are. Trust is necessary with any game. I have yet to see a game where cheating can't happen.

Which is fine. I'm all for rewards and other encouragement to engage in that sort of roleplay.

If you're playing in good faith, it runs quite well and is not a flawed system. If you have someone who is playing in bad faith, the system still is not flawed. The person playing in bad faith is the flaw.

Well all systems have flaws and are subject to abuse of one kind or another. My point is that the Flaws in 5E are flawed because it’s purely incentive based to have a player actually roleplay the Flaw in any meaningful way. If he does so, he gets Inspiration. That’s it. So no matter what else comes up, no matter how closely it may fit the character’s Flaw (or Traits, Bond, or Ideals, really) the player can always simply ignore it, and all that happens is he is not awarded Inspiration.

As a system designed to inspire roleplay, this seems very limited to me. Yes, some players will “play in good faith” as you describe it and they’ll embrace their Flaws and all the complications they may bring. Others won’t. Does that mean they’re “playing in bad faith”? I don’t know. It’s certainly not cheating given the rules as presented....but it seems a bit weaselly to me. “I’ll only acknowledge this drawback if I feel like it”....just doesn’t really do it for me.

No. I'm talking about having the PC engage in an action(not the mechanical term related to combat), which has absolutely nothing to do with conditions. It was an absurd comment, as is your response here.

I think I’ve clarified now....It was just a joke to prove my point.

So you guys have been saying that if the DM says, "The woman winks at you and melts your heart," I can just say, "No she doesn't, it has no effect on me at all?" If that's the case, then I have no real objection. I just haven't seen any indication that the above is what you guys are saying. You should be more clear.

Well the thing is the wink scenario was broadly presented, and with no specific system in mind. So I’ve been trying to discuss it in that broad kind of “any game” context, assuming relevant mechanics. The specific outcome was also not established, and I think that and other relevant fictional factors would have a part to play.

I wouldn’t assume a wink would have the effect of a charm spell.....seems extreme. I think I gave an example not long ago of the winking maiden then asking the PC to help kill the king being unlikely, but to buy her a meal seems perfectly reasonable.

However, this would really all depend on the system in place.

 

[pemerton]

Upthread the notion of roleplaying - what it is, what it isn't - was raised.

The closest to a consensus position that was put forward was that it involved playing the role of a character in a fictional world. In a RPG, there is an additional element of advocacy for the character on account of it being a game, where the participants therefore in some sense aspire to do well.

A number of posters - with [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] in the forefront - seem to take it that (at least in the context of RPGing) roleplaying also involves or requires establishing and maintaining a conception of the character one is playing.

I'm curious about this. Is this a particularly strong or focused version of advocacy? Something else?

And why are PC emotional states such a focus of discussion in relation to it? If my character is Conan the Barbarian, who - as we all know - "came . . . black-haired, sullen eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet", then maybe being a throne-treader is more central to my character conception than exercising control over my character's melancholies and mirths (and lusts, for that matter).

And going back to advocacy - isn't one typical feature of RPG play to test the player's conception of his/her PC? Am I really as righteous as I think? As resistant to temptation? As capable of conquest?

There are any number of ways a game can test such things. But it's not clear why the arena for testing should, on some principled ground, exclude the emotional life of the PC but not his/her physical life.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry, the highly specific example of having found out in play that 6 of her 7 husbands had vanished seemed a bit unlikely as a reason why the wink would not affect your character as opposed to something more routine like the character resisting the urge to give in to a pretty face. That’s all I meant.

I read about that sort of thing happening on pretty much an annual basis, often multiple times. Maybe not 7 times, but black widows aren't a crazy example. There are also other things that can influence reactions. I was working retail in a corporate store many years ago. One of the models came down to the department I was working in and was flirting with me. While the flirting was going on a kid who was maybe 4 walked by with his mother. The model took note of them and said in a very serious tone, "I just hate kids. When they bother me, it makes me want to drown them." And just like that there was no attraction left whatsoever and pretty much nothing could have brought it back. Deal breakers are very common and don't have to be major like a black widow.

Because you claimed that a Melted Heart dictated exactly what happened. But since the phrase “melted heart” is kind of vague, I figure I’d check the Condition descriptions to see the exact effects.

Melted heart was actually a misstatement on my part. I believe the example is warmed heart, which is not quite as extreme, yet still a bit vague. What it does imply, though, is that my PC likes this woman to some degree, which is not necessarily where I would take my PC, and could in fact be where I don't want my PC to go. The DM isn't in tune enough with a character to make that kind of decision for one.

Well all systems have flaws and are subject to abuse of one kind or another. My point is that the Flaws in 5E are flawed because it’s purely incentive based to have a player actually roleplay the Flaw in any meaningful way. If he does so, he gets Inspiration. That’s it. So no matter what else comes up, no matter how closely it may fit the character’s Flaw (or Traits, Bond, or Ideals, really) the player can always simply ignore it, and all that happens is he is not awarded Inspiration.

Yes, all systems are flawed. I didn't go there, because I figured that wouldn't be useful or clarifying, and figured that since you'd be aware of that, you probably meant serious or major flaws. I don't see the 5e system as having serious or major flaws. It may not go as far as I would prefer on encouraging this sort of roleplay, but that's a personal preference and not indicative of a flaw on 5e's part.

I look at 5e's system as being light so as to just kinds put into the minds of new players ideas on how to roleplay and create characters with flaws and personality traits. I think it's deliberately weak in order to allow the game to work with various playstyles.

As a system designed to inspire roleplay, this seems very limited to me. Yes, some players will “play in good faith” as you describe it and they’ll embrace their Flaws and all the complications they may bring. Others won’t. Does that mean they’re “playing in bad faith”? I don’t know. It’s certainly not cheating given the rules as presented....but it seems a bit weaselly to me. “I’ll only acknowledge this drawback if I feel like it”....just doesn’t really do it for me.

I think that if the players are using the system and a player is always avoiding by virtue of "I just happen to resist this time." when the chips are down and it's tough to roleplay, that's acting in bad faith. It depends on the group and what they decide to use. Some won't use flaws and such at all. Others will say use them if you want, when you want. Others will have the expectation that these things will be roleplayed. It's really the last group where the bad faith can rear up.

 

[Lanefan]

The example of a NPC maiden softening a PC's heart with a wink came from you. So what system did you have in mind? I don't think the onus is on me to flesh out your example! If you think your example is underspecified then flesh it out yourself!

In the OP I put forward, as a description a PC's action, I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink.

And as that also has no context or mechanical references to back it up, neither - quite intentionally - does my reverse example.

In fact, that was my whole point in making that example: a player trying to affect an NPC should be bound by the same strictures as a GM trying to affect a PC in the same way. In the original example, the PC declares both the action (the wink) and the outcome (the softened heart) without the NPC getting a chance to resist as a) no mechanics are referenced and b) the wording is phrased as a statement of fact rather than an attempt, or a question - it's a done deal.

So why, I asked myself, is this sort of thing acceptable in one direction but not the reverse; and so I put the reverse example out there to bring this to light.

Systems I can think of where that is a permissible action declaration include Prince Valiant (probably a check on Presence + Glamourie; it might also be done by using a Storyteller's Certificate to Incite Lust as a special effect), Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic (a check intended to inflict a Complication, or perhaps Emotional or Mental Stress, depending on context and further elaboration), Maelstrom Storytelling (I think I got the example from a rulebook example of a Quick Take), 4th ed D&D if the table is in the right mood (it would be a CHA check, or in the right context perhaps a Bluff or even a Diplomacy check - 4e is not super-prescriptive in respect of what skills can be used to do what), even Burning Wheel or Rolemaster if the setting/genre is not too grim (a Seduction check). I can't remember the scope of Seduction in The Dying Earth but I wouldn't be surprised if it covers this sort of thing also.

And every single one of those examples references a game mechanic that ends up determining whether the heart is in fact softened or not; and that's fine.

But the original example did not. The NPC's reaction was simply narrated as a part of the action declaration, implying said reaction was a fait accompli and somehow bypassed game mechanics entirely.

 

[Maxperson]

Upthread the notion of roleplaying - what it is, what it isn't - was raised.

The closest to a consensus position that was put forward was that it involved playing the role of a character in a fictional world. In a RPG, there is an additional element of advocacy for the character on account of it being a game, where the participants therefore in some sense aspire to do well.

A number of posters - with @FrogReaver in the forefront - seem to take it that (at least in the context of RPGing) roleplaying also involves or requires establishing and maintaining a conception of the character one is playing.

I'm curious about this. Is this a particularly strong or focused version of advocacy? Something else?

And why are PC emotional states such a focus of discussion in relation to it? If my character is Conan the Barbarian, who - as we all know - "came . . . black-haired, sullen eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet", then maybe being a throne-treader is more central to my character conception than exercising control over my character's melancholies and mirths (and lusts, for that matter).

And going back to advocacy - isn't one typical feature of RPG play to test the player's conception of his/her PC? Am I really as righteous as I think? As resistant to temptation? As capable of conquest?

There are any number of ways a game can test such things. But it's not clear why the arena for testing should, on some principled ground, exclude the emotional life of the PC but not his/her physical life.

Why do you think that people here are saying that emotional life of the PC should be excluded from testing? I find such tests to often be more engaging than the physical ones.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't understand what your example has to do with minion rules.

Minion rules are a mechanical device in some systems (4e D&D perhaps most famously, but certainly not exclusively) for adjudicating declared actions (in 4e D&D, mostly fight-y actions) by players for their PCs. If your ingame inhabitant sees her doughty working people cut down with little trouble by Conan and friends, where is the inconsistency?

Consistency is a property of, and often a virtue of, a fiction. Minion rules are a device for establishing the content of a shared RPG fiction in certain contexts. If you mis-use the rules you might get poor fiction. Likewise in Moldvay Basic if you misuse the rules for DEX checks - eg require a DEX check every 10' to avoid the PCs falling down like Charlie Chaplin on a bad day - you'll get stupid fiction. But everyone knows that that's not how you use DEX checks.

Mutatis mutandis for minion rules.

When a PC is around, minions have 1 h.p. When there's no PC around, they have h.p. suitable to whatever creature type they are.

A bar full of minion brawlers can have an ordinary bar fight without a PC present, but once a PC shows up things get weird because the very presence of the PC changes the mechanics for all those minions. Consistency, meanwhile, flies off across the lake...

In response to [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] you say:

I don't really follow the detail of this. My take away - drawing in part on your earlier posts - is that you don't like a system which permits some mechanism to establish a PC's emotion other than player decision, unless that mechanism correlates to or gives expression to an in-fiction thing that bears the label magic.

For me at least, the point is not one of dislike of such effects where there's a mechanism, it's one of dislike of situations where the effects happen with NO mechanism.

 

[Lanefan]

I have no problem with D&D. I love D&D....I play it all the time. But this is an area of play that doesn’t seem to be a focal point for D&D. A PC being influenced by an NPC in some mechanical way....are there any examples that don’t involve magic? I’m trying to come up with some, and the only thing I can think of is Surprise in combat, but nothing else.

The first one that leaps to my mind are 4e forced-movement (push-pull-slide) effects in combat; and trample/pushback rules in earlier editions. And traps, where an NPC actually sets them off just at the right moment. But those are physical effects, though still mechanical in nature.

A PC being mentally influenced without magic - Intimidate, Bluff, and Persuasion skills can try, if a DM has the stones to do it. But after that, there's not much.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. We're asking you what action you think is required on your PC's part. At least I am. (And I'm pretty sure the same is true for @hawkeyefan.)

My heart being melted isn't an action. It's an emotional state. What action do you think is required/dictated by that state?

Yes it is an action.

 

[Lanefan]

Upthread the notion of roleplaying - what it is, what it isn't - was raised.

The closest to a consensus position that was put forward was that it involved playing the role of a character in a fictional world. In a RPG, there is an additional element of advocacy for the character on account of it being a game, where the participants therefore in some sense aspire to do well.

A number of posters - with [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] in the forefront - seem to take it that (at least in the context of RPGing) roleplaying also involves or requires establishing and maintaining a conception of the character one is playing.

I'm curious about this. Is this a particularly strong or focused version of advocacy? Something else?

Something else, I think: without a conception of the character one is trying to portray to base said portrayal on, one's portrayal risks being inconsistent and-or conflicted. The advocacy then comes from the portrayal, as informed by the concept.

And why are PC emotional states such a focus of discussion in relation to it? If my character is Conan the Barbarian, who - as we all know - "came . . . black-haired, sullen eyed, sword in hand, a thief, a reaver, a slayer, with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet", then maybe being a throne-treader is more central to my character conception than exercising control over my character's melancholies and mirths (and lusts, for that matter).

And going back to advocacy - isn't one typical feature of RPG play to test the player's conception of his/her PC? Am I really as righteous as I think? As resistant to temptation? As capable of conquest?

There are any number of ways a game can test such things. But it's not clear why the arena for testing should, on some principled ground, exclude the emotional life of the PC but not his/her physical life.

Strange though it may sound, I agree with you here. Character emotions very much should be fair game for testing.

But testing, not manipulating.

"The maiden winks at you and tries to melt your heart" is a test, and a perfectly valid one at that.
"The maiden winks at you and melts your heart" is a manipulation. See the difference?

 

[Lanefan]

Yes it is an action.

To be fussy, it's a reaction; which may lead to or cause subsequent actions to come from you/the PC.