Would You Rather Maintain Campaign Theme or Win?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Heh - some of us don't need a reason, which is why I usually make Wisdom my dump stat whenever I can.

I have trouble getting into that headspace: it always makes me wonder, "Why isn't this character already dead?!"

Ironic, I know, since as a GM practically every enemy needs to be in essentially that headspace. "Let's attack a group of heavily armed strangers whom we outnumber by less than 3 to 1!" Like that's going to go well...

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Yes. If the mechanics don't enforce genre, and house rules and campaign contract count as mechanics, and I see a need for a halfling wizard. So, if the group doesn't prohibit by ruleset and house-rules/campaign contract, the hypothetical setting is irrelevant.

If, however, the GM (with group majority) says "Only characters consistent with Tolkien's Middle Earth" then, it's a mechanical prohibition on that; even then, I can argue to my own convincing that Hobbits do use magic, just not as spellcasters. Especially given Bilbo and Frodo both use the ring, both use magic swords, both eat cram...

So, if the mechanics as modified don't prohibit such, I'd be sore tempted to see if I can get a magic item at char gen. Or even go full-Willow mode.

This reminds me of when and how John Wick created Orkworld.

He was in the weekly D&D game at AEG that John Zinzer ran. Wick wanted to be an ork (not orc) bard. Zinzer said, "John, you can't. Orcs are just speed-bumps to the plot." So they haggled. If Wick gave him reasons orks could be PCs and heroes, he'd let him.

Next session, Wick shows up with a four-thousand word essay on ork culture, structure, and the who shebang. It's an interesting setting and system - orks are nomadic reindeer herders, elves are utterly alien and evil and can only be killed through trickery or other elves, dwarves all chase perfection, humans are Romanesque and halflings... were hunted to extinction by the humans. It's also the first game system I had seen where the players sat down and built their tribe, with advantages about knowing how to make steel or having extra reindeer or warriors, etc

 

[Thomas Shey]

Your mentor hates Psi powers. Your nation issues fines for the use of Psi powers. Worse, you have to stab one of your eyes out in order to clear a path between your brain and the outer world. None of these are "mechanically" enforced; they're all setting. But you don't see a thematic difference?

The last one sounds mechanically enforced to me, unless the loss of an eye is meaningless in the system. The others are examples of what I called "brittle social factors" in my post farther up.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have trouble getting into that headspace: it always makes me wonder, "Why isn't this character already dead?!"

Ironic, I know, since as a GM practically every enemy needs to be in essentially that headspace. "Let's attack a group of heavily armed strangers whom we outnumber by less than 3 to 1!" Like that's going to go well...

I have to point out that with younger people, its not always a particularly uncommon headspace as following the news will show pretty clearly.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

…stupidly visible in the first edition of GURPS Supers, where there was at least one power no one who was in their right mind and understood the system would take because it was so overpriced for what it gave you).

I seem to remember Telekinesis was so pricey as to be virtually useless in a 4-color superheroic game, but might have been fine in something more pulp/noir supers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Heh - some of us don't need a reason, which is why I usually make Wisdom my dump stat whenever I can.

I had a 1Ed Fighter called Bear. By agreement with the DM, his physical stats were all human maxed, and his mental stats were all 6s.

He was the bodyguard for the very smart but narcissistic and amoral thief in the party who had bas purchased him from an orphanage. Since the thief’s interests in getting rich mostly intersected well with the party’s goals, Bear & his boss usually worked very well with them. Occasionally, the thief got greedy, and Bear stoo between his boss and any repercussions.

Then one day, his boss stole “The Wrong Thing”, which got the entire city watch sicced on the party. As they ran across a bridge, boss man ordered, “Do something, Bear!” (or some such). Bear stopped, turned, ad started fighting the entire Watch by himself, 2 at a time. By the time they tossed his corpse into the river, the party was almost out of sight.

The party later returned “The Wrong Thing” to its owners..along with the thief’s corpse. They donated the reward money (for the thief) to Bear’s childhood orphanage.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I seem to remember Telekinesis was so pricey as to be virtually useless in a 4-color superheroic game, but might have been fine in something more pulp/noir supers.

I don't remember that one, but the power that bought you extra hit points was simply pointless. You could buy armor points for the same cost.

 

[aramis erak]

Your mentor hates Psi powers. Your nation issues fines for the use of Psi powers. Worse, you have to stab one of your eyes out in order to clear a path between your brain and the outer world. None of these are "mechanically" enforced; they're all setting. But you don't see a thematic difference?

Unless those were spelled out prior, and called out, no. But note, if they were spelled out in session zero, they're at least mechanicalized to the point of an expected NPC reaction. But that's still not going to decide for me which to use if the psi one is mechanically better... it just changes the calculus of betterness. In other words, can my character get away with it?
But you've now changed the conditions so far from the OP question that it's a wholly different situation. How? Because you've explicated in-setting consequences that can be mechanically enforced easily - as a reaction roll modifier or even fixed reaction, and made it objectively more risky.

 

[James Gasik]

At some point it reaches the point of this character option from 13th Age where you can sacrifice a hand and an eye for a +1 to hit, because, as the developer notes, "some players will give up a hand and an eye for a +1 to hit".

 

[aramis erak]

This reminds me of when and how John Wick created Orkworld.

He was in the weekly D&D game at AEG that John Zinzer ran. Wick wanted to be an ork (not orc) bard. Zinzer said, "John, you can't. Orcs are just speed-bumps to the plot." So they haggled. If Wick gave him reasons orks could be PCs and heroes, he'd let him.

Next session, Wick shows up with a four-thousand word essay on ork culture, structure, and the who shebang. It's an interesting setting and system - orks are nomadic reindeer herders, elves are utterly alien and evil and can only be killed through trickery or other elves, dwarves all chase perfection, humans are Romanesque and halflings... were hunted to extinction by the humans. It's also the first game system I had seen where the players sat down and built their tribe, with advantages about knowing how to make steel or having extra reindeer or warriors, etc

Wick's Orkworld Ahlvsees are bodysnatching body-morphing alien monstrousities... They don't procreate like mortals... they instead possess their victim, then reshape the body into an elf-shape. And when it's broken too much, they hop forms...
The Dwarves are comically obtuse, too.
It's also worth noting that the mechanics don't work well - a few oversights- but they do enforce the trope that the tribes are dying out due to a mix of bad hunting (due to Humans) and being hunted by humans...

The rules don't start until page 178...

To get it to something survivably (for the PCs) playable requires several interesting readings of the extant RAW. Careful ones.

The game is a narrativist/gamist hybrid... you get ONE hunting scene per winter; anyone who hunts doesn't get to fight monsters, and monsters always attack in winter. A zhoosha 1 thraka with skill 3 in a hunting-related skill generates 2 5/24 food points.... on a medium year. On a bad one, tho... that same guy is worth an average of 1 5/9 food points.
THat's not a sim approach. It's one roll for the winter, because the winter feast is a dramatic need.
There's one monster raid in the winter. Always. It's a dramatic need. And the "hunters can't fight the monsters" isn't always true... it's only true about half the time, but can you afford that risk?

And, despite the lore that says pregnant dowmgaday become dowmga and move out, the rules read as though they can stay in as lesser dowmga... as I said, interesting reads....

There is plenty to sim-mode the personalities, but at its heart, John expects players to "play dirty" - know the key mechanics, and work them, because the story arises from both participants and mechanics. And to use the flexibility of the light mechanics (Zhoosha+Virtue+Skill)d6k1 to handle any oddities by just picking a difficulty based upon their chosen skill (and quickly - he sets a 5 second rule) and having them roll.

There is literally no room for classic sim mode via tables, nor for "reasoned sim mode" by considering all the angles...

He also gives some Wicked notice on GMing...

Finally, let's spend a moment or two talking about the difference between "fair" and "arbitrary." There's a lot of people who will try to tell you a GM is arbitrary
This is Bad.
Players already have one arbitrary force against them: the dice. Dice don't care if a player's action succeeds or fails. Dice don't care about a character's motivations, needs, pains and fears. Your roll the bones, you get a decision that's completely independent of all circumstances. That's arbitrary.
A Game Master, on the other hand, is fair.
A GM always considers the outcome of his decisions. He always considers the consequences of bonuses and penalties. He always has the players (and their characters) foremost in his mind.
Let me say this again: the players are depending on you to have a good time. Their enjoyment is in your hands. Making random, arbitrary decisions is no way to win their favor or trust. You lose those two things, you lose your players. And then nobody has fun.

Given the original post version, the psionics distinction is rather arbitrary.
Given the revised version a few posts up? If it's not new info, it's not arbitrary. Stating there are consequences ahead of time is, @GMMichael , a form of mechanical enforcement. A weak one, but a rule none the less. If none of that had been established prior to the point the decision needed to be made, the GM bringing them up now would be Arbitrary, and hence, violate "Wheaton's Law" - which you can feel free to google.