NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AnotherGuy" data-source="post: 9624320" data-attributes="member: 7029930">I'm not disagreeing with you, I do like the overt signalling/communication advice you gave and do use it. Honestly I probably should use it a lot more, but if you will engage with some pushback on this.This happened yesterday in my session.EXAMPLE 1Our paladin was being tested by a Deva in the service of the Goddess Tyr to see if he was worthy of wielding a Sunblade he had recently acquired.I ran him through a fantasy version of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma" target="_blank">Heinz Dilemma</a>. All he had to do was preside over the case and offer his opinion as judge.No cost of resource, he only had to score stages 4-6 on his adjudication.The risk was, that should he fail, the Deva would demand the weapon be handed over, failing which combat would ensue.I didn't communicate this overtly up front, I let the fiction do the talking. He knew the Deva was serious in terms of its request that he participate in the test for his worthiness, and the fiction relayed that he would not be a good fit for the blade should he prove unworthy by their (Tyr's) metric. [SPOILER="Secret Backstory of the Sunblade"]Now the PC was not happy, since he was a follower of Kelemvor and he had already proven himself worthy of it by battling the dead spirit of the fallen knight (a faithful of Kelemvor) who held it prior. However, his Sunblade was part of a group of blades made from the essence of a fallen Solar who had been in the service of Tyr. So, the paladin had to prove himself worthy twice and wasn't thrilled. However this tied in with his recent quest to research the history of the weapon and I thought it would be interesting to include it this way by having an unexpected angel show-up. The night he passed the test, he was gifted (through a dream) with some of the history of the weapon. [/SPOILER]EXAMPLE 2There was a secondary test by the Deva, but it served a dual function (i) test and as (ii) a possibility to flesh out the paladin character. In Xanathar's Guide they list two non-mechanised roleplaying elements for a paladin: Nemesis and Temptations. This gave me some ideas.I framed a scene whereby the paladin found himself in a tavern waiting for the rest of the party members to arrive, and which framing could see him engage with several temptations (despair, fury, greed, envy, pride, lust). The player did not know this scene was but an extended part of the test, which in my thinking would see him roleplay freely (as you say decision-space marked as limitless). So the idea was that should he wrongfoot, at the end of the encounter, the test would be revealed and his player could decide to either<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Gain the Temptation/s (Flaw/s) based on his wrong choices; or</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Eliminate each Temptation (Flaw) with the cost of an entire  downtime day used to atone.</li> </ul>Now amazingly in our session the paladin did not once fall for ANY of the temptations and all of them were pretty subtle, I gave away nothing and the player suspected nothing. Of course afterwards I shared everything with the player.But the idea that a roleplayer would act differently when they know it is a test and the loss conditions attached is a problem for me as it means that the character is not being played honestly at times. Your post implies this issue too.And again, that is not to say in other roleplaying scenarios I do not elevate gamism over realism/immersion. I do, very much so. I think for me it depends on the scenario.EXAMPLE 3Another example from the same session.An artificer PC got into discussion/debate with a fellow academic at the Great Library and this garnered a group of spectators, participants and agitators. At one point during the lively engagement the artificer while gesticulating, with book in hand, unbound the book from its cover (rolled a 1 on a Persuasion check) and the manuscript fell to the floor while the cover remained in the artificer's hand.The rival made a funny retort at the expense of the artificer"Books are a uniquely portable magic, in your hands more so than others."Everyone laughed. I had not communicated the risks/stakes to the player. The PC was given the choice how to proceed with his intellectual equal -(a) Engage with the Ego - Find a point of contention and battle it out intellectually; or(b) Rise above the Ego - Ignore the slight, build on the discussion(a) would see a variety of opposed skill checks.Failure would see a loss of face, news would spread around the city (roleplaying opportunities).Character gains a Flaw - player designs it.Success would vindicate the PC and see him earn some respect amongst peers (roleplaying opportunities).Character gains a Bond or Flaw - player designs it. (b) would see potential based on how well he articulated their points and to determine his influence over the crowds perception of him. A Persuasion check was asked forResult 1-10: No benefit or loss condition.Result 11-16: Write-up an NPC that was present and describe their attitude towards you (like, dislike, neutral)Result 17:  Write-up 2 NPCs that were present and.....Result 18: Write-up 3 NPCs that were present and.....etc.At our table, the player chose that his character rose above their ego, and only before the player rolled did I inform him as to what the result of the roll entailed. He rolled a natural 20 with a modifier of +1, so he got to create 6 NPCs. He absolutely loved this idea of a reward and killed it on the design. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":ROFLMAO:" title="ROFL    :ROFLMAO:"  data-smilie="18"data-shortname=":ROFLMAO:" /> Apologies for the long post.EDIT: I think as a general rule if it has to do with actions/quests requiring physicality I'm likely to be overt with the mechanisms being used, elevating gamism, whereas when it comes to actions based on character emotion and belief I tend toward elevating immersion. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, better or worse, that is just something that I do in the pursuit of truth of character (for lack of a better phrase).</blockquote>

Verification