Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9637620" data-attributes="member: 42582">This seems to have been prompted by [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER]'s posts, not far upthread, about 1000 Arrows.I don't know that system, and so I don't know how it handles honour, shame, commitment, etc. There are multiple possible models I can think. One is Emotional Attributes in Burning Wheel (these don't generally constrain action declarations, but they advance based on things the PC does and experiences, and as they advance that can have consequences for the PC, including having to leave the game). Another is Resistance to temptation in The Dying Earth (Robin Laws's version) - which is also found in one Burning Wheel Emotional Attribute, namely, Dwarven Greed - which cause the player to lose (full) control of their PC in certain circumstances where a check is failed.Prince Valiant also permits this sort of thing, and I believe I posted an example upthread:A Presence check to resist fear, or goading, is how Prince Valiant incorporates "knightly" responses to social situations, a variant on Pendragon's well known Traits and Passions.Apocalypse World doesn't have any mechanic that removes player control of their PC- in fact, avoiding that sort of thing is a deliberate design feature that is discussed in the "Advanced ____ery" chapter. But it does have mechanics that allow a player's choice one way rather than another to incur a penalty to a roll: in other words it uses carrots and sticks, rather than outright command.Marvel Heroic RPG combines both sorts of approach I've discussed above: complications and stress can penalise certain actions (the stick), and if they grow too large than the PC is out of action altogether, and (if the complication is of the right sort) the GM gets to take control of the character (eg a character who has been fully dominated by a telepath).As for internal conflicts - there are a lot of ways to drive these that don't require mechanics. For instance, it can be done via the way the GM frames a scene and sets the stakes. Or the way the GM narrates consequences. Here are some examples from my own Burning Wheel play:There is some resemblance between the sort of approach I'm describing in these posts, and what [USER=7044566]@thefutilist[/USER] has posted upthread about sincere/artistic play of the character. Aedhros has to make choices about how to respond to Alicia's suffering - some driven by purely internal concerns (his contempt towards her) and some by external factors as well (his shame in front of Thurandril). And then he finds himself with no choice but to go with Thoth, and work for him, even though he hates him.What distinguishes this approach to RPGing from (say) typical D&D, is the absence of adventure as a component of play, and the resolute focus, at every moment of play, on putting these characters under pressure that speaks to their particular concerns.</blockquote>

Verification