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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5740418" data-attributes="member: 386">I don't agree.  I think this happens when the game has a clear expectation about what you're supposed to do when you play it.  I think Monte's article is about the game defining problems and the solutions to those problems; if a solution to a given problem does not fit into the game's definition, it's "out of bounds."It's not that having a conflict of interest is unfair, it's poor design.  A game that asks its players to do two incompatible things at the same time is not a very good game.  If you're expected to role-play the curse that is actively trying to keep you from achieving your goals while role-playing your PC towards his goals, you'll have to make a choice between the two.  You can't help but fail at what the game expects you to do.[sblock=Tangent]A curse that doesn't expect you to role-play in any specific way but makes it easier to achieve your goals if you do certain things can work, as long as there are consequences.My 4E hack doesn't care about your personality or how you role-play your PC.  That's up to you.  It does care if you achieve your goals or not; that's how you get the bulk of your XP, and it allows you to reach different Tiers.  The system also cares about how you achieve your goals because the NPCs react to your actions.In that system the curse might be as simple as a Daily Power that you can activate by eating a sentient being.  Each time you eat someone, though, the people in town (that you & your allies rely on to get your Healing Surges back) are going to be more and more upset with your party.The game expects you to go after your goals and gives you choices about how to do that, then responds to the choices you make.  It never expects you to work against your goals, though you might make some bad choices and end up doing that anyway.  That's where smart play comes in.[/sblock]It sounds to me like what you're trying to do there is line up the player's choices with the choices of their characters.  If a PC is cursed, and neither the PCs nor the players know when it will be triggered or what will happen when it is (to a certain point, keeping within the theme of the curse), then it's easier for the players to act as though they were their PCs.That makes sense to me.  I think that some people call that immersion.You could do something like this: When the PC is in a violent encounter, each round at (some point) the encounter makes an attack (encounter's level +3 vs the PC's Will Defence).  If the attack hits, the PC (does something).That point could be: start of round - informing other PC's actionsstart of turn - informing the cursed PC's actionsend of turn - making the cursed PC's actions carry riskThat something could be... a lot of stuff, from an attack against adjacent allies, to an attack against everyone in reach, to a charge to the most damaged creature on the field.  Even something like howling at the moon, granting CA until the start of your next turn could work.Anyway, interesting discussion!  Thanks for the reply.</blockquote>

Verification