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: 9556868" data-attributes="member: 42582">So this is not the player actually being distracted because emotionally moved. This is the player making decisions in the play of their PC about what is interesting to their PC. I think this sort of thing is very common-place in RPGing.But does the player get distracted? Which is what, above, you said should be happening in these cases - just as the viewer of a horror film gets scared.Or does the player decide to play their rogue as attending to the beautiful person? My assumption is that this is what is happening.As I already posted upthread (twice), it depends on the system, and what aspects of the fiction the system makes the focus of uncertainty in play.So in The Dying Earth (Pelgrane version), absolutely. In Prince Valiant, likewise - I've already given examples upthread. I've not played very much Pendragon, but it's another RPG which has rules for this - rolls against the appropriate Passion or Virtue.In Torchbearer, this sort of thing would more likely be a narration of a failed test. Likewise in Burning Wheel, although these could be matters that call for a Steel test in some contexts (depending on further details of the situation and the PC build).And here's an example of play from my LotR/MERP-ish adaptation of Marvel Heroic RP:I don't know what "properly" means here - as if there is some Platonic standard of roleplaying? As opposed to a variety of different RPGs which establish different parameters for what sorts of choices players are expected to make in their play of their PCs.But, as per my post just upthread, D&D relies on mechanics rather than player decision-making to determine of a PC is surprised by an approach NPC or creature. I've never heard it suggested that this means the game doesn't trust players to "properly roleplay" their PCs.Retreating because the player is concerned for the wellbeing of their PC is not analogous to panicking. It is a reasoned response to circumstances, not an involuntary emotional response.And your description of having no choice from their immersed point of view sounds to me closer to a player making choices for their PC as an author makes choices in writing a story - they can't see any other way for things to proceed - than it does like the player themself genuinely being captivated.Why not? The character is Injured, Sick, perhaps also Exhausted and Afraid. They do not want to risk dying, so they choose not to launch a lethal attack. Especially because their Goal is to get out of the swamp.The player considers the situation, including their PC's conditions and Goal. And so decides to approach the bandits with a lie, about being emissaries from Roy, to try and persuade the bandits to host them in their moathouse. The player does not choose to threaten, or to push towards escalation. They choose to speak, and to defuse, with the help of the Dire Wolf  trying to push the bandits to favour the PC's proposal.How is this not making a decision from the point of view of the character? In what way would a decision from the point of  view of the character be different? What aspect of that point of view is being neglected?As I have repeatedly said, the players exercise a lot of control over what is at stake in a conflict. They did not attempt to push towards lethality. They had a strong desire to avoid lethality, and deliberately pushed events in that direction.As I've already posted, to me you seem to be having trouble envisaging genuinely binding stakes, perhaps outside of death by D&D-style hit point reduction.</blockquote>

Verification