Players choose what their PCs do . . .

[Maxperson]

You're missing my point, but that's partly on me for not being consistently explicit. There are no consequences to characterization. Your characterization is not at risk. Everything you mention here is external to the character -- and, I'm not, nor have I been, talking about that. So, I get you fine, it's you missing my points.

Nah. You just somehow don't understand what it is that I do. You see, if my knight whose concept is a knightly paragon of virtue gets put into that situation, he may or may not succumb to the maiden's wiles. His character is indeed at risk, as if he does succumb, his concept is dead or dying. Not only that, but if he succumbs, I then have to struggle with he reacts to his fall. Does he do the right thing and marry her? Probably. Does he fall into a great depression, perhaps drinking or not doing anything, including the quest? Maybe. Does he try to atone? Does he pretend it didn't happen and do double duty on knightly virtue stuff? And so on. Lots and lots of character development and risk to who and what he was.

I didn't mention that stuff, because it was so obvious that if it was a hole, you could drive an 18 wheeler through it, so I figured you'd understand.

 

[FrogReaver]

But even so, rolling a die or having the DM dictate a failure of chastity...or even just a temptation...is kinda boring. In my opinion.

Isn't what he is suggesting what is classically referred to as roll playing. When you roll dice to determine if your characters heart is melted, if you are tempted etc.

Aren't playstyles heavy in such mechanics also classically deemed simulationist.

I find it strange that the playstyle I'm advocating for has been referred to as roll-playing and simulationist etc, but that such mechanical tests that [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and others keep referring to actually would be much clearer examples of such terms than anything I've advocated for.

 

[Maxperson]

Yep, sandboxes are impractical, but back in the day, lots of people did populate the whole thing. Even in outline, it is a lot of work.

The one thing a sandbox needs, beyond the fact that the tower exists, is how much of a challenge that tower is, and what the basic challenge consists of (is it a wizard, a dragon, or what?) Without that information, the GM cannot telegraph how hard it is, and PCs cannot make meaningful choices (which is what sandbox play has been argued to center upon).

In the style Ovinomancer is referencing, you don't even have an outline. The world description may b e a couple of paragraphs of flavor text, and everything else is generated à la minute.

Some game engines (like Cortex+) can generate much/most of the content out of die rolls and context.

Yeah. I understand that there are some significant differences, but there are a lot of similarities as well. I also don't think, in fact I know, that you don't have to know how much of a challenge the tower is. It's a name on a map and as soon as the PCs express interest in finding out, you can improv it, roll it, or determine what challenge level it is while they are doing their research or travelling towards it, so that any needful telegraphing can occur.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nah. You just somehow don't understand what it is that I do. You see, if my knight whose concept is a knightly paragon of virtue gets put into that situation, he may or may not succumb to the maiden's wiles. His character is indeed at risk, as if he does succumb, his concept is dead or dying. Not only that, but if he succumbs, I then have to struggle with he reacts to his fall. Does he do the right thing and marry her? Probably. Does he fall into a great depression, perhaps drinking or not doing anything, including the quest? Maybe. Does he try to atone? Does he pretend it didn't happen and do double duty on knightly virtue stuff? And so on. Lots and lots of character development and risk to who and what he was.

I didn't mention that stuff, because it was so obvious that if it was a hole, you could drive an 18 wheeler through it, so I figured you'd understand.

Great example of a concept evolving through play. Nothing wrong with that, unless it's someone other than the player that gets to choose to evolve the concept.

 

[Maxperson]

Great example of a concept evolving through play. Nothing wrong with that, unless it's someone other than the player that gets to choose to evolve the concept.

I can't think of any of my concepts that survived from conception to the end of the campaign without changes, often significant ones. People evolve and so do my characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

What I have learned form this thread is that when I run a game where some of the players are die-hard simulationists who need rules for everything the GM does, when I want to have someone fall in love, all I should do is this:

Oh please, no one has asked for rules for everything the GM does. I'm fine with him doing nearly anything. The only thing I ask for is that he don't try to control things about my character for which there aren't mechanics for - and that if an NPC does that the NPC be special. I have no problem with a single special maiden doing what is described. I have a problem with every maiden doing what is described (barring some kind of setting where all maidens are extremely special simply by virtue of being a maiden).

GM: The maiden winks at you ... what's your will / determination / mental resistance ?
Player: <number>
GM: <Rolls behind screen> your heart is melted by the wink.

So the interesting thing here is that if the GM is actually doing some sort of rule, everyone is happy. If the GM is not, then half the people are furious. But this is completely not observable, and so it boils down to "do I trust the GM to be fair?"

It boils down to whether the maiden in question is special. The DM giving her the special ability to melt hearts with a wink is very observable whether he names the ability in play or not. Trust actually isn't much of a factor IMO as all of this works just fine in the game of a random stranger who I don't know.

This is exactly the same situation as if the GM doesn't roll dice. If the GM says "The maiden winks at you and melts your heart" without consulting rules, it's the same thing -- do I trust the GM? If I do, then great, something fun will happen. If I don't, then I'm upset.

It's not much of an RPG if the DM dictates how your character thinks and feels for you, especially without consulting any dice to do so.

Consulting rules makes zero difference here. It's just a question of whether or not you trust the GM to set up the game to be fun. Adding a veneer of rules on top is just a comfort blanket for gamers who really like rules

It makes all the difference. It's not about trust. It's about NPC specialness. It's not about trust, its about not taking overt control over a PC's character. I don't need a DM I trust, I need a DM that creates special NPC's if he wants to contest something normally uncontestable about my character and I need him not to take overt control over my PC.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Nah. You just somehow don't understand what it is that I do. You see, if my knight whose concept is a knightly paragon of virtue gets put into that situation, he may or may not succumb to the maiden's wiles. His character is indeed at risk, as if he does succumb, his concept is dead or dying. Not only that, but if he succumbs, I then have to struggle with he reacts to his fall. Does he do the right thing and marry her? Probably. Does he fall into a great depression, perhaps drinking or not doing anything, including the quest? Maybe. Does he try to atone? Does he pretend it didn't happen and do double duty on knightly virtue stuff? And so on. Lots and lots of character development and risk to who and what he was.

I didn't mention that stuff, because it was so obvious that if it was a hole, you could drive an 18 wheeler through it, so I figured you'd understand.

All those things may happen, yes. But they happen if the player decides that they happen. So in that sense, there is no risk.

If we take the idea and instead apply it to combat, perhaps that will make it clearer. When I enter combat, only I decide how my character is affected. The DM tells me an orc attacks me....I declare it is a miss. A spell goes off? My character avoids the effects.

Yes, I could decide to say that the orc’s attack inflicts 12 HP of damage, or even that it was a critical and my PC lost an eye! I could decide that the spell incinerates my PC, and his adventuring days are done!

But however it actually plays out, is all up to me.

So, given that these things can happen to my PC, combat’s just as risky for my PC as it would be for PCs where the game functions normally.

Right?

 

[Maxperson]

All those things may happen, yes. But they happen if the player decides that they happen. So in that sense, there is no risk.

I have no control over what the DM does that might impact my character's character, though. As he challenges me, sooner or later things will happen that cause my character to deviate that I have no control over.

If we take the idea and instead apply it to combat, perhaps that will make it clearer. When I enter combat, only I decide how my character is affected. The DM tells me an orc attacks me....I declare it is a miss. A spell goes off? My character avoids the effects.

Yes, I could decide to say that the orc’s attack inflicts 12 HP of damage, or even that it was a critical and my PC lost an eye! I could decide that the spell incinerates my PC, and his adventuring days are done!

But however it actually plays out, is all up to me.

So, given that these things can happen to my PC, combat’s just as risky for my PC as it would be for PCs where the game functions normally.

Right?

But you have no control over if or when an orc attacks. Going outside is a risk, because you might be attacked and sooner or later, playing with swords causes someone to lose an eye.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Isn't what he is suggesting what is classically referred to as roll playing. When you roll dice to determine if your characters heart is melted, if you are tempted etc.

Aren't playstyles heavy in such mechanics also classically deemed simulationist.

I find it strange that the playstyle I'm advocating for has been referred to as roll-playing and simulationist etc, but that such mechanical tests that @Ovinomancer and others keep referring to actually would be much clearer examples of such terms than anything I've advocated for.

I think you are trying to adopt too narrow a definition of "roleplaying". There's nothing inherent in the term that suggests the person doing the playing must also choose the role.

A game where you draw cards and act out the emotions and intentions you find on your card could still be roleplaying.

Just not the sort I like.

 

[Guest 6801328]

All those things may happen, yes. But they happen if the player decides that they happen. So in that sense, there is no risk.

If we take the idea and instead apply it to combat, perhaps that will make it clearer. When I enter combat, only I decide how my character is affected. The DM tells me an orc attacks me....I declare it is a miss. A spell goes off? My character avoids the effects.

Yes, I could decide to say that the orc’s attack inflicts 12 HP of damage, or even that it was a critical and my PC lost an eye! I could decide that the spell incinerates my PC, and his adventuring days are done!

But however it actually plays out, is all up to me.

So, given that these things can happen to my PC, combat’s just as risky for my PC as it would be for PCs where the game functions normally.

Right?

If you are talking about a game in which "Seductive Wink" is a known mechanic, and has been defined in the way that sword attacks and the like are, then sure.

But otherwise it sounds like you're conflating "DM Fiat" with actual rules.

EDIT:

Alternatively, here's how to make the comparison apples-to-apples:

The orc makes an attack and does 12 damage according to the rules of the game, and the DM says, "Suddenly you have an overwhelming sense of your own mortality and sink into melancholy."

There. That's an apt comparison to "The maiden winks at you and melts your heart."