True 20 - Who here has played it, and what was your experience?

[iwatt]

That is some serious coolness, iwatt.

Thanks. It works well enough in my group.

This sounds similar to what Primetime Adventures does (which I haven't actually seen, just listened to the have games will travel podcast on). The points they award have an ingame use. I'm not, however, sure how well my players would handle awarding their own conviction. They have a tendancy to metagame (I prefer gritty, they prefer heroic, which produces enough tension in our games as it is)

Oh, I can perfectly see how it could get out of hand if the players start metagaming the heck out of it. It's something I've only lately statred using, now that my players have learned that not all GMs are adversarial (there was some bad experiences in the past).

I tried this once with Aberrant experience some years ago, and concluded that even with blind voting it politicalized the process immediately, and that was in no way a virtue.

What do you mean by "politicalize"? I understand the concern over metagaming the awards, but this seems like something different.

And frankly, I have _exactly_ the same issues with individual experience awards, as I mentioned earlier; I don't think they're a good idea for social engineering purposes either.

I think you're overthinking things. IME, conviction gain through roleplaying isn't as frequent as you think, at least IMGs. I don't think it comes up enough for me to be somehow capable of adjusting the behavior of 5 other adults.

 

[Thomas5251212]

Oh, I can perfectly see how it could get out of hand if the players start metagaming the heck out of it. It's something I've only lately statred using, now that my players have learned that not all GMs are adversarial (there was some bad experiences in the past).


What do you mean by "politicalize"? I understand the concern over metagaming the awards, but this seems like something different.

Horsetrading. "If Joe votes me this time, I'll vote him next time." It might not always be that formal, but its a temptation, and some people who don't like that sort of thing will do so pretty shamelessly.

I think you're overthinking things. IME, conviction gain through roleplaying isn't as frequent as you think, at least IMGs. I don't think it comes up enough for me to be somehow capable of adjusting the behavior of 5 other adults.

Well, I'm basing part of my assumptions on how the M&M damage system works out; the one in Tr20 doesn't seem so different that I find it likely the issues of having Conviction are that much different than having Hero Points. And part of the issue is that either the tool serves a purpose (adjusting others behavior) or what's it therefor? If its not supposed to be a carrot, why base it on roleplaying rather than something mechanistic? On the other hand, if it _is_ supposed to have an effect, its still essentially setting the GM's perception of how the character should be properly played over the player's, and I don't think that's in any way a good thing.

 

[Hjorimir]

Unless it works much radically differently than M&M, Convinction is likely an effective necessity given the damage system; the nature of the damage save makes sudden-death combat results too likely without it. And frankly, I have _exactly_ the same issues with individual experience awards, as I mentioned earlier; I don't think they're a good idea for social engineering purposes either. Treasure is normally a non-issue, since who among a group gets treasure is not normally in the GM's bailiwick (though I suppose if he's being cute he can slant things by the treasure he gives). And if I agreed that a GM _should_ control who gets such things, based on how he approves of how a character plays his character, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I don't take it as a given, and the longer I've been in the hobby, the less good an idea I think it is.

The worst you can do is fall to a dying condition; there is no instant death. I also have M&M, I still take exception to "likely an effective necessity" as that is not stated anywhere within the rules. Heck, I don't even consider a characters equipment a necessity. Would you remove encounters because the wizard was out of spells? The entire premise that something mechanical must be present to allow for an encounter is laughable. Call them Conviction Points or Action Points, they are a very nice perk, but a perk all the same.

While the GM doesn't normally take a hand in which character gets which items, he or she does determine when treasure is even available.

 

[Hjorimir]

It has nothing to do with rules for the rest; by the necessity of GMs, he has plenty of capability to punish or help a player in-game if he does or doesn't approve of his characterization just by how he choses to have the NPCs and world react to things. I don't think he needs to have a metagame carrot and club to do so too.

Ugg. First you said tools, but now you're switching it to say that because the GM controls the nature of encounters there he or she should not be able to reward a Conviction point for something the player character does? How do the two even come close to relating? I'm truely baffled by your logic.

 

[Hjorimir]

Well, I'm basing part of my assumptions on how the M&M damage system works out; the one in Tr20 doesn't seem so different that I find it likely the issues of having Conviction are that much different than having Hero Points. And part of the issue is that either the tool serves a purpose (adjusting others behavior) or what's it therefor? If its not supposed to be a carrot, why base it on roleplaying rather than something mechanistic? On the other hand, if it _is_ supposed to have an effect, its still essentially setting the GM's perception of how the character should be properly played over the player's, and I don't think that's in any way a good thing.

Well if I, the GM, feel that the a player character was insulting to the local magistrate and turn around and sick the magistrate's guards on the character is that a bad thing? I find it interesting that you seem hardpressed to strip the GM of any ability to referee.

 

[iwatt]

Horsetrading. "If Joe votes me this time, I'll vote him next time." It might not always be that formal, but its a temptation, and some people who don't like that sort of thing will do so pretty shamelessly.

Ok, that's what I meant by metagaming. As I mentioned, I recognize it's a potential problem with some groups. Fortunately it stopped been one for me some time ago. I've made metagaming a dirty word IMCs

Well, I'm basing part of my assumptions on how the M&M damage system works out; the one in Tr20 doesn't seem so different that I find it likely the issues of having Conviction are that much different than having Hero Points.

Yes, IME Conviction is mostly spent to reduce damage.

And part of the issue is that either the tool serves a purpose (adjusting others behavior) or what's it therefor? If its not supposed to be a carrot, why base it on roleplaying rather than something mechanistic?

IMO, the designers figured out that Conviction should be a renewable resource. The question then became how to renew it. Since it's a roleplaying game, they made the choice of basing it on character roleplaying. What other simple way would you use for Conviction renewal?

On the other hand, if it _is_ supposed to have an effect, its still essentially setting the GM's perception of how the character should be properly played over the player's, and I don't think that's in any way a good thing.

I think this is were we have a disconnect. I tend to play with people I trust. If the GM is trying to change how you think you're character "is", perhaps it's time to sit down and discuss it? If he becomes an ass about it, perhaps you shouldn't bother playing with him? Trying to come up with a system that's foolproof against metagaming and bad DMing seems like a a Herculean task to me.

 

[Thomas5251212]

The worst you can do is fall to a dying condition; there is no instant death. I also have M&M, I still take exception to "likely an effective necessity" as that is not stated

I don't care whether the rules state it or not; experience in play over two years has taught me that's the case (which is why its an "effective" necessity). And given dying requires an immediate Con check, it can be dead all too easily.

anywhere within the rules. Heck, I don't even consider a characters equipment a necessity. Would you remove encounters because the wizard was out of spells? The entire premise that something mechanical must be present to allow for an encounter is laughable. Call them Conviction Points or Action Points, they are a very nice perk, but a perk all the same.

That's your view, not mine. In a game system where two die rolls can leave a character dying, and the dice are a big linear one like a D20, I consider them more than a perk. If you don't, you don't, but you aren't me.

While the GM doesn't normally take a hand in which character gets which items, he or she does determine when treasure is even available.

Gee, I believe I said that, did I not?

 

[Thomas5251212]

Ugg. First you said tools, but now you're switching it to say that because the GM controls the nature of encounters there he or she should not be able to reward a Conviction point for something the player character does? How do the two even come close to relating? I'm truely baffled by your logic.

All right, since apparently obtuseness rules today:

1. I don't think GMs should be telling players how their characterization should go;
2. They already have enough tools to do so in the form of simply running their games;
3. As such, I don't think quasi-metagame carrots and sticks like experience and hero point type mechanics paying attention to characterization, and thus giving them yet another way to reward or punish it is a good thing.

Is that clear enough for you?

 

[buzz]

What other simple way would you use for Conviction renewal?

To bring FATE into the discussion again, there's a default "refresh" that happens at the beginning of each scenario, essentially. PCs have their Fate Points boosted back up to a default amount (10, typically). Within a session, you have the invoke/compel give-and-take I mentioned earlier.

I think this would be pretty easy to implement in True20. You could even make it like D&D/d20M where your Conviction "refreshes" each time you level up (if it's not already like that).

Trying to come up with a system that's foolproof against metagaming and bad DMing seems like a a Herculean task to me.

Some mechanics are more proof than others, but it does indeed all come down to trust, as most things RPG-related tend to.

 

[Thomas5251212]

Well if I, the GM, feel that the a player character was insulting to the local magistrate and turn around and sick the magistrate's guards on the character is that a bad thing? I find it interesting that you seem hardpressed to strip the GM of any ability to referee.

In and of itself its not a bad thing; the fact its fundamentally arbitrary by its nature, and can easily turn into "I'm not happy with how your character so I'm going to have an NPC go off on them" is not, however, a good thing. It, however, is a necessity, as you note, to referee. Metagme resource control based on characterization, however, is not.